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.
Depends what you mean by secure, as far as conservatives are concerned Trump's picks haven't inspired confidence. Another justice kicking the bucket between now and November could impact the race, but that might not necessarily be to Trump's advantage.
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.
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.
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.
However we already have one Trump election to compare with and his polling now is little different to then
Glad that you are moving on from saying 3 opinion polls from an independence referendum in the 90s in Quebec have any predictive power for the coming US presidential election.
However, the polling is not "little different" to this stage in 2016: The first days of September 2016 Clinton's 538 average was just over 42% 2020 Biden's average first days of September: just over 50%
Isn't one of the reasons that in the past you were constrained by your background. Your dad went down the pit so you did (no matter how bright you were), then flourished say in the union.
Now those kids have a better chance of escaping. get their degree and go into a non working class job.
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.
I think the prospect of replacing RBG with another Kavanaugh will be a strong motivation for many voters.
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
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.
TG was a sex change, then, in old money. Those were the days. And yes, a quick wiki confirms what you say. John Money. 1955. Not what one instinctively expects to have come out of 1950s "Happy Days" America. Although he was NZ born, I see. Sounds an interesting guy. I might delve a little more.
So reality is once again at odds with what a lot of the press, politicians, and rent-a-gobs have been saying.
This is what I have been saying here -
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...
Further, at the current rate, with a very few days, the case numbers will reach the levels of the estimated infection rate. That is, we will be finding the vast majority of *all* infections occurring.
So reality is once again at odds with what a lot of the press, politicians, and rent-a-gobs have been saying.
This is what I have been saying here -
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...
Further, at the current rate, with a very few days, the case numbers will reach the levels of the estimated infection rate. That is, we will be finding the vast majority of *all* infections occurring.
As I said last night, Test and Trace have done an absolutely fantastic job in this country. We should be very grateful to them.
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.
I know. It's a shame so few people in the media and politics are either unable or unwilling to make a similar effort to understand what is going on. We have endless ill-informed speculation and criticism of the government's response, when the data and easy to read reports are regularly made public and in many cases show the criticism to be nonsensical.
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.
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.
I think the prospect of replacing RBG with another Kavanaugh will be a strong motivation for many voters.
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
Both of Clinton’s appointees are over 80. If Trump wins again then there’s a reasonable chance the court would be 7-2 in terms of R vs D appointees by 2024. Given the age of the current justices, a Trump win this time cements a conservative majority for probably the next two decades. It’s a bigly huge election from a SC perspective.
Does this strengthen the case for Scottish Independence?
Big news, absolutely nothing you do makes ha'pence worth o' difference either way. Of course if you choose to come up and campaign during indy ref II in a cloud of your own gas, that might change.
Further, at the current rate, with a very few days, the case numbers will reach the levels of the estimated infection rate. That is, we will be finding the vast majority of *all* infections occurring.
I'm damn near certain there will still be lots of stories about how terrible testing is.
David David is a proper tory. Everybody who is a genuine conservative knows that. And so do you.
Never said otherwise did I?
Voting against your party on confidence or supply matters has always been grounds for expulsion. Boris wouldn't be weak over this, if someone votes down supply they would be expelled.
David Davis may be a "proper Tory" whatever that means but he's also a bit of a has-been and not particularly talented.
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.
yep that is the boat and the cutter, although it looks like a baby one to me!
It's been an interesting line of thought as to what might happen post-Brexit - and with unfortunate ecological consequences, even if the trawler skippers are not commissioned into the RNR but deploy their own cutters.
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.
Depends what you mean by secure, as far as conservatives are concerned Trump's picks haven't inspired confidence. Another justice kicking the bucket between now and November could impact the race, but that might not necessarily be to Trump's advantage.
The Dems need to find a subtle way of pointing out that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a decade older than Joe Biden, before the Republicans find a not-so-subtle way of saying it to their own supporters.
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.
I think the prospect of replacing RBG with another Kavanaugh will be a strong motivation for many voters.
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
Both of Clinton’s appointees are over 80. If Trump wins again then there’s a reasonable chance the court would be 7-2 in terms of R vs D appointees by 2024. Given the age of the current justices, a Trump win this time cements a conservative majority for probably the next two decades. It’s a bigly huge election from a SC perspective.
Poll on Americans top concerns. Ignore their comments about the Communist virus, there are some good detail in the cross tabs, which are shown at the end. 36% Democrat, 32% Republican weighting
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.
I think the prospect of replacing RBG with another Kavanaugh will be a strong motivation for many voters.
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
Both of Clinton’s appointees are over 80. If Trump wins again then there’s a reasonable chance the court would be 7-2 in terms of R vs D appointees by 2024. Given the age of the current justices, a Trump win this time cements a conservative majority for probably the next two decades. It’s a bigly huge election from a SC perspective.
Further, at the current rate, with a very few days, the case numbers will reach the levels of the estimated infection rate. That is, we will be finding the vast majority of *all* infections occurring.
I'm damn near certain there will still be lots of stories about how terrible testing is.
Any human interaction with a system on a scale of 100Ks per day will generate bad stories.
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.
I think the prospect of replacing RBG with another Kavanaugh will be a strong motivation for many voters.
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
Both of Clinton’s appointees are over 80. If Trump wins again then there’s a reasonable chance the court would be 7-2 in terms of R vs D appointees by 2024. Given the age of the current justices, a Trump win this time cements a conservative majority for probably the next two decades. It’s a bigly huge election from a SC perspective.
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.
I think the prospect of replacing RBG with another Kavanaugh will be a strong motivation for many voters.
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
Also, some of the SC decisions have been disappointing for conservatives. Roberts is now seen as unreliable so they would want to have 1 or 2 more justices on there (especially as Thomas is getting on)
The Tory Party was never the party of the working class as Labour was set up to be, though the Tories did better with skilled working class than middle class voters in 2019 for the first time ever
Does this strengthen the case for Scottish Independence?
Big news, absolutely nothing you do makes ha'pence worth o' difference either way. Of course if you choose to come up and campaign during indy ref II in a cloud of your own gas, that might change.
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.
I think the prospect of replacing RBG with another Kavanaugh will be a strong motivation for many voters.
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
Both of Clinton’s appointees are over 80. If Trump wins again then there’s a reasonable chance the court would be 7-2 in terms of R vs D appointees by 2024. Given the age of the current justices, a Trump win this time cements a conservative majority for probably the next two decades. It’s a bigly huge election from a SC perspective.
*If* the Democrats win control of the House and the Senate, could they not vote down any conservative nomination from Trump? It would be very divisive, but the Republicans in 2016 fillibustered Obama's nominee using the argument that the deceased Scalia was much more conservative than the nominee.
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!
I'm broadly in tune with the sentiments. BUT -
I think - but by definition cannot prove - that there is a deep and fundamental difference in the lived experience of men and women. That this difference is profound and intrinsic in a way that other human differences, between races, between classes, between rich and poor, young and old, are not.
It can't be proved or disproved because a male (me) cannot access the female essence to confirm or otherwise. And neither is the opposite possible. So - the perfect theory for an internet forum.
This (if true) supports Rowling in her view that femaleness is something special and accessible only to females.
But it also supports the TG side of the debate because if gender IS so deep and special, it only makes it more imperative that a person trapped in the wrong one is allowed to escape it without too many barriers.
Sunak can get away with raising corporation tax and equating CGT rates with income tax rates with a limited rebellion of Davis and a few others but if he raises VAT, income tax or NI in breach of the Tory manifesto promise not to there will be a huge rebellion, over 100 Tory MPs will vote it down, Sunak knows that which is why he won't
Does this strengthen the case for Scottish Independence?
Big news, absolutely nothing you do makes ha'pence worth o' difference either way. Of course if you choose to come up and campaign during indy ref II in a cloud of your own gas, that might change.
Can I come door knocking with you?
Was that a Frankie Howerd quote, or was it Kenneth Williams?
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.
I think the prospect of replacing RBG with another Kavanaugh will be a strong motivation for many voters.
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
Both of Clinton’s appointees are over 80. If Trump wins again then there’s a reasonable chance the court would be 7-2 in terms of R vs D appointees by 2024. Given the age of the current justices, a Trump win this time cements a conservative majority for probably the next two decades. It’s a bigly huge election from a SC perspective.
*If* the Democrats win control of the House and the Senate, could they not vote down any conservative nomination from Trump? It would be very divisive, but the Republicans in 2016 fillibustered Obama's nominee using the argument that the deceased Scalia was much more conservative than the nominee.
That would have to be after January 20th 2021 and there's no guarrantee that the Dems can take the Senate even if Biden wins.
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.
I think the prospect of replacing RBG with another Kavanaugh will be a strong motivation for many voters.
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
Also, some of the SC decisions have been disappointing for conservatives. Roberts is now seen as unreliable so they would want to have 1 or 2 more justices on there (especially as Thomas is getting on)
Roberts and Gorsuch seem capable of independent thought which is bad news for Trumpton.
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.
I think the prospect of replacing RBG with another Kavanaugh will be a strong motivation for many voters.
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
Both of Clinton’s appointees are over 80. If Trump wins again then there’s a reasonable chance the court would be 7-2 in terms of R vs D appointees by 2024. Given the age of the current justices, a Trump win this time cements a conservative majority for probably the next two decades. It’s a bigly huge election from a SC perspective.
*If* the Democrats win control of the House and the Senate, could they not vote down any conservative nomination from Trump? It would be very divisive, but the Republicans in 2016 fillibustered Obama's nominee using the argument that the deceased Scalia was much more conservative than the nominee.
I don't think the House gets a say.
If the Democrats don't take the Presidency, they're probably not taking the Senate either. Especially since if there's a 50/50 split then Pence gets the casting vote, plus some Senators in "purple" states might vote for the nominee.
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.
Further, at the current rate, with a very few days, the case numbers will reach the levels of the estimated infection rate. That is, we will be finding the vast majority of *all* infections occurring.
I'm damn near certain there will still be lots of stories about how terrible testing is.
Any human interaction with a system on a scale of 100Ks per day will generate bad stories.
I was listening to the radio whilst cooking dinner yesterday, and there were lots of listeners texting in with comments about how convenient and fast the testing had been for them, in opposition to the story that was running about how bad testing was.
Obivously the testing goes wrong some times, but on average it seems to be quite effective now. The convergence between the testing figures and the ONS estimates suggest to me that the targetting and prioritisation is working well, even if it does mean that some people in certain areas are inconvenienced and waiting longer.
I expect that the new range of tests coming in over the next month or two will kick off another round of negative stories, even as it makes testing faster, more widely available, and brings it right into the highest priority locations.
Does this strengthen the case for Scottish Independence?
Big news, absolutely nothing you do makes ha'pence worth o' difference either way. Of course if you choose to come up and campaign during indy ref II in a cloud of your own gas, that might change.
Can I come door knocking with you?
Only if you promise to keep away from the chippy sauce, or even more portentously in Glasgow, the curry sauce.
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.
I think the prospect of replacing RBG with another Kavanaugh will be a strong motivation for many voters.
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
Both of Clinton’s appointees are over 80. If Trump wins again then there’s a reasonable chance the court would be 7-2 in terms of R vs D appointees by 2024. Given the age of the current justices, a Trump win this time cements a conservative majority for probably the next two decades. It’s a bigly huge election from a SC perspective.
*If* the Democrats win control of the House and the Senate, could they not vote down any conservative nomination from Trump? It would be very divisive, but the Republicans in 2016 fillibustered Obama's nominee using the argument that the deceased Scalia was much more conservative than the nominee.
Perhaps, but in the long-term that would end badly for the Democrats given the centre of gravity of the Senate.
Does this strengthen the case for Scottish Independence?
Big news, absolutely nothing you do makes ha'pence worth o' difference either way. Of course if you choose to come up and campaign during indy ref II in a cloud of your own gas, that might change.
Can I come door knocking with you?
Only if you promise to keep away from the chippy sauce, or even more portentously in Glasgow, the curry sauce.
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.
I think the prospect of replacing RBG with another Kavanaugh will be a strong motivation for many voters.
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
Both of Clinton’s appointees are over 80. If Trump wins again then there’s a reasonable chance the court would be 7-2 in terms of R vs D appointees by 2024. Given the age of the current justices, a Trump win this time cements a conservative majority for probably the next two decades. It’s a bigly huge election from a SC perspective.
*If* the Democrats win control of the House and the Senate, could they not vote down any conservative nomination from Trump? It would be very divisive, but the Republicans in 2016 fillibustered Obama's nominee using the argument that the deceased Scalia was much more conservative than the nominee.
I don't think the House gets a say.
If the Democrats don't take the Presidency, they're probably not taking the Senate either. Especially since if there's a 50/50 split then Pence gets the casting vote, plus some Senators in "purple" states might vote for the nominee.
Good point. I've just looked at the Senate race map, and I hadn't realised how slim the pickings are for the Democrats this time round. Maine and Colorado might swing blue, but even if they do really well and pick up North Carolina, that is still only a 50-50 split.
Curious that that list only has Labour and Conservative MPs (Williams was Labour/SDP and LD). The question would be a lot more interesting if it was opened up to all British citizens. Any suggestions as to who?
Curious that that list only has Labour and Conservative MPs (Williams was Labour/SDP and LD). The question would be a lot more interesting if it was opened up to all British citizens. Any suggestions as to who?
Salmond/Sturgeon would be kinda interesting. Farage? Lucas?
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.
I think the prospect of replacing RBG with another Kavanaugh will be a strong motivation for many voters.
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
Both of Clinton’s appointees are over 80. If Trump wins again then there’s a reasonable chance the court would be 7-2 in terms of R vs D appointees by 2024. Given the age of the current justices, a Trump win this time cements a conservative majority for probably the next two decades. It’s a bigly huge election from a SC perspective.
*If* the Democrats win control of the House and the Senate, could they not vote down any conservative nomination from Trump? It would be very divisive, but the Republicans in 2016 fillibustered Obama's nominee using the argument that the deceased Scalia was much more conservative than the nominee.
I don't think the House gets a say.
If the Democrats don't take the Presidency, they're probably not taking the Senate either. Especially since if there's a 50/50 split then Pence gets the casting vote, plus some Senators in "purple" states might vote for the nominee.
Good point. I've just looked at the Senate race map, and I hadn't realised how slim the pickings are for the Democrats this time round. Maine and Colorado might swing blue, but even if they do really well and pick up North Carolina, that is still only a 50-50 split.
Not just this time round, every time round. The par score in the Senate using the Cook PVI is 55-45 to the Republicans.
And although Democrats might be excited by the long-term trends in Texas, it will actually make this worse, because if Texas flips it will probably be balanced by the smaller mid-western states moving the other way, strengthening the Republican advantage in the Senate.
But beware, it is a national sample size of only 215 voters. Restrict that to only swing states and considering the higher variance associated with smaller populations (in this case Johnson+Stein voters), it makes it hard to conclude much from those figures.
Curious that that list only has Labour and Conservative MPs (Williams was Labour/SDP and LD). The question would be a lot more interesting if it was opened up to all British citizens. Any suggestions as to who?
Salmond/Sturgeon would be kinda interesting. Farage? Lucas?
Trump ahead by 3 in Florida apparently. Trafalgar life.
Could Florida be Trump's Putney?
Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear. It does this by not only asking respondents how they plan to vote but also how they thought their neighbors might vote
Curious that that list only has Labour and Conservative MPs (Williams was Labour/SDP and LD). The question would be a lot more interesting if it was opened up to all British citizens. Any suggestions as to who?
I thought the question was based on credible leadership contenders who were in parliament?
I think if you fully opened it up you'd get Jeremy Clarkson, Martin Lewis and David Attenborough type stuff.
Killed by police as they attempted to arrest him apparently !
Things have really gone to shit in the US, haven't they?
He should have probably handed himself in to the police (As Rittenhouse did), might have been worried they'd shoot him though. A justified fear perhaps ! The question is was the shooting self defense by the police or an actual errm.. execution ?
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.
It’s not a zero sum game. We have a choice. “Fishing”, which affects a tiny, tiny minority of people, and a better chance of a deal.
You guys have an obsession with something that is just not important. On the hierarchy of “what people care about”, people want cheap consumer goods, and they want full supermarket shelves.
The majority will not be willing to trade the hypothetical concept of an “independent fishing policy” for the possible reality of lorries piling up in Dover and causing trade issues.
If you suggest otherwise, you’re deluded. You just are. Go out and speak to people.
If the choice is between screwing over a minority or getting a deal, I choose no deal.
The country will have full supermarket shelves and cheap consumer goods either way.
That isn't the choice, though. The choice is between the interests of different groups.
Now I accept deep sea fishermen would win from a No Deal. They can catch considerably more fish and be able to sell enough of it even with EU tariffs to come out ahead.
Deep sea fishermen are a minority albeit a high profile one within the UK fishing industry. The rest of the industry loses out if there is No Deal. You would be compromising their interest for those of Deep Sea fishermen. Which is a reasonable thing to do but that is the choice you are making.
If there is No Deal that has negative consequences for almost everyone else outside fishing. You would be compromising the interest of the vast majority for that of a tiny minority. Again you can choose to do this, but I suggest it is getting increasingly difficult to justify.
Thank goodness for someone sensible.
I think that's a tad gamey from someone who supports Scottish independence. The thought leaders of the indy movement are very much pushing a 'rip the plaster off', 'long term gain for (implied) short term pain' argument to support independence. It's hard to agree with that but argue that proponents of a no deal Brexit have lost their senses.
Curious that that list only has Labour and Conservative MPs (Williams was Labour/SDP and LD). The question would be a lot more interesting if it was opened up to all British citizens. Any suggestions as to who?
I thought the question was based on credible leadership contenders who were in parliament?
I think if you fully opened it up you'd get Jeremy Clarkson, Martin Lewis and David Attenborough type stuff.
Ant and Dec would win, joint premiership for next twenty years.
Given how good, easy and local testing is currently supposed to be I just went to see how close my nearest open test centre is - It's 51 miles away and the earliest date is Tuesday.
Comments
During the final 2 months of the campaign 13 polls had No in the lead.
The average over those 2 months was pretty much spot on perfect.
However, the polling is not "little different" to this stage in 2016:
The first days of September 2016 Clinton's 538 average was just over 42%
2020 Biden's average first days of September: just over 50%
License fee
Indy Ref 2
EU
Now those kids have a better chance of escaping. get their degree and go into a non working class job.
Does this strengthen the case for Scottish Independence?
It's one of the few things that Trump can point to and truthfully say that he delivered for his voters.
Big beast, solid on brexit, council house boy, proper conservative. Maybe he sniffs a chance after all these years.
No great loss to the party if he goes.
If it smells like beans, also yes.
Whoever said there's a shortage of it has no clue.
Voting against your party on confidence or supply matters has always been grounds for expulsion. Boris wouldn't be weak over this, if someone votes down supply they would be expelled.
David Davis may be a "proper Tory" whatever that means but he's also a bit of a has-been and not particularly talented.
https://www.bustle.com/p/can-congress-change-the-number-of-supreme-court-justices-it-hasnt-always-been-nine-12219225
https://www.theepochtimes.com/economy-tops-ccp-virus-as-main-concern-for-voters-poll_3487110.html?utm_source=CCPVirusNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-09-04
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/poll-third-party-voters-2016-are-backing-biden-2-1-n1238841
Let me summon my creative muse...
I think - but by definition cannot prove - that there is a deep and fundamental difference in the lived experience of men and women. That this difference is profound and intrinsic in a way that other human differences, between races, between classes, between rich and poor, young and old, are not.
It can't be proved or disproved because a male (me) cannot access the female essence to confirm or otherwise. And neither is the opposite possible. So - the perfect theory for an internet forum.
This (if true) supports Rowling in her view that femaleness is something special and accessible only to females.
But it also supports the TG side of the debate because if gender IS so deep and special, it only makes it more imperative that a person trapped in the wrong one is allowed to escape it without too many barriers.
If the Democrats don't take the Presidency, they're probably not taking the Senate either. Especially since if there's a 50/50 split then Pence gets the casting vote, plus some Senators in "purple" states might vote for the nominee.
https://youtu.be/FsOytZMRXo0
*the sort of programme that would disappear without the license fee.
Oh the horror.
Obivously the testing goes wrong some times, but on average it seems to be quite effective now. The convergence between the testing figures and the ONS estimates suggest to me that the targetting and prioritisation is working well, even if it does mean that some people in certain areas are inconvenienced and waiting longer.
I expect that the new range of tests coming in over the next month or two will kick off another round of negative stories, even as it makes testing faster, more widely available, and brings it right into the highest priority locations.
featuring Johnson u-turning on mundane matters like taking a crap and brushing his teeth on the slightest of pretexts
''after long consultation on the ethics of taking a sh8t at this time.....''
https://twitter.com/NoahHurowitz/status/1301873210988822528
Powell would surely have been much higher rated 30 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=fsDWXx5tYfk&feature=emb_logo
Killed by police as they attempted to arrest him apparently
And although Democrats might be excited by the long-term trends in Texas, it will actually make this worse, because if Texas flips it will probably be balanced by the smaller mid-western states moving the other way, strengthening the Republican advantage in the Senate.
I think if you fully opened it up you'd get Jeremy Clarkson, Martin Lewis and David Attenborough type stuff.
A doughnut?
Or you want Boris to turn into Hunt once he's won.
Neither of them can do what the other can.
Rishi might be able to do both.
The question is was the shooting self defense by the police or an actual errm.. execution ?
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1301233086122864640?s=09