In 2016 Holyrood election for Edinburgh Southern (not exactly the same as the Westminster seat) Labour won the FPTP seat but on the list the constituency actually voted majority Conservative.
A true #SNPOUT constituency !
I think it is about the wealthiest constituency in Scotland with the highest house prices, the Edinburgh equivalent of Kensington, Chelsea and Fulham or Cities of London and Westminster.
Also seats the Tories still narrowly hold despite big Remain votes
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
Race however is important for people's sense of identity, because other people have made it important, so somehow those identities have to be decided. Who decides?
There's an interesting book by a guy who grew up in Burundi, where they were the "white kids" because their Dad was European. In France they're black, of course. So who decides?
This comes back to the argument Rowling put herself into. She's been told that she can't define her own identity as a woman, because other people are telling her what it has to be. Why is it that people born and brought up as men are the people who decide what a female identity is?
I've grown up with the idea that there are only minimal intrinsic differences between the genders, beyond the reproductive essentials. So if someone wants to switch from one to the other it doesn't make much difference to me.
But it means I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body. I don't think that's a useful message for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes.
"I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body."
It can`t - it`s nonsense. It`s a psychiatric condition, gender dysphoria, and is about what people "feel" rather than facts - i.e. it can`t be disproved by evidence. A non-falsifiable claim if you like.
Kinabalu thinks we should pander to this. I don`t.
Not pander. Treat in the way that is best for the afflicted and harms no-one else. The alternative of denying the condition and the treatment would bring misery to many and would also be going backwards since the right to transgender has been recognized for some time.
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Trump is pointing out the hypocrisy around war heroes. That just because you get put into a foreign prison while you are in the service of your country, that puts you beyond any criticism for anything.
Problem for Trump: that is the observation of the person he is - sneering metropolitan elite - and not the person he presents himself as - standing up for Mr and Mrs Ordinary who have a great respect for soldiers like McCain. What's changed now is that he is up against a challenger whose patriotism is in no doubt and who is making a pitch for the traditional values voter that Trump sees as his own.
Hence the reverse ferret.
Of course McCain's herosim wasn't just down to the fact he was a pow. He refused preferential release because of who he was in solidarity with his comrades, amongst other acts which demonstrated the quality of the man.
The Spanish anomaly: fight COVID-19 with the 'highest population density' in Europe. The 47.2 million people who live in Spain are concentrated in only 13% of the territory,
Sounds correct, Barca and Madrid are full of small flats iirc.
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Trump is pointing out the hypocrisy around war heroes. That just because you get put into a foreign prison while you are in the service of your country, that puts you beyond any criticism for anything.
Problem for Trump: that is the observation of the person he is - sneering metropolitan elite - and not the person he presents himself as - standing up for Mr and Mrs Ordinary who have a great respect for soldiers like McCain. What's changed now is that he is up against a challenger whose patriotism is in no doubt and who is making a pitch for the traditional values voter that Trump sees as his own.
Hence the reverse ferret.
One thing Trump is undoubtedly brilliant at is characterising opponents in a way that highlights their weaknesses. Little Marco, Lying Ted, Pocahontas, crooked Hillary etc. "Sleepy Joe" almost gets there but doesn't quite have the bite of some of his previous efforts. Trying to portray Biden as a raging socialist etc isn't really working either.
I get the impression he is still looking for some of his wedges and missing live audiences to try them out on.
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Trump is pointing out the hypocrisy around war heroes. That just because you get put into a foreign prison while you are in the service of your country, that puts you beyond any criticism for anything.
Problem for Trump: that is the observation of the person he is - sneering metropolitan elite - and not the person he presents himself as - standing up for Mr and Mrs Ordinary who have a great respect for soldiers like McCain. What's changed now is that he is up against a challenger whose patriotism is in no doubt and who is making a pitch for the traditional values voter that Trump sees as his own.
Hence the reverse ferret.
Of course McCain's herosim wasn't just down to the fact he was a pow. He refused preferential release because of who he was in solidarity with his comrades, amongst other acts which demonstrated the quality of the man.
Indeed. I should have added that McCain is one of the least deserving of that critique. along with Trump being the least qualified to make it.
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
Race however is important for people's sense of identity, because other people have made it important, so somehow those identities have to be decided. Who decides?
There's an interesting book by a guy who grew up in Burundi, where they were the "white kids" because their Dad was European. In France they're black, of course. So who decides?
This comes back to the argument Rowling put herself into. She's been told that she can't define her own identity as a woman, because other people are telling her what it has to be. Why is it that people born and brought up as men are the people who decide what a female identity is?
I've grown up with the idea that there are only minimal intrinsic differences between the genders, beyond the reproductive essentials. So if someone wants to switch from one to the other it doesn't make much difference to me.
But it means I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body. I don't think that's a useful message for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes.
"I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body."
It can`t - it`s nonsense. It`s a psychiatric condition, gender dysphoria, and is about what people "feel" rather than facts - i.e. it can`t be disproved by evidence. A non-falsifiable claim if you like.
Kinabalu thinks we should pander to this. I don`t.
Not pander. Treat in the way that is best for the afflicted and harms no-one else. The alternative of denying the condition and the treatment would bring misery to many and would also be going backwards since the right to transgender has been recognized for some time.
There’s been a right to transition gender for some time, that is true.
The notion that one can choose their own gender, and then without any actual medical treatment or surgery have the ‘right’ to invade women’s safe spaces such as changing rooms and sporting competitions, is quite recent.
It’s actually possible to pinpoint the date when the recent trans stuff started in the USA, it was 27th June 2015, the day after the Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal. For the woke campaigners, trans issues were simply next on the list after they ‘won’ gay marriage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
There are a lot of times when I think that this election is a bit like the Boris leadership election where people kept coming up with theories about why it was actually quite close but in fact it never was.
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Trump is pointing out the hypocrisy around war heroes. That just because you get put into a foreign prison while you are in the service of your country, that puts you beyond any criticism for anything.
Problem for Trump: that is the observation of the person he is - sneering metropolitan elite - and not the person he presents himself as - standing up for Mr and Mrs Ordinary who have a great respect for soldiers like McCain. What's changed now is that he is up against a challenger whose patriotism is in no doubt and who is making a pitch for the traditional values voter that Trump sees as his own.
Hence the reverse ferret.
Well, in fact as white College kids in late 1960s America, both Joe and Donald knew what to pull to dodge the Vietnam draft:
I think it just shows how unwilling wealthy educated white Americans were to be drafted into an unpopular war, leaving the fighting to rednecks and inner city ghetto kids. 11% of America were Black in the late Sixties, but a third of combat troops, with much of the remainder poor whites. Together they made up "MacNamara's Morons", and who were used as frontline cannon fodder:
The American War in Vietnam was quite wrong, as eventually nearly all Americans came to conclude. Remembering the heroism of individuals is a bit like recognising the heroism of the Black and Tans.
There are a lot of times when I think that this election is a bit like the Boris leadership election where people kept coming up with theories about why it was actually quite close but in fact it never was.
And then I worry again.
More like 2019 GE perhaps. Lots of expectation that if the Tories could blow one big lead they could blow another.
And then they just... didn't. Which came as a surprise even though it was exactly what everything seemed to be saying.
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Trump is pointing out the hypocrisy around war heroes. That just because you get put into a foreign prison while you are in the service of your country, that puts you beyond any criticism for anything.
Problem for Trump: that is the observation of the person he is - sneering metropolitan elite - and not the person he presents himself as - standing up for Mr and Mrs Ordinary who have a great respect for soldiers like McCain. What's changed now is that he is up against a challenger whose patriotism is in no doubt and who is making a pitch for the traditional values voter that Trump sees as his own.
Hence the reverse ferret.
One thing Trump is undoubtedly brilliant at is characterising opponents in a way that highlights their weaknesses. Little Marco, Lying Ted, Pocahontas, crooked Hillary etc. "Sleepy Joe" almost gets there but doesn't quite have the bite of some of his previous efforts. Trying to portray Biden as a raging socialist etc isn't really working either.
I get the impression he is still looking for some of his wedges and missing live audiences to try them out on.
“Hiden’ Biden” is being trialled on Twitter this week, playing into Pelosi’s idea that there shouldn’t be debates.
There are a lot of times when I think that this election is a bit like the Boris leadership election where people kept coming up with theories about why it was actually quite close but in fact it never was.
And then I worry again.
Oh yes, 100%.
I still think Trumpton will win.
But it’s hard to find any evidence for that view, other than my instinctive pessimism.
Ignore the comments re Biden etc, focus on what is being said about his organisation vs 4 years ago.
Difference is, this time round he's the establishment. Corrupt establishment, sure, but he can't run as an insurgent any more, and he doesn't know anything else.
I was thinking more about the comments about his organisation on the ground, enthusiasm etc. It sounds like the ground game is a lot more organised and efficient this time round (no surprise). Also, some interesting comments about his new campaign manager.
No doubt they will efficiently turn out Trump voters. But if the message is not appealing, it doesn’t matter how much you spend on it.
There are a lot of times when I think that this election is a bit like the Boris leadership election where people kept coming up with theories about why it was actually quite close but in fact it never was.
And then I worry again.
More like 2019 GE perhaps. Lots of expectation that if the Tories could blow one big lead they could blow another.
And then they just... didn't. Which came as a surprise even though it was exactly what everything seemed to be saying.
Today's US poll average has Biden's lead closer to Cameron's in 2010 or 2017 than Boris' in 2019
On that average Biden is at 50.3% Trump at 43% nationally in the popular vote today.
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
Or more likely they are identifying as undecided which does not equal silent Trump voters.
Undecided voters tend to go with the status quo in the end, if they really wanted to get rid of Trump they would already be saying they will vote for Biden
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Trump is pointing out the hypocrisy around war heroes. That just because you get put into a foreign prison while you are in the service of your country, that puts you beyond any criticism for anything.
Problem for Trump: that is the observation of the person he is - sneering metropolitan elite - and not the person he presents himself as - standing up for Mr and Mrs Ordinary who have a great respect for soldiers like McCain. What's changed now is that he is up against a challenger whose patriotism is in no doubt and who is making a pitch for the traditional values voter that Trump sees as his own.
Hence the reverse ferret.
One thing Trump is undoubtedly brilliant at is characterising opponents in a way that highlights their weaknesses. Little Marco, Lying Ted, Pocahontas, crooked Hillary etc. "Sleepy Joe" almost gets there but doesn't quite have the bite of some of his previous efforts. Trying to portray Biden as a raging socialist etc isn't really working either.
I get the impression he is still looking for some of his wedges and missing live audiences to try them out on.
Also Biden can talk about Trump with a disgust that comes across as authentic and which the target audience can relate to. Those other politicians were unable to land effective attacks on him
On that average Biden is at 50.3% Trump at 43% nationally in the popular vote today.
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
Or more likely they are identifying as undecided which does not equal silent Trump voters.
Undecided voters tend to go with the status quo in the end, if they really wanted to get rid of Trump they would already be saying they will vote for Biden
Wasn't it Peter Kellner who said:' those that don't know don't vote'? I think there is some truth in this anyway.
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Trump is pointing out the hypocrisy around war heroes. That just because you get put into a foreign prison while you are in the service of your country, that puts you beyond any criticism for anything.
Problem for Trump: that is the observation of the person he is - sneering metropolitan elite - and not the person he presents himself as - standing up for Mr and Mrs Ordinary who have a great respect for soldiers like McCain. What's changed now is that he is up against a challenger whose patriotism is in no doubt and who is making a pitch for the traditional values voter that Trump sees as his own.
Hence the reverse ferret.
One thing Trump is undoubtedly brilliant at is characterising opponents in a way that highlights their weaknesses. Little Marco, Lying Ted, Pocahontas, crooked Hillary etc. "Sleepy Joe" almost gets there but doesn't quite have the bite of some of his previous efforts. Trying to portray Biden as a raging socialist etc isn't really working either.
I get the impression he is still looking for some of his wedges and missing live audiences to try them out on.
“Hiden’ Biden” is being trialled on Twitter this week, playing into Pelosi’s idea that there shouldn’t be debates.
The Trump campaign has successfully set the stage for the debates such that if Biden goes on stage and says Hello without spasming and collapsing it will be a huge success for Biden.
This is worse expectation management than Gore vs Bush.
There are a lot of times when I think that this election is a bit like the Boris leadership election where people kept coming up with theories about why it was actually quite close but in fact it never was.
And then I worry again.
Oh yes, 100%.
I still think Trumpton will win.
But it’s hard to find any evidence for that view, other than my instinctive pessimism.
Even Trump thought he was going to lose in 2016 while Hillary was preparing for her coronation.
'Trump himself expected, based on polling, to lose the election, and rented a small hotel ballroom to make a brief concession speech; "I said if we're going to lose I don't want a big ballroom", he later remarked.
Clinton was unable to make a public concession that night, as she had no concession speech written.'
On that average Biden is at 50.3% Trump at 43% nationally in the popular vote today.
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
Or more likely they are identifying as undecided which does not equal silent Trump voters.
Undecided voters tend to go with the status quo in the end, if they really wanted to get rid of Trump they would already be saying they will vote for Biden
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Cod Wars wave a pectoral fin hello.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
Very much an example of a small nation playing its cards right.
Indeed, on paper Iceland should have been crushed into submission.
In fact they won an overwhelmingly victory over the UK. And this was in the days when we still had a rather large navy.
I did a tour of one of the cod war coastal vessels when in Iceland. Worth noting that they weren't anything special and there were very few of them (2, 3 or 4).
But what was key is they had this enormous device for cutting net cables that they dragged behind them and the key bit is that these were fitted to all the large Icelandic trawlers. The distance between a fishing boat and their nets and the length of the cutting device cable crossing the net cables and the fact that Iceland could put so many out to sea meant it was impossible to protect the British trawlers from having their nets cut. They might not even see the trawler cutting their nets. Well that is the Icelander's story anyway.
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
Race however is important for people's sense of identity, because other people have made it important, so somehow those identities have to be decided. Who decides?
There's an interesting book by a guy who grew up in Burundi, where they were the "white kids" because their Dad was European. In France they're black, of course. So who decides?
This comes back to the argument Rowling put herself into. She's been told that she can't define her own identity as a woman, because other people are telling her what it has to be. Why is it that people born and brought up as men are the people who decide what a female identity is?
I've grown up with the idea that there are only minimal intrinsic differences between the genders, beyond the reproductive essentials. So if someone wants to switch from one to the other it doesn't make much difference to me.
But it means I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body. I don't think that's a useful message for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes.
Gender is more profound than race. The clue is in your first para. Race is only important to identity because of matters coming from without rather than within. The importance is imposed by prejudice and exploitation. If we could somehow really be colour blind - see and treat everybody exactly the same regardless of visible ethnic difference - race would disappear as a key indentifier in any politically or socially charged sense. It would become like hair colour. Which given it is skin colour, plus other purely physical externals, makes perfect sense.
Not so for gender. Even if the patriarchy were to crumble, if women were to become fully emancipated and attain equal rights and power in every area of life, if we were to become truly gender blind, as it were, gender would remain an integral and fundamental part of an individual's identity. There is no difference between a black man and a white man. There is - and will always be - a difference between a black man and a black woman.
This - what I'm saying here - plays both for and against what JK Rowling is driving at if you think about it.
Linklaters is the first City firm to announce a long-term WFH policy, allowing its employees to work remotely for up to 50% of their time.
The Magic Circle firm's policy permits its 5,200 staff around the world to work remotely for up to half of their time, provided they tell their teams in advance and subject to operational roles being fulfilled. The firm said its decision was intended to apply beyond the Covid-19 restrictions.
On that average Biden is at 50.3% Trump at 43% nationally in the popular vote today.
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
Or more likely they are identifying as undecided which does not equal silent Trump voters.
Undecided voters tend to go with the status quo in the end, if they really wanted to get rid of Trump they would already be saying they will vote for Biden
Wasn't it Peter Kellner who said:' those that don't know don't vote'? I think there is some truth in this anyway.
Not in Quebec's referendum in 1995 for example where don't knows went No and overturned a Yes lead to give No a 51% win
There are a lot of times when I think that this election is a bit like the Boris leadership election where people kept coming up with theories about why it was actually quite close but in fact it never was.
And then I worry again.
Oh yes, 100%.
I still think Trumpton will win.
But it’s hard to find any evidence for that view, other than my instinctive pessimism.
Even Trump thought he was going to lose in 2016 while Hillary was preparing for her coronation.
'Trump himself expected, based on polling, to lose the election, and rented a small hotel ballroom to make a brief concession speech; "I said if we're going to lose I don't want a big ballroom", he later remarked.
Clinton was unable to make a public concession that night, as she had no concession speech written.'
There are a lot of times when I think that this election is a bit like the Boris leadership election where people kept coming up with theories about why it was actually quite close but in fact it never was.
And then I worry again.
Oh yes, 100%.
I still think Trumpton will win.
But it’s hard to find any evidence for that view, other than my instinctive pessimism.
Even Trump thought he was going to lose in 2016 while Hillary was preparing for her coronation.
'Trump himself expected, based on polling, to lose the election, and rented a small hotel ballroom to make a brief concession speech; "I said if we're going to lose I don't want a big ballroom", he later remarked.
Clinton was unable to make a public concession that night, as she had no concession speech written.'
There are a lot of times when I think that this election is a bit like the Boris leadership election where people kept coming up with theories about why it was actually quite close but in fact it never was.
And then I worry again.
Oh yes, 100%.
I still think Trumpton will win.
But it’s hard to find any evidence for that view, other than my instinctive pessimism.
Even Trump thought he was going to lose in 2016 while Hillary was preparing for her coronation.
'Trump himself expected, based on polling, to lose the election, and rented a small hotel ballroom to make a brief concession speech; "I said if we're going to lose I don't want a big ballroom", he later remarked.
Clinton was unable to make a public concession that night, as she had no concession speech written.'
Worse than that, she’d invited thousands of people to a massive ballroom, complete with symbolic glass ceiling, and kept them all waiting for hours before deciding to no-show.
Linklaters is the first City firm to announce a long-term WFH policy, allowing its employees to work remotely for up to 50% of their time.
The Magic Circle firm's policy permits its 5,200 staff around the world to work remotely for up to half of their time, provided they tell their teams in advance and subject to operational roles being fulfilled. The firm said its decision was intended to apply beyond the Covid-19 restrictions.
There are a lot of times when I think that this election is a bit like the Boris leadership election where people kept coming up with theories about why it was actually quite close but in fact it never was.
And then I worry again.
Oh yes, 100%.
I still think Trumpton will win.
But it’s hard to find any evidence for that view, other than my instinctive pessimism.
Even Trump thought he was going to lose in 2016 while Hillary was preparing for her coronation.
'Trump himself expected, based on polling, to lose the election, and rented a small hotel ballroom to make a brief concession speech; "I said if we're going to lose I don't want a big ballroom", he later remarked.
Clinton was unable to make a public concession that night, as she had no concession speech written.'
Worse than that, she’d invited thousands of people to a massive ballroom, complete with symbolic glass ceiling, and kept them all waiting for hours before deciding to no-show.
Yes her aides spent more time planning the format of her victory celebrations and the symbolism of the glass ceiling smashing in the huge ballroom they hired after the election of the first female president in the final days of that campaign than they did getting out the Democratic vote in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Meanwhile Trump was still holding a final rally in Michigan at midnight on eve of poll
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Trump is pointing out the hypocrisy around war heroes. That just because you get put into a foreign prison while you are in the service of your country, that puts you beyond any criticism for anything.
Problem for Trump: that is the observation of the person he is - sneering metropolitan elite - and not the person he presents himself as - standing up for Mr and Mrs Ordinary who have a great respect for soldiers like McCain. What's changed now is that he is up against a challenger whose patriotism is in no doubt and who is making a pitch for the traditional values voter that Trump sees as his own.
Hence the reverse ferret.
One thing Trump is undoubtedly brilliant at is characterising opponents in a way that highlights their weaknesses. Little Marco, Lying Ted, Pocahontas, crooked Hillary etc. "Sleepy Joe" almost gets there but doesn't quite have the bite of some of his previous efforts. Trying to portray Biden as a raging socialist etc isn't really working either.
I get the impression he is still looking for some of his wedges and missing live audiences to try them out on.
It’s partly that he’s lost his sharpness (the clip in the thread header is a reminder of that), but I think rather more it’s just that Disser in Chief isn’t really what people look for in a president.
Along those lines, he seems incapable of campaigning as an incumbent.
... Trump’s visit to Kenosha was notable because it had an actual political and policy goal. He was clearly concerned by the widespread criticism that it was ludicrous for an incumbent to point to the chaos engulfing the country on his watch and argue it was actually a harbinger of things to come if his opponent was elected. (The best distillation of the absurdity of this argument was a tweet by Students for Trump that showed the president standing in front of a building burned to the ground with the caption, “President @realDonaldTrump tours what Biden will do to America.”)...
... Presidents don’t always have policy tools at their disposal, but they find other ways to ease tensions during a crisis. This is not Trump’s strength, which became clear during remarks with reporters before he left for Kenosha and on the ground touring areas damaged in riots and at a roundtable discussion with local leaders.
The contrast with the account of Biden’s visit which follows is marked
There are a lot of times when I think that this election is a bit like the Boris leadership election where people kept coming up with theories about why it was actually quite close but in fact it never was.
And then I worry again.
Oh yes, 100%.
I still think Trumpton will win.
But it’s hard to find any evidence for that view, other than my instinctive pessimism.
Even Trump thought he was going to lose in 2016 while Hillary was preparing for her coronation.
'Trump himself expected, based on polling, to lose the election, and rented a small hotel ballroom to make a brief concession speech; "I said if we're going to lose I don't want a big ballroom", he later remarked.
Clinton was unable to make a public concession that night, as she had no concession speech written.'
Worse than that, she’d invited thousands of people to a massive ballroom, complete with symbolic glass ceiling, and kept them all waiting for hours before deciding to no-show.
And then, having pulled herself together after probably the most traumatic event in her life, she conceded. Did not even mention the popular vote.
On that average Biden is at 50.3% Trump at 43% nationally in the popular vote today.
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
You do realise that the average Don't Knows/Third Party in the polls at this stage in 2016 ago was 20%, whereas now it is 7%. And Clinton's lead was less than 4%.
Comparing to 2016 would probably make you think that Biden is nailed on.
A rather runny brown sauce popular in the Edinburgh area and (I think) some other airts of Scotland. Basically ordinaryt brown sauce cut 1:1 with vinegar. Glaswegians contemn it.
There are a lot of times when I think that this election is a bit like the Boris leadership election where people kept coming up with theories about why it was actually quite close but in fact it never was.
And then I worry again.
Oh yes, 100%.
I still think Trumpton will win.
But it’s hard to find any evidence for that view, other than my instinctive pessimism.
Even Trump thought he was going to lose in 2016 while Hillary was preparing for her coronation.
'Trump himself expected, based on polling, to lose the election, and rented a small hotel ballroom to make a brief concession speech; "I said if we're going to lose I don't want a big ballroom", he later remarked.
Clinton was unable to make a public concession that night, as she had no concession speech written.'
That’s a long-winded way to write: “i’m a layman pretending to be an expert”. Got it. Just as bad as Twitter.
This site is full of those - I feel it whenever the conversation turns to my area of expertise, which it often does. As indeed is the entire Internet.
(And no doubt I'm just as bad on other matters).
To be fair, ‘layman pretending to be an expert‘ is the very essence of politics, and this is a politics site.
Well at it's best one hopes politics is less pretending to be an expert and more applying sound judgement taking account of relevant points including from experts, but the point is well made.
There are a lot of times when I think that this election is a bit like the Boris leadership election where people kept coming up with theories about why it was actually quite close but in fact it never was.
And then I worry again.
Oh yes, 100%.
I still think Trumpton will win.
But it’s hard to find any evidence for that view, other than my instinctive pessimism.
Even Trump thought he was going to lose in 2016 while Hillary was preparing for her coronation.
'Trump himself expected, based on polling, to lose the election, and rented a small hotel ballroom to make a brief concession speech; "I said if we're going to lose I don't want a big ballroom", he later remarked.
Clinton was unable to make a public concession that night, as she had no concession speech written.'
What, she couldn't come up with a few words of commiseration on the fly? 'I acknowledge the win of my opponent and hope he will choose to govern well. Now I'd like to thank my supporters who share in my disappointment etc etc'
On that average Biden is at 50.3% Trump at 43% nationally in the popular vote today.
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
Or more likely they are identifying as undecided which does not equal silent Trump voters.
Undecided voters tend to go with the status quo in the end, if they really wanted to get rid of Trump they would already be saying they will vote for Biden
I don't overly agree with that. The undecided didn't go for the status quo for Brexit, nor even US 2016 where Clinton could be seen as status quo, Trump won undecided in final week by around 50-35. There could be many reasons people have still not committed to Trump or Biden.
From current polling I just don't see Trump gaining 3-4% of the left over 7, some will still fall over to Biden.
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Trump is pointing out the hypocrisy around war heroes. That just because you get put into a foreign prison while you are in the service of your country, that puts you beyond any criticism for anything.
Problem for Trump: that is the observation of the person he is - sneering metropolitan elite - and not the person he presents himself as - standing up for Mr and Mrs Ordinary who have a great respect for soldiers like McCain. What's changed now is that he is up against a challenger whose patriotism is in no doubt and who is making a pitch for the traditional values voter that Trump sees as his own.
Hence the reverse ferret.
One thing Trump is undoubtedly brilliant at is characterising opponents in a way that highlights their weaknesses. Little Marco, Lying Ted, Pocahontas, crooked Hillary etc. "Sleepy Joe" almost gets there but doesn't quite have the bite of some of his previous efforts. Trying to portray Biden as a raging socialist etc isn't really working either.
I get the impression he is still looking for some of his wedges and missing live audiences to try them out on.
“Hiden’ Biden” is being trialled on Twitter this week, playing into Pelosi’s idea that there shouldn’t be debates.
Isn’t that just more lowering of expectations for Biden ? When he turns up and performs adequately, he’ll likely then be awarded the win.
On that average Biden is at 50.3% Trump at 43% nationally in the popular vote today.
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
You do realise that the average Don't Knows/Third Party in the polls at this stage in 2016 ago was 20%, whereas now it is 7%. And Clinton's lead was less than 4%.
Comparing to 2016 would probably make you think that Biden is nailed on.
Depends which poll, ABC on 5th to 8th September had it Clinton 51% Trump 43% in a 2 way matchup ie very close to the polls now and Clinton 46% Trump 41% with third party candidates
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Cod Wars wave a pectoral fin hello.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
Very much an example of a small nation playing its cards right.
Indeed, on paper Iceland should have been crushed into submission.
In fact they won an overwhelmingly victory over the UK. And this was in the days when we still had a rather large navy.
I did a tour of one of the cod war coastal vessels when in Iceland. Worth noting that they weren't anything special and there were very few of them (2, 3 or 4).
But what was key is they had this enormous device for cutting net cables that they dragged behind them and the key bit is that these were fitted to all the large Icelandic trawlers. The distance between a fishing boat and their nets and the length of the cutting device cable crossing the net cables and the fact that Iceland could put so many out to sea meant it was impossible to protect the British trawlers from having their nets cut. They might not even see the trawler cutting their nets. Well that is the Icelander's story anyway.
Coincidentally just been reading about the Royal Navy's use of trawlers for auxiliary roles such as minesweeping in the Great War and WW2. But the UK's trawlers will be too busy fishing for cod to be Taken Up from Trade for netcutting. No doubt the PBTories will tell us there will be oodles of trawlers up for sale on the other side of La Manche.
Edit: cutting nets would be very much frowned upon today (after that Sir D. Attenborough TV series). Tangling up whales, etc. Not good optics.
Was this ship in a museum, BTW? I adore preserved ships and had been thinking of an Icelandic hols (for other reasons).
On that average Biden is at 50.3% Trump at 43% nationally in the popular vote today.
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
You do realise that the average Don't Knows/Third Party in the polls at this stage in 2016 ago was 20%, whereas now it is 7%. And Clinton's lead was less than 4%.
Comparing to 2016 would probably make you think that Biden is nailed on.
Depends which poll, ABC on 5th to 8th September had it Clinton 51% Trump 43% in a 2 way matchup ie very close to the polls now and Clinton 46% Trump 41% with third party candidates
He said McCain was a loser in an election because he, err, lost. He said he was a war hero because he was captured but he preferred people that were not captured.
To be honest there is so much to criticise about Trump that it can be difficult to know where to start. I am not sure it should be here though.
Trump is pointing out the hypocrisy around war heroes. That just because you get put into a foreign prison while you are in the service of your country, that puts you beyond any criticism for anything.
Problem for Trump: that is the observation of the person he is - sneering metropolitan elite - and not the person he presents himself as - standing up for Mr and Mrs Ordinary who have a great respect for soldiers like McCain. What's changed now is that he is up against a challenger whose patriotism is in no doubt and who is making a pitch for the traditional values voter that Trump sees as his own.
Hence the reverse ferret.
One thing Trump is undoubtedly brilliant at is characterising opponents in a way that highlights their weaknesses. Little Marco, Lying Ted, Pocahontas, crooked Hillary etc. "Sleepy Joe" almost gets there but doesn't quite have the bite of some of his previous efforts. Trying to portray Biden as a raging socialist etc isn't really working either.
I get the impression he is still looking for some of his wedges and missing live audiences to try them out on.
“Hiden’ Biden” is being trialled on Twitter this week, playing into Pelosi’s idea that there shouldn’t be debates.
Isn’t that just more lowering of expectations for Biden ? When he turns up and performs adequately, he’ll likely then be awarded the win.
I’m not convinced the Republicans have a coherent theory of this campaign.
They’re trying to build a narrative that Biden is hiding in his basement, which to be fair he pretty much did for a couple of months before the convention.
Yes, the risk of that strategy is that Biden has a low bar to get over in the debates.
Both of them managed to mumble and stumble through speeches last week, I’m not sure either of them are close to mentally cognisant. @Morris_Dancer said it best right at the start of this thread.
On that average Biden is at 50.3% Trump at 43% nationally in the popular vote today.
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
Or more likely they are identifying as undecided which does not equal silent Trump voters.
Undecided voters tend to go with the status quo in the end, if they really wanted to get rid of Trump they would already be saying they will vote for Biden
Wasn't it Peter Kellner who said:' those that don't know don't vote'? I think there is some truth in this anyway.
Not in Quebec's referendum in 1995 for example where don't knows went No and overturned a Yes lead to give No a 51% win
You say this all the time but there is no factual basis for it.
In the 2 months during the campaign there were 23 polls of which 13 gave a No lead, 9 gave a Yes lead and 1 had a tie.
The polling average across those polls of Yes 42.6 and No 43.8 - converting that to a 100% share that becomes Yes 49.3 to No 50.7 - compared with the actual results of Yes 49.42 and No 50.58
There is absolutely no evidence here that Don't Knows influenced the vote at all.
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
Race however is important for people's sense of identity, because other people have made it important, so somehow those identities have to be decided. Who decides?
There's an interesting book by a guy who grew up in Burundi, where they were the "white kids" because their Dad was European. In France they're black, of course. So who decides?
This comes back to the argument Rowling put herself into. She's been told that she can't define her own identity as a woman, because other people are telling her what it has to be. Why is it that people born and brought up as men are the people who decide what a female identity is?
I've grown up with the idea that there are only minimal intrinsic differences between the genders, beyond the reproductive essentials. So if someone wants to switch from one to the other it doesn't make much difference to me.
But it means I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body. I don't think that's a useful message for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes.
"I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body."
It can`t - it`s nonsense. It`s a psychiatric condition, gender dysphoria, and is about what people "feel" rather than facts - i.e. it can`t be disproved by evidence. A non-falsifiable claim if you like.
Kinabalu thinks we should pander to this. I don`t.
Not pander. Treat in the way that is best for the afflicted and harms no-one else. The alternative of denying the condition and the treatment would bring misery to many and would also be going backwards since the right to transgender has been recognized for some time.
There’s been a right to transition gender for some time, that is true.
The notion that one can choose their own gender, and then without any actual medical treatment or surgery have the ‘right’ to invade women’s safe spaces such as changing rooms and sporting competitions, is quite recent.
It’s actually possible to pinpoint the date when the recent trans stuff started in the USA, it was 27th June 2015, the day after the Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal. For the woke campaigners, trans issues were simply next on the list after they ‘won’ gay marriage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
There does need to be protections around women's sport and in one or two other areas. And there does need to be a (not self) diagnosis of dysphoria. I'm not on the extreme edge of this debate. But the idea that people will be switching in and out of genders at the drop of a hat, or that men will ID as women purely in order to invade female changing rooms and toilets is scaremongering. You mention gay rights and it is relevant in that this sort of stuff is similar to that used by antis to fight that battle. They lost but it was effective for quite some time in delaying the defeat. So they are giving it another whirl here.
On that average Biden is at 50.3% Trump at 43% nationally in the popular vote today.
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
Or more likely they are identifying as undecided which does not equal silent Trump voters.
Undecided voters tend to go with the status quo in the end, if they really wanted to get rid of Trump they would already be saying they will vote for Biden
Wasn't it Peter Kellner who said:' those that don't know don't vote'? I think there is some truth in this anyway.
Not in Quebec's referendum in 1995 for example where don't knows went No and overturned a Yes lead to give No a 51% win
You say this all the time but there is no factual basis for it.
In the 2 months during the campaign there were 23 polls of which 13 gave a No lead, 9 gave a Yes lead and 1 had a tie.
The polling average across those polls of Yes 42.6 and No 43.8 - converting that to a 100% share that becomes Yes 49.3 to No 50.7 - compared with the actual results of Yes 49.42 and No 50.58
There is absolutely no evidence here that Don't Knows influenced the vote at all.
Indeed, if you added all the Don't Knows to HYUFD's favoured side like he wants to do, then No should have won by a double-digit margin, rather than a knife-edge.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Cod Wars wave a pectoral fin hello.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
Very much an example of a small nation playing its cards right.
Indeed, on paper Iceland should have been crushed into submission.
In fact they won an overwhelmingly victory over the UK. And this was in the days when we still had a rather large navy.
I did a tour of one of the cod war coastal vessels when in Iceland. Worth noting that they weren't anything special and there were very few of them (2, 3 or 4).
But what was key is they had this enormous device for cutting net cables that they dragged behind them and the key bit is that these were fitted to all the large Icelandic trawlers. The distance between a fishing boat and their nets and the length of the cutting device cable crossing the net cables and the fact that Iceland could put so many out to sea meant it was impossible to protect the British trawlers from having their nets cut. They might not even see the trawler cutting their nets. Well that is the Icelander's story anyway.
Coincidentally just been reading about the Royal Navy's use of trawlers for auxiliary roles such as minesweeping in the Great War and WW2. But the UK's trawlers will be too busy fishing for cod to be Taken Up from Trade for netcutting. No doubt the PBTories will tell us there will be oodles of trawlers up for sale on the other side of La Manche.
Edit: cutting nets would be very much frowned upon today (after that Sir D. Attenborough TV series). Tangling up whales, etc. Not good optics.
Was this ship in a museum, BTW? I adore preserved ships and had been thinking of an Icelandic hols (for other reasons).
No in the water adjacent to the museum. Holiday great. Usual stuff done - waterfalls, geysers, whales, northern lights (failed|) hot springs at night, etc. We had the tour of the coastal vessel to ourselves. The guy was a little hesitant as how to pitch it, you know we being the enemy! But we told him to go for it and he was great.
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
Race however is important for people's sense of identity, because other people have made it important, so somehow those identities have to be decided. Who decides?
There's an interesting book by a guy who grew up in Burundi, where they were the "white kids" because their Dad was European. In France they're black, of course. So who decides?
This comes back to the argument Rowling put herself into. She's been told that she can't define her own identity as a woman, because other people are telling her what it has to be. Why is it that people born and brought up as men are the people who decide what a female identity is?
I've grown up with the idea that there are only minimal intrinsic differences between the genders, beyond the reproductive essentials. So if someone wants to switch from one to the other it doesn't make much difference to me.
But it means I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body. I don't think that's a useful message for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes.
"I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body."
It can`t - it`s nonsense. It`s a psychiatric condition, gender dysphoria, and is about what people "feel" rather than facts - i.e. it can`t be disproved by evidence. A non-falsifiable claim if you like.
Kinabalu thinks we should pander to this. I don`t.
Not pander. Treat in the way that is best for the afflicted and harms no-one else. The alternative of denying the condition and the treatment would bring misery to many and would also be going backwards since the right to transgender has been recognized for some time.
There’s been a right to transition gender for some time, that is true.
The notion that one can choose their own gender, and then without any actual medical treatment or surgery have the ‘right’ to invade women’s safe spaces such as changing rooms and sporting competitions, is quite recent.
It’s actually possible to pinpoint the date when the recent trans stuff started in the USA, it was 27th June 2015, the day after the Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal. For the woke campaigners, trans issues were simply next on the list after they ‘won’ gay marriage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
There does need to be protections around women's sport and in one or two other areas. And there does need to be a (not self) diagnosis of dysphoria. I'm not on the extreme edge of this debate. But the idea that people will be switching in and out of genders at the drop of a hat, or that men will ID as women purely in order to invade female changing rooms and toilets is scaremongering. You mention gay rights and it is relevant in that this sort of stuff is similar to that used by antis to fight that battle. They lost but it was effective for quite some time in delaying the defeat. So they are giving it another whirl here.
I agree with you on this. The toilet/sport issue is a curious one for me. The differentiation between sex and gender is a newish construct. Toilets and sports have always been along sex lines, not gender. Obvious when you think about it - gender didn`t exist before the 50s when it was invented.
On that average Biden is at 50.3% Trump at 43% nationally in the popular vote today.
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
Or more likely they are identifying as undecided which does not equal silent Trump voters.
Undecided voters tend to go with the status quo in the end, if they really wanted to get rid of Trump they would already be saying they will vote for Biden
Wasn't it Peter Kellner who said:' those that don't know don't vote'? I think there is some truth in this anyway.
Not in Quebec's referendum in 1995 for example where don't knows went No and overturned a Yes lead to give No a 51% win
You say this all the time but there is no factual basis for it.
In the 2 months during the campaign there were 23 polls of which 13 gave a No lead, 9 gave a Yes lead and 1 had a tie.
The polling average across those polls of Yes 42.6 and No 43.8 - converting that to a 100% share that becomes Yes 49.3 to No 50.7 - compared with the actual results of Yes 49.42 and No 50.58
There is absolutely no evidence here that Don't Knows influenced the vote at all.
French fishermen catch British fish in British waters and export them to Britain - and the delusional Remainers on here think British fishermen would be devastated by our fishermen no longer being confined to 1/4 of British stocks?
Its laughable.
Nobody cares about fishing.
That is self-evidently not true.
It is. It’s only the frothers in the government and its supporters who really care. The average person on the street does not give two sh*ts.
If nobody cares why doesn't Barnier concede in this subject?
People care.
I’m not talking about Barnier. I don’t care about Barnier. I’m talking about the general public.
So you think the general public in coastal communities don't care about fish?
Because that's not true either. Many vote quite heavily on this matter.
Who cares? They are a tiny, tiny minority.
If you think the vast majority of people would choose “independent fishing”, which will have no impact on them whatsoever, over empty supermarket shelves and increased cost of imported consumer goods then you’re seriously deluded.
Coastal communities are a tiny, tiny minority?
Oh ok then. So we should just ignore minority interests is that what you're saying? The voters in coastal communities and the MPs they represent absolutely do care and so they should.
If the 'vast majority' don't get about fishing then they should ignore the subject. Let the people who do care get a say - and the people that do care, care very passionately.
I live in a coastal community. The vast majority don’t give a crap. They really don’t.
I’m sorry Philip but you’re just wrong.
I'm sorry Gallowgate but you're just wrong. Many do give a crap and do so passionately.
Even if a majority don't - if they don't give a crap then they're irrelevant. If they don't care then they'll be happy with whatever the people who do care decide. For those that do give a crap, they are the ones that matter.
If you don't care then just move on. Let the people who do care speak up - and there are many of them and they vote.
The thing is though, say we end up with sole (he he) rights to fish our waters - what then? The French, Spanish etc will carry on fishing in our waters as before even though it is against the rules. Will brexiters demand that this is enforced? How? What follows?
Of course. Just like Iceland enforces it in their waters. That is what the navy is for.
You want the Navy to get into altercations with fishing boats. Are you sure? What is Britain becoming?
The Cod Wars wave a pectoral fin hello.
Edit: albeit on the other side, so to speak.
Very much an example of a small nation playing its cards right.
Indeed, on paper Iceland should have been crushed into submission.
In fact they won an overwhelmingly victory over the UK. And this was in the days when we still had a rather large navy.
I did a tour of one of the cod war coastal vessels when in Iceland. Worth noting that they weren't anything special and there were very few of them (2, 3 or 4).
But what was key is they had this enormous device for cutting net cables that they dragged behind them and the key bit is that these were fitted to all the large Icelandic trawlers. The distance between a fishing boat and their nets and the length of the cutting device cable crossing the net cables and the fact that Iceland could put so many out to sea meant it was impossible to protect the British trawlers from having their nets cut. They might not even see the trawler cutting their nets. Well that is the Icelander's story anyway.
Coincidentally just been reading about the Royal Navy's use of trawlers for auxiliary roles such as minesweeping in the Great War and WW2. But the UK's trawlers will be too busy fishing for cod to be Taken Up from Trade for netcutting. No doubt the PBTories will tell us there will be oodles of trawlers up for sale on the other side of La Manche.
Edit: cutting nets would be very much frowned upon today (after that Sir D. Attenborough TV series). Tangling up whales, etc. Not good optics.
Was this ship in a museum, BTW? I adore preserved ships and had been thinking of an Icelandic hols (for other reasons).
No in the water adjacent to the museum. Holiday great. Usual stuff done - waterfalls, geysers, whales, northern lights (failed|) hot springs at night, etc. We had the tour of the coastal vessel to ourselves. The guy was a little hesitant as how to pitch it, you know we being the enemy! But we told him to go for it and he was great.
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
Race however is important for people's sense of identity, because other people have made it important, so somehow those identities have to be decided. Who decides?
There's an interesting book by a guy who grew up in Burundi, where they were the "white kids" because their Dad was European. In France they're black, of course. So who decides?
This comes back to the argument Rowling put herself into. She's been told that she can't define her own identity as a woman, because other people are telling her what it has to be. Why is it that people born and brought up as men are the people who decide what a female identity is?
I've grown up with the idea that there are only minimal intrinsic differences between the genders, beyond the reproductive essentials. So if someone wants to switch from one to the other it doesn't make much difference to me.
But it means I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body. I don't think that's a useful message for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes.
"I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body."
It can`t - it`s nonsense. It`s a psychiatric condition, gender dysphoria, and is about what people "feel" rather than facts - i.e. it can`t be disproved by evidence. A non-falsifiable claim if you like.
Kinabalu thinks we should pander to this. I don`t.
Not pander. Treat in the way that is best for the afflicted and harms no-one else. The alternative of denying the condition and the treatment would bring misery to many and would also be going backwards since the right to transgender has been recognized for some time.
There’s been a right to transition gender for some time, that is true.
The notion that one can choose their own gender, and then without any actual medical treatment or surgery have the ‘right’ to invade women’s safe spaces such as changing rooms and sporting competitions, is quite recent.
It’s actually possible to pinpoint the date when the recent trans stuff started in the USA, it was 27th June 2015, the day after the Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal. For the woke campaigners, trans issues were simply next on the list after they ‘won’ gay marriage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
There does need to be protections around women's sport and in one or two other areas. And there does need to be a (not self) diagnosis of dysphoria. I'm not on the extreme edge of this debate. But the idea that people will be switching in and out of genders at the drop of a hat, or that men will ID as women purely in order to invade female changing rooms and toilets is scaremongering. You mention gay rights and it is relevant in that this sort of stuff is similar to that used by antis to fight that battle. They lost but it was effective for quite some time in delaying the defeat. So they are giving it another whirl here.
I agree with you on this. The toilet/sport issue is a curious one for me. The differentiation between sex and gender is a newish construct. Toilets and sports have always been along sex lines, not gender. Obvious when you think about it - gender didn`t exist before the 50s when it was invented.
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
Race however is important for people's sense of identity, because other people have made it important, so somehow those identities have to be decided. Who decides?
There's an interesting book by a guy who grew up in Burundi, where they were the "white kids" because their Dad was European. In France they're black, of course. So who decides?
This comes back to the argument Rowling put herself into. She's been told that she can't define her own identity as a woman, because other people are telling her what it has to be. Why is it that people born and brought up as men are the people who decide what a female identity is?
I've grown up with the idea that there are only minimal intrinsic differences between the genders, beyond the reproductive essentials. So if someone wants to switch from one to the other it doesn't make much difference to me.
But it means I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body. I don't think that's a useful message for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes.
"I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body."
It can`t - it`s nonsense. It`s a psychiatric condition, gender dysphoria, and is about what people "feel" rather than facts - i.e. it can`t be disproved by evidence. A non-falsifiable claim if you like.
Kinabalu thinks we should pander to this. I don`t.
Not pander. Treat in the way that is best for the afflicted and harms no-one else. The alternative of denying the condition and the treatment would bring misery to many and would also be going backwards since the right to transgender has been recognized for some time.
There’s been a right to transition gender for some time, that is true.
The notion that one can choose their own gender, and then without any actual medical treatment or surgery have the ‘right’ to invade women’s safe spaces such as changing rooms and sporting competitions, is quite recent.
It’s actually possible to pinpoint the date when the recent trans stuff started in the USA, it was 27th June 2015, the day after the Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal. For the woke campaigners, trans issues were simply next on the list after they ‘won’ gay marriage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
There does need to be protections around women's sport and in one or two other areas. And there does need to be a (not self) diagnosis of dysphoria. I'm not on the extreme edge of this debate. But the idea that people will be switching in and out of genders at the drop of a hat, or that men will ID as women purely in order to invade female changing rooms and toilets is scaremongering. You mention gay rights and it is relevant in that this sort of stuff is similar to that used by antis to fight that battle. They lost but it was effective for quite some time in delaying the defeat. So they are giving it another whirl here.
I agree with you on this. The toilet/sport issue is a curious one for me. The differentiation between sex and gender is a newish construct. Toilets and sports have always been along sex lines, not gender. Obvious when you think about it - gender didn`t exist before the 50s when it was invented.
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
Race however is important for people's sense of identity, because other people have made it important, so somehow those identities have to be decided. Who decides?
There's an interesting book by a guy who grew up in Burundi, where they were the "white kids" because their Dad was European. In France they're black, of course. So who decides?
This comes back to the argument Rowling put herself into. She's been told that she can't define her own identity as a woman, because other people are telling her what it has to be. Why is it that people born and brought up as men are the people who decide what a female identity is?
I've grown up with the idea that there are only minimal intrinsic differences between the genders, beyond the reproductive essentials. So if someone wants to switch from one to the other it doesn't make much difference to me.
But it means I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body. I don't think that's a useful message for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes.
"I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body."
It can`t - it`s nonsense. It`s a psychiatric condition, gender dysphoria, and is about what people "feel" rather than facts - i.e. it can`t be disproved by evidence. A non-falsifiable claim if you like.
Kinabalu thinks we should pander to this. I don`t.
Not pander. Treat in the way that is best for the afflicted and harms no-one else. The alternative of denying the condition and the treatment would bring misery to many and would also be going backwards since the right to transgender has been recognized for some time.
There’s been a right to transition gender for some time, that is true.
The notion that one can choose their own gender, and then without any actual medical treatment or surgery have the ‘right’ to invade women’s safe spaces such as changing rooms and sporting competitions, is quite recent.
It’s actually possible to pinpoint the date when the recent trans stuff started in the USA, it was 27th June 2015, the day after the Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal. For the woke campaigners, trans issues were simply next on the list after they ‘won’ gay marriage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
There does need to be protections around women's sport and in one or two other areas. And there does need to be a (not self) diagnosis of dysphoria. I'm not on the extreme edge of this debate. But the idea that people will be switching in and out of genders at the drop of a hat, or that men will ID as women purely in order to invade female changing rooms and toilets is scaremongering. You mention gay rights and it is relevant in that this sort of stuff is similar to that used by antis to fight that battle. They lost but it was effective for quite some time in delaying the defeat. So they are giving it another whirl here.
I agree with you on this. The toilet/sport issue is a curious one for me. The differentiation between sex and gender is a newish construct. Toilets and sports have always been along sex lines, not gender. Obvious when you think about it - gender didn`t exist before the 50s when it was invented.
On that average Biden is at 50.3% Trump at 43% nationally in the popular vote today.
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
Or more likely they are identifying as undecided which does not equal silent Trump voters.
Undecided voters tend to go with the status quo in the end, if they really wanted to get rid of Trump they would already be saying they will vote for Biden
Wasn't it Peter Kellner who said:' those that don't know don't vote'? I think there is some truth in this anyway.
Not in Quebec's referendum in 1995 for example where don't knows went No and overturned a Yes lead to give No a 51% win
You say this all the time but there is no factual basis for it.
In the 2 months during the campaign there were 23 polls of which 13 gave a No lead, 9 gave a Yes lead and 1 had a tie.
The polling average across those polls of Yes 42.6 and No 43.8 - converting that to a 100% share that becomes Yes 49.3 to No 50.7 - compared with the actual results of Yes 49.42 and No 50.58
There is absolutely no evidence here that Don't Knows influenced the vote at all.
No you're incorrect as there is no justification for cherrypicking the polls that you like and excluding the rest.
If the don't knows won it for No, that's only possible if you're claiming that the Don't Knows had swung to Yes the week before. The reality is it was a very split vote and the polls accurately represented that . . . just as they did in 2016 when many polls gave Brexit the lead, even though many final polls gave Remain the lead.
We aren't at the final poll stage. There is absolutely zero justification for looking at the poll that suits you rather than all of them. Indeed the fact is that No were in the lead in more polls than Yes were.
On that average Biden is at 50.3% Trump at 43% nationally in the popular vote today.
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
Or more likely they are identifying as undecided which does not equal silent Trump voters.
Undecided voters tend to go with the status quo in the end, if they really wanted to get rid of Trump they would already be saying they will vote for Biden
Wasn't it Peter Kellner who said:' those that don't know don't vote'? I think there is some truth in this anyway.
Not in Quebec's referendum in 1995 for example where don't knows went No and overturned a Yes lead to give No a 51% win
You say this all the time but there is no factual basis for it.
In the 2 months during the campaign there were 23 polls of which 13 gave a No lead, 9 gave a Yes lead and 1 had a tie.
The polling average across those polls of Yes 42.6 and No 43.8 - converting that to a 100% share that becomes Yes 49.3 to No 50.7 - compared with the actual results of Yes 49.42 and No 50.58
There is absolutely no evidence here that Don't Knows influenced the vote at all.
No you're incorrect as there is no justification for cherrypicking the polls that you like and excluding the rest.
If the don't knows won it for No, that's only possible if you're claiming that the Don't Knows had swung to Yes the week before. The reality is it was a very split vote and the polls accurately represented that . . . just as they did in 2016 when many polls gave Brexit the lead, even though many final polls gave Remain the lead.
We aren't at the final poll stage. There is absolutely zero justification for looking at the poll that suits you rather than all of them. Indeed the fact is that No were in the lead in more polls than Yes were.
No I am absolutely correct.
Not one poll in the final week in the Quebec referendum had No ahead, Opinium, TNS and Yougov all had at least 1 poll with Leave ahead in the final week in 2016.
One dog that won't bark is the Supreme court this election cycle. The conservative majority is basically secure for the 2020 - 2024 cycle. Was a much bigger issue in 2016 and a driver of some GOP turnout amongst those who might not be a fan of Trump personally.
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
Race however is important for people's sense of identity, because other people have made it important, so somehow those identities have to be decided. Who decides?
There's an interesting book by a guy who grew up in Burundi, where they were the "white kids" because their Dad was European. In France they're black, of course. So who decides?
This comes back to the argument Rowling put herself into. She's been told that she can't define her own identity as a woman, because other people are telling her what it has to be. Why is it that people born and brought up as men are the people who decide what a female identity is?
I've grown up with the idea that there are only minimal intrinsic differences between the genders, beyond the reproductive essentials. So if someone wants to switch from one to the other it doesn't make much difference to me.
But it means I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body. I don't think that's a useful message for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes.
"I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body."
It can`t - it`s nonsense. It`s a psychiatric condition, gender dysphoria, and is about what people "feel" rather than facts - i.e. it can`t be disproved by evidence. A non-falsifiable claim if you like.
Kinabalu thinks we should pander to this. I don`t.
Not pander. Treat in the way that is best for the afflicted and harms no-one else. The alternative of denying the condition and the treatment would bring misery to many and would also be going backwards since the right to transgender has been recognized for some time.
There’s been a right to transition gender for some time, that is true.
The notion that one can choose their own gender, and then without any actual medical treatment or surgery have the ‘right’ to invade women’s safe spaces such as changing rooms and sporting competitions, is quite recent.
It’s actually possible to pinpoint the date when the recent trans stuff started in the USA, it was 27th June 2015, the day after the Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal. For the woke campaigners, trans issues were simply next on the list after they ‘won’ gay marriage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
There does need to be protections around women's sport and in one or two other areas. And there does need to be a (not self) diagnosis of dysphoria. I'm not on the extreme edge of this debate. But the idea that people will be switching in and out of genders at the drop of a hat, or that men will ID as women purely in order to invade female changing rooms and toilets is scaremongering. You mention gay rights and it is relevant in that this sort of stuff is similar to that used by antis to fight that battle. They lost but it was effective for quite some time in delaying the defeat. So they are giving it another whirl here.
I agree with you on this. The toilet/sport issue is a curious one for me. The differentiation between sex and gender is a newish construct. Toilets and sports have always been along sex lines, not gender. Obvious when you think about it - gender didn`t exist before the 50s when it was invented.
I have similar feelings. I get irritated at the gender issue for most of things in life because it just shouldn't matter. Even sex. I might fancy a male or female, but that tells you nothing about my gender. Your sex/gender is irrelevant for just about everything in life or at least no more important than your age, your race, the colour of your hair, whether you are fat or thin etc eg when addressing letters for instance, so why do we say Mr., Ms, etc and no reference to anything else. Just historic.
BUT sport has me beat. You have to have that split as otherwise women will be excluded from many sports and then the issue of trans is unavoidable.
PS Toilets I think we can get over, it is just most gender neutral loos are done badly, causing longer queues for women and queue for the first time for men. You don't have to ban urinals!
Also, race does not impact on pure deep self like gender does. Gender dysphoria - female in a male body and vice versa - is a real condition. There is no equivalent for race. Half black, half japanese "real self" born in a half white, quarter aboriginal, quarter mexican body? Don't think so. Sounds absurd because it IS absurd.
Race however is important for people's sense of identity, because other people have made it important, so somehow those identities have to be decided. Who decides?
There's an interesting book by a guy who grew up in Burundi, where they were the "white kids" because their Dad was European. In France they're black, of course. So who decides?
This comes back to the argument Rowling put herself into. She's been told that she can't define her own identity as a woman, because other people are telling her what it has to be. Why is it that people born and brought up as men are the people who decide what a female identity is?
I've grown up with the idea that there are only minimal intrinsic differences between the genders, beyond the reproductive essentials. So if someone wants to switch from one to the other it doesn't make much difference to me.
But it means I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body. I don't think that's a useful message for kids who don't fit into gender stereotypes.
"I struggle with the concept that the differences are so large that your mind can have a gender that doesn't match your body."
It can`t - it`s nonsense. It`s a psychiatric condition, gender dysphoria, and is about what people "feel" rather than facts - i.e. it can`t be disproved by evidence. A non-falsifiable claim if you like.
Kinabalu thinks we should pander to this. I don`t.
Not pander. Treat in the way that is best for the afflicted and harms no-one else. The alternative of denying the condition and the treatment would bring misery to many and would also be going backwards since the right to transgender has been recognized for some time.
There’s been a right to transition gender for some time, that is true.
The notion that one can choose their own gender, and then without any actual medical treatment or surgery have the ‘right’ to invade women’s safe spaces such as changing rooms and sporting competitions, is quite recent.
It’s actually possible to pinpoint the date when the recent trans stuff started in the USA, it was 27th June 2015, the day after the Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal. For the woke campaigners, trans issues were simply next on the list after they ‘won’ gay marriage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
There does need to be protections around women's sport and in one or two other areas. And there does need to be a (not self) diagnosis of dysphoria. I'm not on the extreme edge of this debate. But the idea that people will be switching in and out of genders at the drop of a hat, or that men will ID as women purely in order to invade female changing rooms and toilets is scaremongering. You mention gay rights and it is relevant in that this sort of stuff is similar to that used by antis to fight that battle. They lost but it was effective for quite some time in delaying the defeat. So they are giving it another whirl here.
I agree with you on this. The toilet/sport issue is a curious one for me. The differentiation between sex and gender is a newish construct. Toilets and sports have always been along sex lines, not gender. Obvious when you think about it - gender didn`t exist before the 50s when it was invented.
Comments
(And no doubt I'm just as bad on other matters).
The clue that they were planning to dispose of one was when The Fireplace Salesman said they wouldn't due to the demands of Brexit.
I'm off to Waitrose to do a Fish Friday for me lunch - with 20% knocked off, if I can find my card.
Also seats the Tories still narrowly hold despite big Remain votes
I get the impression he is still looking for some of his wedges and missing live audiences to try them out on.
All surveys released so far have his lead at +9 or better.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/national/
The notion that one can choose their own gender, and then without any actual medical treatment or surgery have the ‘right’ to invade women’s safe spaces such as changing rooms and sporting competitions, is quite recent.
It’s actually possible to pinpoint the date when the recent trans stuff started in the USA, it was 27th June 2015, the day after the Supreme Court ruled gay marriage legal. For the woke campaigners, trans issues were simply next on the list after they ‘won’ gay marriage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
So unless 7% of voters are now going third party, up from 6% in 2016 there could still be a lot of 'silent' Trump voters
And then I worry again.
FPT: The American War in Vietnam was quite wrong, as eventually nearly all Americans came to conclude. Remembering the heroism of individuals is a bit like recognising the heroism of the Black and Tans.
And then they just... didn't. Which came as a surprise even though it was exactly what everything seemed to be saying.
Feel free to unskew those.
I still think Trumpton will win.
But it’s hard to find any evidence for that view, other than my instinctive pessimism.
But if the message is not appealing, it doesn’t matter how much you spend on it.
This is worse expectation management than Gore vs Bush.
'Trump himself expected, based on polling, to lose the election, and rented a small hotel ballroom to make a brief concession speech; "I said if we're going to lose I don't want a big ballroom", he later remarked.
Clinton was unable to make a public concession that night, as she had no concession speech written.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election#Election_night
But what was key is they had this enormous device for cutting net cables that they dragged behind them and the key bit is that these were fitted to all the large Icelandic trawlers. The distance between a fishing boat and their nets and the length of the cutting device cable crossing the net cables and the fact that Iceland could put so many out to sea meant it was impossible to protect the British trawlers from having their nets cut. They might not even see the trawler cutting their nets. Well that is the Icelander's story anyway.
Not so for gender. Even if the patriarchy were to crumble, if women were to become fully emancipated and attain equal rights and power in every area of life, if we were to become truly gender blind, as it were, gender would remain an integral and fundamental part of an individual's identity. There is no difference between a black man and a white man. There is - and will always be - a difference between a black man and a black woman.
This - what I'm saying here - plays both for and against what JK Rowling is driving at if you think about it.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1301822074982404096?s=20
Expecting a 'Well, England didn't want to be in a Union with Scotland ANYWAY!' from him after Indy Ref II.
The Magic Circle firm's policy permits its 5,200 staff around the world to work remotely for up to half of their time, provided they tell their teams in advance and subject to operational roles being fulfilled. The firm said its decision was intended to apply beyond the Covid-19 restrictions.
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/linklaters-tells-staff-they-can-work-remotely-50-time-setting-city-bar
(Interesting passage however)
Five day fortnight WFH is the way forward.
Meanwhile Trump was still holding a final rally in Michigan at midnight on eve of poll
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQdwG1xf5dg
Along those lines, he seems incapable of campaigning as an incumbent.
... Trump’s visit to Kenosha was notable because it had an actual political and policy goal. He was clearly concerned by the widespread criticism that it was ludicrous for an incumbent to point to the chaos engulfing the country on his watch and argue it was actually a harbinger of things to come if his opponent was elected. (The best distillation of the absurdity of this argument was a tweet by Students for Trump that showed the president standing in front of a building burned to the ground with the caption, “President @realDonaldTrump tours what Biden will do to America.”)...
... Presidents don’t always have policy tools at their disposal, but they find other ways to ease tensions during a crisis. This is not Trump’s strength, which became clear during remarks with reporters before he left for Kenosha and on the ground touring areas damaged in riots and at a roundtable discussion with local leaders.
The contrast with the account of Biden’s visit which follows is marked
Let's see how Donald Trump handles it this time.
Comparing to 2016 would probably make you think that Biden is nailed on.
https://www.facebook.com/bbcradioscotland/videos/how-to-make-chippy-sauce/2079615688948603/
Most are fearful that the odious Trumpton will sneak in again via the back door.
From current polling I just don't see Trump gaining 3-4% of the left over 7, some will still fall over to Biden.
When he turns up and performs adequately, he’ll likely then be awarded the win.
And it’s not as though Trump’s camp aren’t expecting the debates to happen:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/trump-biden-presidential-debate-prep-408651
I’m not convinced the Republicans have a coherent theory of this campaign.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1181a12016Election.pdf
Edit: cutting nets would be very much frowned upon today (after that Sir D. Attenborough TV series). Tangling up whales, etc. Not good optics.
Was this ship in a museum, BTW? I adore preserved ships and had been thinking of an Icelandic hols (for other reasons).
Yes, the risk of that strategy is that Biden has a low bar to get over in the debates.
Both of them managed to mumble and stumble through speeches last week, I’m not sure either of them are close to mentally cognisant. @Morris_Dancer said it best right at the start of this thread.
In the 2 months during the campaign there were 23 polls of which 13 gave a No lead, 9 gave a Yes lead and 1 had a tie.
The polling average across those polls of Yes 42.6 and No 43.8 - converting that to a 100% share that becomes Yes 49.3 to No 50.7 - compared with the actual results of Yes 49.42 and No 50.58
There is absolutely no evidence here that Don't Knows influenced the vote at all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54027229
Co-Op to create 1,000 jobs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54026218
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698
Leger Yes 47% No 41% Don't Knows 6%
SOM Yes 46% No 40% Don't Knows 14%
Angus Reid Yes 48% No 44% Don't Knows 8%
No won 51% to 49%
So as I correctly said don't knows won it for No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum
https://reykjavikcitymuseum.is/reykjavik-maritime-museum/odinn
which must be it. Duly noted.
This cutter is what you were talking about, I take it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-41122728
Better than nothing, but not something to celebrate.
Headline - 11
7 Days - 9
Yesterday - 0
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1301868396955533319
If the don't knows won it for No, that's only possible if you're claiming that the Don't Knows had swung to Yes the week before. The reality is it was a very split vote and the polls accurately represented that . . . just as they did in 2016 when many polls gave Brexit the lead, even though many final polls gave Remain the lead.
We aren't at the final poll stage. There is absolutely zero justification for looking at the poll that suits you rather than all of them. Indeed the fact is that No were in the lead in more polls than Yes were.
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1301584123627286528
Not one poll in the final week in the Quebec referendum had No ahead, Opinium, TNS and Yougov all had at least 1 poll with Leave ahead in the final week in 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
However we already have one Trump election to compare with and his polling now is little different to then
shows that the community level is unchanging
shows we are finding more cases.
Edited - they are talking in the report about the latest update of the ONS survey, which shows no change...
BUT sport has me beat. You have to have that split as otherwise women will be excluded from many sports and then the issue of trans is unavoidable.
PS Toilets I think we can get over, it is just most gender neutral loos are done badly, causing longer queues for women and queue for the first time for men. You don't have to ban urinals!