They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
It wasn't laws that got the teacher in France beheaded was it?
It's the threat of violence from these groups which mean people will be too scared to show those cartoons again in future.
Of course if the election was based on the more natural process of the winner being the candidate who gets most votes then we would hardly be discussing it tonight, we'd all be rearranging our sock drawers or washing our hair or something equally pressing.
Admittedly what we have instead is vastly more entertaining from a betting angle but if Trump manages to game the system again then the system is well and truly broken as it will have delivered the "wrong" result 3 times out the last 8.
The GOP knows it's chances of winning a national vote these days are slim having lost 7 of the last 8 POTUS PVs. That is why we are witnessing them putting more and more effort into stopping people voting, throwing votes out, preventing mail ballots being counted and so on. Where will it all end up, it's certainly no longer a democracy as we understand it in the UK.
There is no reason the GOP could not win the popular vote in a presidential election if they picked a more moderate candidate eg McCain led Gore by a huge 59% to 35% margin in a February 2000 poll and John Kasich led Hillary Clinton by a 7.4% margin in head to heads in April 2016 (McCain's widow and Kasich have notably endorsed Biden this year v Trump).
It is just the base know they can get away with populist right candidates who can win the EC even if they lose the EC as George W Bush did in 2000 and Trump even more so in 2016. If the GOP starts to lose elections in the EC and by a big margin having nominated a hard right candidate then they will have no choice but to move to a more moderate candidate to win
The thing is that the Democrats lead in the popular vote is somewhat artificially inflated because Republicans living in California or New York or Illinois know there is not a cat in hell's chance that a Republican will win in these states at the Presidential level which means the election apparatus atrophies and people don't come out to vote.
The same argument could be applied to Democrats in Alabama and the like.
Plus, there have historically been a lot of competitive down ticket races, and California has some pretty important ballot initiatives.
(I would point out that President Trump's completely petty blocking of the California's desire to abolish Summer Time - Prop 7 in 2018 - has gone down like a bag of sick here. It'd be like the UK having a referendum on getting rid of summer time, and Brussels saying "Non" because it's California.)
Out of interest, why is abolishing DST popular in CA?
If there were simultaneous attacks in 6 locations by highly armed men (and in the video they look like trained gunmen) then Vienna will have escaped very lightly if it only endures ‘several wounded’. We shall see.
If there were simultaneous attacks in 6 locations by highly armed men (and in the video they look like trained gunmen) then Vienna will have escaped very lightly if it only endures ‘several wounded’. We shall see.
They don't look to have been simultaneous. It looks to have been a rolling set of incidents
Now, he has called Nevada for Biden at 49-45 with 6% DK / Others. Not sure I agree with him on the 6% DKs but, if he is right, that's a swing of <1% to Biden from 2016.
So, first of all, at least there (and we can argue if NV is typical), it's not much of a swing.
The more interesting part may be in what the Rurals are doing.
When Ralston started his blog, his view was that the Democrats would want to have a firewall in the high-80000s in Clark to feel confident about victory. His rationale now was that lead would mean something like a 54K statewide going into Election Day.
The Dems have that 89K firewall from Clark but it has only translated into a 47K state firewall. Why? Because the rural areas have come out a lot more strongly for Trump than anticipated. Trump's advantage in 2016 in rural areas was 58K. Ralston thinks it could get to 80K and possibly more.
Is it enough to win NV? Probably not (but depends on independents) but what it might suggest is that poorer whites are coming out in greater numbers than anticipated. And there is nothing particularly special about NV that suggests its more rural elements are unique. That might be relevant for other states.
The other question is whether this is being picked up in the polls. If the polling is based off 2016 turnout, the answer is probably not which raises the question (again) of whether white non-college voters are being undercounted. Which would throw the polling into doubt.</p>
I do wonder how on earth the american comedic media will respond if Trump does win. As much as I dislike Trump, it was almost embarrassing how some of them reacted in their shock last time, and of course some have been obsessively hating Trump for 4 years, and if he were to still succeed?
The assumption appears to be Islamist. I can understand that but it is, you know, presumptious.
Indeed, it’s not confirmed yet.
In the videos the attackers are all wearing white jumpsuits. Like hazmat suits. Very odd. Is it just possible they are far right opponents of lockdown laws?
The way they randomly shoot bystanders says jihadists, to me. But again: TBC
I do wonder how on earth the american comedic media will respond if Trump does win. As much as I dislike Trump, it was almost embarrassing how some of them reacted in their shock last time, and of course some have been obsessively hating Trump for 4 years, and if he were to still succeed?
A lot of it has become really unfunny. John Oliver's show is literally Orange Man Bad for 75% of it these days.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
You can however, have de facto blasphemy laws, like the one that the Scottish government is about to implement. You establish the right not to be offended, so as to clamp down on those who are deemed to have given offence.
Namibia was the name of the African country that Trump 'invented' in an interview.
"Nambia". Was nice about it though, unlike the "shithole" countries he saw elsewhere in Africa.
They are shitholes all right. Trust me on this. The classic test is whether the leader and his immediate family get their medical treatment at home or abroad.
The assumption appears to be Islamist. I can understand that but it is, you know, presumptious.
Indeed, it’s not confirmed yet.
In the videos the attackers are all wearing white jumpsuits. Like hazmat suits. Very odd. Is it just possible they are far right opponents of lockdown laws?
The way they randomly shoot bystanders says jihadists, to me. But again: TBC
There are videos all over twitter of the attackers shouting out exactly what an Islamic terrorist would shout.
The assumption appears to be Islamist. I can understand that but it is, you know, presumptious.
Indeed, it’s not confirmed yet.
In the videos the attackers are all wearing white jumpsuits. Like hazmat suits. Very odd. Is it just possible they are far right opponents of lockdown laws?
The way they randomly shoot bystanders says jihadists, to me. But again: TBC
There are videos all over twitter of the attackers shouting out exactly what an Islamic terrorist would shout.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
Possibly at about the same level as deaths from Covid-19 in February 2020?
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
You can however, have de facto blasphemy laws, like the one that the Scottish government is about to implement. You establish the right not to be offended, so as to clamp down on those who are deemed to have given offence.
Which leads to silence in the public space and hushed whispers in the private space.
Of course if the election was based on the more natural process of the winner being the candidate who gets most votes then we would hardly be discussing it tonight, we'd all be rearranging our sock drawers or washing our hair or something equally pressing.
Admittedly what we have instead is vastly more entertaining from a betting angle but if Trump manages to game the system again then the system is well and truly broken as it will have delivered the "wrong" result 3 times out the last 8.
The GOP knows it's chances of winning a national vote these days are slim having lost 7 of the last 8 POTUS PVs. That is why we are witnessing them putting more and more effort into stopping people voting, throwing votes out, preventing mail ballots being counted and so on. Where will it all end up, it's certainly no longer a democracy as we understand it in the UK.
There is no reason the GOP could not win the popular vote in a presidential election if they picked a more moderate candidate eg McCain led Gore by a huge 59% to 35% margin in a February 2000 poll and John Kasich led Hillary Clinton by a 7.4% margin in head to heads in April 2016 (McCain's widow and Kasich have notably endorsed Biden this year v Trump).
It is just the base know they can get away with populist right candidates who can win the EC even if they lose the EC as George W Bush did in 2000 and Trump even more so in 2016. If the GOP starts to lose elections in the EC and by a big margin having nominated a hard right candidate then they will have no choice but to move to a more moderate candidate to win
The thing is that the Democrats lead in the popular vote is somewhat artificially inflated because Republicans living in California or New York or Illinois know there is not a cat in hell's chance that a Republican will win in these states at the Presidential level which means the election apparatus atrophies and people don't come out to vote.
Er, the same applied in reverse in TX until Democrats came out and voted and made the state competitive.
It also applies in a lot of fairly populous states where the GOP are a shoo-in, eg IN and MO.
Not that I’m defending the Electoral College. It’s great fun for maths geeks and stats nerds and betting fans, but as a way of electing a president over a single territory it’s utterly barmy.
Well, CA has a population of 40m, NY of c. 20m and Illinois 12.7m
Indiana has 6.7m,
The only "safe" Republican states (up to now) in the Top 20 have been TX (#2), Tennessee (#16), Indiana (#17) and Missouri (#18). For argument's sake, I will give you Georgia (#8).
For Democrats, their safe states have been CA (#1), NY (#4), Illinois (#6), New Jersey (#11), Washington (#13), Massachusetts (#15) and Maryland (#19).
The rest are competitive thus sparking turnout.
So in the top 10, there are 3 safe Democrat seats vs 2 Republican ones, in the top 15 it's 6 safe Democrat states vs 2, in the top 20, 7 vs 6.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
You can however, have de facto blasphemy laws, like the one that the Scottish government is about to implement. You establish the right not to be offended, so as to clamp down on those who are deemed to have given offence.
Which leads to silence in the public space and hushed whispers in the private space.
A common feature of...unfree societies.
And eventually a populist winning in the privacy of the polling booth.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
Possibly at about the same level as deaths from Covid-19 in February 2020?
That pesky exponentiation.
Except... oh wait... terrorist deaths aren't increasing exponentially, because humans aren't a virus.
I do wonder how on earth the american comedic media will respond if Trump does win. As much as I dislike Trump, it was almost embarrassing how some of them reacted in their shock last time, and of course some have been obsessively hating Trump for 4 years, and if he were to still succeed?
A lot of it has become really unfunny. John Oliver's show is literally Orange Man Bad for 75% of it these days.
I really do find him very very funny, but on Trump he doesn't even try to be funny. Last time obviously there was no question which side he preferred and fair enough, but this time he just comes right out and says 'vote for Joe Biden' (though I get the impression he's disappointed Biden was picked). I'd do the same, But he's much better when not harping on about how terrible Trump is, both in amusement and informative terms. He got some great funny and outraged moments from it, but even as bad as Trump definitely is a practically weekly update about it is a bit much to have any impact.
I do wonder how on earth the american comedic media will respond if Trump does win. As much as I dislike Trump, it was almost embarrassing how some of them reacted in their shock last time, and of course some have been obsessively hating Trump for 4 years, and if he were to still succeed?
A lot of it has become really unfunny. John Oliver's show is literally Orange Man Bad for 75% of it these days.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
You can however, have de facto blasphemy laws, like the one that the Scottish government is about to implement. You establish the right not to be offended, so as to clamp down on those who are deemed to have given offence.
Which leads to silence in the public space and hushed whispers in the private space.
A common feature of...unfree societies.
Well not even in a private place with the new Scottish law as it even applies when you're at home eating your dinner.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
Possibly at about the same level as deaths from Covid-19 in February 2020?
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
You can however, have de facto blasphemy laws, like the one that the Scottish government is about to implement. You establish the right not to be offended, so as to clamp down on those who are deemed to have given offence.
Which leads to silence in the public space and hushed whispers in the private space.
A common feature of...unfree societies.
Except that isn't what happens.
Indeed criticism of Islam has never been more common than the last few years in our societies.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
You can however, have de facto blasphemy laws, like the one that the Scottish government is about to implement. You establish the right not to be offended, so as to clamp down on those who are deemed to have given offence.
Sadly, a belief in the right not to be offended is something that's really crept in on both the right and the left.
Can you believe that some people actually think there should be government restrictions on what headdresses people are allowed to wear?
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I do wonder how on earth the american comedic media will respond if Trump does win. As much as I dislike Trump, it was almost embarrassing how some of them reacted in their shock last time, and of course some have been obsessively hating Trump for 4 years, and if he were to still succeed?
A lot of it has become really unfunny. John Oliver's show is literally Orange Man Bad for 75% of it these days.
But the Orange Man is Bad.
He is, but its like telling the same joke over and over again. We know the punchline already, and it so it isn't funny.
Its really bizarre how unvolitile the betfair presidency odds have been over the last few days
It is very weird. I suspect there’s one or more big players auto-trading the ticks - the liquidity has suspiciously disappeared after I put a couple of large-ish orders on Biden or against trump.
It’s a gigantic market which will undoubtedly have attracted the pros and their algos.
Ryanair still operating flights in November even though passengers are not allowed to travel. Just so that they don't have to refund their tickets.
Not that I have much sympathy for anyone who has booked a flight in the past 6 months, mind.
Why not?
Putting aside the recklessness of international travel, people knew that the travel rules could change at the drop of a hat. So they can't really complain when exactly that happens.
This is a seriously quality article, of far higher standard than stuff you read on the BBC or “quality” dailies. The Govt have panicked, with tragic consequences for the country.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
You can however, have de facto blasphemy laws, like the one that the Scottish government is about to implement. You establish the right not to be offended, so as to clamp down on those who are deemed to have given offence.
Which leads to silence in the public space and hushed whispers in the private space.
A common feature of...unfree societies.
And eventually a populist winning in the privacy of the polling booth.
Yep. I think Macron has learnt lessons over the last few years.
Were it not for populists in Europe, and the lessons of Brexit and Trump, he'd be far more like Trudeau now.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
You can however, have de facto blasphemy laws, like the one that the Scottish government is about to implement. You establish the right not to be offended, so as to clamp down on those who are deemed to have given offence.
Sadly, a belief in the right not to be offended is something that's really crept in on both the right and the left.
Can you believe that some people actually think there should be government restrictions on what headdresses people are allowed to wear?
I think it's hard to translate one political culture to another.
I consider burkhas ridiculous, but would regard it as excessive to ban them, France has a rather more existential problem, with some people absolutely determined to overturn their culture of laicite.
I do wonder how on earth the american comedic media will respond if Trump does win. As much as I dislike Trump, it was almost embarrassing how some of them reacted in their shock last time, and of course some have been obsessively hating Trump for 4 years, and if he were to still succeed?
A lot of it has become really unfunny. John Oliver's show is literally Orange Man Bad for 75% of it these days.
But the Orange Man is Bad.
He is, but its like telling the same joke over and over again. We know the punchline already, and it so it isn't funny.
It's like BBC "comedy" shows over here on Brexit and the Daily Mail.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I don't see that their reaction being over the top makes doing it irresponsible. It still boils down to being advised to not do it because some people get upset, and a small minority downright murderous. The former reaction is understandable, the latter now, but the former need to get over themselves, not elevate their feelings of hurt to the point others should not be free do do it if they want. No actual harm comes from a cartoon, not even if you are of deep faith (given even people of deep faith are able to rise above that others mocked their faith), so protesting an entire nation because of a cartoon, or a leader defended a cartoon (and along those lines) shouldn't be behaviour which we encourage.
I also take the point made the other day that reactions like this designed to stop any minor action deemed an insult, or halt any criticism, simply leads to people acting irresponsibily as you would call it, as making such cartoons, and doing so gratuitously offensively, will become something people do because of the over the top protests and mobs. They are turning offensive depictions of the prophet into a symbol.
In balancing whether we accept some people being irresponsible and gratuitously offensive for no good reason, vs not feeling safe to act that way, I'll side with the former every time.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
Of course don't do it, even if just out of politeness. Everyone should have respect for people's sensibilities.
But that misses the point completely. The point is that the freedom of a free society includes the freedom not to be polite or respectful.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
You can however, have de facto blasphemy laws, like the one that the Scottish government is about to implement. You establish the right not to be offended, so as to clamp down on those who are deemed to have given offence.
Sadly, a belief in the right not to be offended is something that's really crept in on both the right and the left.
Can you believe that some people actually think there should be government restrictions on what headdresses people are allowed to wear?
I think it's hard to translate one political culture to another.
I consider burkhas ridiculous, but would regard it as excessive to ban them, France has a rather more existential problem, with some people absolutely determined to overturn their culture of laicite.
Oh, I'm completely OK with schools or banks or whoever banning them.
What I'm not OK with is people saying "people should be allowed to say what they like about Islam" and "people shouldn't be allowed to wear a Burqua while walking down the street".
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
Possibly at about the same level as deaths from Covid-19 in February 2020?
That pesky exponentiation.
Except... oh wait... terrorist deaths aren't increasing exponentially, because humans aren't a virus.
Dear me. You think that if all viruses increase exponentially, then everything which increases exponentially must be a virus? Just as all bears shit in the woods, therefore everything which shits in the woods is a bear?
Secondly the analogy is not with humans but with ideas entertained by humans. There were given times in history where you could fit all the Christians, or all the muslims, or all the National Socialists in the world, into one taxi. Some of the growth spurts were a bit steeper than linear.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
I do wonder how on earth the american comedic media will respond if Trump does win. As much as I dislike Trump, it was almost embarrassing how some of them reacted in their shock last time, and of course some have been obsessively hating Trump for 4 years, and if he were to still succeed?
A lot of it has become really unfunny. John Oliver's show is literally Orange Man Bad for 75% of it these days.
But the Orange Man is Bad.
He is, but its like telling the same joke over and over again. We know the punchline already, and it so it isn't funny.
It's like BBC "comedy" shows over here on Brexit and the Daily Mail.
Right...before COVID the smarter comedians on the stand-up circuit had sussed that one out.
I went to see Mark Watson, and his opening line was, you guys come for a nice night out, to forget whats going on the world outside, so this is will be my only mention of Brexit this evening to tell you there are no Brexit gags in this show...to which there was a huge cheer..now onto something where a deal has been actually reached, my divorce.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
You can however, have de facto blasphemy laws, like the one that the Scottish government is about to implement. You establish the right not to be offended, so as to clamp down on those who are deemed to have given offence.
Sadly, a belief in the right not to be offended is something that's really crept in on both the right and the left.
Can you believe that some people actually think there should be government restrictions on what headdresses people are allowed to wear?
Not really but you know perfectly well that the niqab is used as a tool of female repression. That does make it a very difficult issue. Still you're someone who likes holidaying in slave-ridden Dubai.
The assumption appears to be Islamist. I can understand that but it is, you know, presumptious.
Indeed, it’s not confirmed yet.
In the videos the attackers are all wearing white jumpsuits. Like hazmat suits. Very odd. Is it just possible they are far right opponents of lockdown laws?
The way they randomly shoot bystanders says jihadists, to me. But again: TBC
There are videos all over twitter of the attackers shouting out exactly what an Islamic terrorist would shout.
They were in fact demanding the return of Alan's Snack Bar. Formerly just outside Edinburgh Waverly Station, this served the best bacon butties in human history.
Of course if the election was based on the more natural process of the winner being the candidate who gets most votes then we would hardly be discussing it tonight, we'd all be rearranging our sock drawers or washing our hair or something equally pressing.
Admittedly what we have instead is vastly more entertaining from a betting angle but if Trump manages to game the system again then the system is well and truly broken as it will have delivered the "wrong" result 3 times out the last 8.
The GOP knows it's chances of winning a national vote these days are slim having lost 7 of the last 8 POTUS PVs. That is why we are witnessing them putting more and more effort into stopping people voting, throwing votes out, preventing mail ballots being counted and so on. Where will it all end up, it's certainly no longer a democracy as we understand it in the UK.
There is no reason the GOP could not win the popular vote in a presidential election if they picked a more moderate candidate eg McCain led Gore by a huge 59% to 35% margin in a February 2000 poll and John Kasich led Hillary Clinton by a 7.4% margin in head to heads in April 2016 (McCain's widow and Kasich have notably endorsed Biden this year v Trump).
It is just the base know they can get away with populist right candidates who can win the EC even if they lose the EC as George W Bush did in 2000 and Trump even more so in 2016. If the GOP starts to lose elections in the EC and by a big margin having nominated a hard right candidate then they will have no choice but to move to a more moderate candidate to win
Whilst all of that may be true it doesn't alter the fact that if Trump squeaks in tomorrow as I believe you think he will, then 3 of the last 4 GOP Presidential wins will have happened whilst losing the popular vote. That is a broken system in my book.
It might actually benefit the GOP if it had to spend more time trying to win the PV and less time trying to pull every trick in the book to stop their opponents voting or their votes being counted. It would certainly benefit the country
No one should feel such fear at the opposite side winning, it is a dark path when nations do that, particularly when they are right to fear. I'd be interested what the equivalent is like here. I suspect similar on the anger and devastation, not so high on fear.
Ryanair still operating flights in November even though passengers are not allowed to travel. Just so that they don't have to refund their tickets.
Not that I have much sympathy for anyone who has booked a flight in the past 6 months, mind.
Why not?
Putting aside the recklessness of international travel, people knew that the travel rules could change at the drop of a hat. So they can't really complain when exactly that happens.
Lots of people have very good reasons to travel. I haven’t done so myself because I’m not in that position.
You strike me as having absolutely no empathy with those who aren’t in your privileged position of being able to cocoon themselves inside for months on end while lecturing others on their “selfishness”.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
Of course don't do it, even if just out of politeness. Everyone should have respect for people's sensibilities.
But that misses the point completely. The point is that the freedom of a free society includes the freedom not to be polite or respectful.
Yet we know in the developing world they will take a different view, especially when many of them are deeply religious and that includes some of the migrant population within France
Now, he has called Nevada for Biden at 49-45 with 6% DK / Others. Not sure I agree with him on the 6% DKs but, if he is right, that's a swing of <1% to Biden from 2016.
So, first of all, at least there (and we can argue if NV is typical), it's not much of a swing.
The more interesting part may be in what the Rurals are doing.
When Ralston started his blog, his view was that the Democrats would want to have a firewall in the high-80000s in Clark to feel confident about victory. His rationale now was that lead would mean something like a 54K statewide going into Election Day.
The Dems have that 89K firewall from Clark but it has only translated into a 47K state firewall. Why? Because the rural areas have come out a lot more strongly for Trump than anticipated. Trump's advantage in 2016 in rural areas was 58K. Ralston thinks it could get to 80K and possibly more.
Is it enough to win NV? Probably not (but depends on independents) but what it might suggest is that poorer whites are coming out in greater numbers than anticipated. And there is nothing particularly special about NV that suggests its more rural elements are unique. That might be relevant for other states.
The other question is whether this is being picked up in the polls. If the polling is based off 2016 turnout, the answer is probably not which raises the question (again) of whether white non-college voters are being undercounted. Which would throw the polling into doubt.</p>
Now, he has called Nevada for Biden at 49-45 with 6% DK / Others. Not sure I agree with him on the 6% DKs but, if he is right, that's a swing of <1% to Biden from 2016.
So, first of all, at least there (and we can argue if NV is typical), it's not much of a swing.
The more interesting part may be in what the Rurals are doing.
When Ralston started his blog, his view was that the Democrats would want to have a firewall in the high-80000s in Clark to feel confident about victory. His rationale now was that lead would mean something like a 54K statewide going into Election Day.
The Dems have that 89K firewall from Clark but it has only translated into a 47K state firewall. Why? Because the rural areas have come out a lot more strongly for Trump than anticipated. Trump's advantage in 2016 in rural areas was 58K. Ralston thinks it could get to 80K and possibly more.
Is it enough to win NV? Probably not (but depends on independents) but what it might suggest is that poorer whites are coming out in greater numbers than anticipated. And there is nothing particularly special about NV that suggests its more rural elements are unique. That might be relevant for other states.
The other question is whether this is being picked up in the polls. If the polling is based off 2016 turnout, the answer is probably not which raises the question (again) of whether white non-college voters are being undercounted. Which would throw the polling into doubt.</p>
Not being funny but are really trying to tell us that from wherever it is you are in the UK you have a better insight into how Nevada is going than Jon Ralston?
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
Now, he has called Nevada for Biden at 49-45 with 6% DK / Others. Not sure I agree with him on the 6% DKs but, if he is right, that's a swing of <1% to Biden from 2016.
So, first of all, at least there (and we can argue if NV is typical), it's not much of a swing.
The more interesting part may be in what the Rurals are doing.
When Ralston started his blog, his view was that the Democrats would want to have a firewall in the high-80000s in Clark to feel confident about victory. His rationale now was that lead would mean something like a 54K statewide going into Election Day.
The Dems have that 89K firewall from Clark but it has only translated into a 47K state firewall. Why? Because the rural areas have come out a lot more strongly for Trump than anticipated. Trump's advantage in 2016 in rural areas was 58K. Ralston thinks it could get to 80K and possibly more.
Is it enough to win NV? Probably not (but depends on independents) but what it might suggest is that poorer whites are coming out in greater numbers than anticipated. And there is nothing particularly special about NV that suggests its more rural elements are unique. That might be relevant for other states.
The other question is whether this is being picked up in the polls. If the polling is based off 2016 turnout, the answer is probably not which raises the question (again) of whether white non-college voters are being undercounted. Which would throw the polling into doubt.</p>
Not being funny but are really trying to tell us that from wherever it is you are in the UK you have a better insight into how Nevada is going than Jon Ralston?
Errr, no. Which is why I am not betting on NV turning Red. What I was highlighting was that Ralston had originally underestimated the number of rural voters coming in for Trump. And that could be an indicator for what might be happening elsewhere.
Just as a note, the modus operandi in Vienna suggests Islamist extremists. If it so don't expect them to necessarily have Arab names or origins.
Is that because like in Germany privacy laws, so they rename them Dave P.
I think he means Chechen or similar.
I know, I was joking, well half joking, the Germans actually did it in one case, where they decided to report him using a "nickname" that was something along the lines of Dave, rather than actual name where it later became clear it was an Islamist immigrant who carried out the attack.
A politician in Pakistan allegedly calls for the use of nukes on France........
Can anyone explain the outrage against France compared to the silence towards China?
Investment?
The Chinese would never tolerate it and make it clear there would be consequences.
The French (or the Western world) are seen as a soft touch.
China Pakistan Economic Corridor: "On 20 April 2015, Pakistan and China signed an agreement to commence work on the $46 billion agreement, which is roughly 20% of Pakistan's annual GDP, with approximately $28 billion worth of fast-tracked "Early Harvest" projects to be developed by the end of 2018."
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
You can however, have de facto blasphemy laws, like the one that the Scottish government is about to implement. You establish the right not to be offended, so as to clamp down on those who are deemed to have given offence.
Sadly, a belief in the right not to be offended is something that's really crept in on both the right and the left.
Can you believe that some people actually think there should be government restrictions on what headdresses people are allowed to wear?
Not really but you know perfectly well that the niqab is used as a tool of female repression. That does make it a very difficult issue.
Probably the most difficult question is whether there is a way in which people can exercise their freedom, which other people _can't_ find an excuse for controlling and restricting.
Now, he has called Nevada for Biden at 49-45 with 6% DK / Others. Not sure I agree with him on the 6% DKs but, if he is right, that's a swing of <1% to Biden from 2016.
So, first of all, at least there (and we can argue if NV is typical), it's not much of a swing.
The more interesting part may be in what the Rurals are doing.
When Ralston started his blog, his view was that the Democrats would want to have a firewall in the high-80000s in Clark to feel confident about victory. His rationale now was that lead would mean something like a 54K statewide going into Election Day.
The Dems have that 89K firewall from Clark but it has only translated into a 47K state firewall. Why? Because the rural areas have come out a lot more strongly for Trump than anticipated. Trump's advantage in 2016 in rural areas was 58K. Ralston thinks it could get to 80K and possibly more.
Is it enough to win NV? Probably not (but depends on independents) but what it might suggest is that poorer whites are coming out in greater numbers than anticipated. And there is nothing particularly special about NV that suggests its more rural elements are unique. That might be relevant for other states.
The other question is whether this is being picked up in the polls. If the polling is based off 2016 turnout, the answer is probably not which raises the question (again) of whether white non-college voters are being undercounted. Which would throw the polling into doubt.</p>
Not being funny but are really trying to tell us that from wherever it is you are in the UK you have a better insight into how Nevada is going than Jon Ralston?
Errr, no. Which is why I am not betting on NV turning Red. What I was highlighting was that Ralston had originally underestimated the number of rural voters coming in for Trump. And that could be an indicator for what might be happening elsewhere.
Yes thats how I read your comments. Ralston knows his onions and I expect he will be very close with his forecast in NV . but perhaps it suggest a trend in other states though theres no consistent evidence of that yet, but we will see tomorrow
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Yes. There's a very big difference between freely choosing not to do something out of respect, and being told not to do something or suffer the consequences.
If those early vote/on the day vote split is true *in Texas*, then Trump cannot win the state.
Trump would need a turnout of roughly 13.5m on the day, for a total turnout of 23.2m in order to take the lead. There's only 16.9m registered voters in Texas.
Comments
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
It's the threat of violence from these groups which mean people will be too scared to show those cartoons again in future.
Not that I have much sympathy for anyone who has booked a flight in the past 6 months, mind.
What for?
On the other hand, in Georgia:
https://twitter.com/tbonier/status/1323375916475699203?s=20
https://twitter.com/bfmtv/status/1323251502522208269?s=21
In the videos the attackers are all wearing white jumpsuits. Like hazmat suits. Very odd. Is it just possible they are far right opponents of lockdown laws?
The way they randomly shoot bystanders says jihadists, to me. But again: TBC
And there are reports of a terrorist wearing a balaclava which would be unusual for Islamic terrorism.
Although there is a video where one of them shouts something that sounds like Allahu Akbar, but it's not 100% clear.
https://twitter.com/tonydleonardi/status/1323390369103568902?s=21
That pesky exponentiation.
A common feature of...unfree societies.
Indiana has 6.7m,
The only "safe" Republican states (up to now) in the Top 20 have been TX (#2), Tennessee (#16), Indiana (#17) and Missouri (#18). For argument's sake, I will give you Georgia (#8).
For Democrats, their safe states have been CA (#1), NY (#4), Illinois (#6), New Jersey (#11), Washington (#13), Massachusetts (#15) and Maryland (#19).
The rest are competitive thus sparking turnout.
So in the top 10, there are 3 safe Democrat seats vs 2 Republican ones, in the top 15 it's 6 safe Democrat states vs 2, in the top 20, 7 vs 6.
Tony doesn't need to advise in public, he advises in private
Indeed criticism of Islam has never been more common than the last few years in our societies.
Can you believe that some people actually think there should be government restrictions on what headdresses people are allowed to wear?
It’s a gigantic market which will undoubtedly have attracted the pros and their algos.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906113/Boris-Johnson-begs-Tory-MPs-faith-coronavirus-strategy.html
Were it not for populists in Europe, and the lessons of Brexit and Trump, he'd be far more like Trudeau now.
So, it worked.
I consider burkhas ridiculous, but would regard it as excessive to ban them, France has a rather more existential problem, with some people absolutely determined to overturn their culture of laicite.
I also take the point made the other day that reactions like this designed to stop any minor action deemed an insult, or halt any criticism, simply leads to people acting irresponsibily as you would call it, as making such cartoons, and doing so gratuitously offensively, will become something people do because of the over the top protests and mobs. They are turning offensive depictions of the prophet into a symbol.
In balancing whether we accept some people being irresponsible and gratuitously offensive for no good reason, vs not feeling safe to act that way, I'll side with the former every time.
https://twitter.com/carloangerer/status/1323392713052618752?s=21
But that misses the point completely. The point is that the freedom of a free society includes the freedom not to be polite or respectful.
What I'm not OK with is people saying "people should be allowed to say what they like about Islam" and "people shouldn't be allowed to wear a Burqua while walking down the street".
Either freedom of expression is OK, or it isn't.
Secondly the analogy is not with humans but with ideas entertained by humans. There were given times in history where you could fit all the Christians, or all the muslims, or all the National Socialists in the world, into one taxi. Some of the growth spurts were a bit steeper than linear.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
I went to see Mark Watson, and his opening line was, you guys come for a nice night out, to forget whats going on the world outside, so this is will be my only mention of Brexit this evening to tell you there are no Brexit gags in this show...to which there was a huge cheer..now onto something where a deal has been actually reached, my divorce.
So they are very upset that it is gone now.
It might actually benefit the GOP if it had to spend more time trying to win the PV and less time trying to pull every trick in the book to stop their opponents voting or their votes being counted. It would certainly benefit the country
You strike me as having absolutely no empathy with those who aren’t in your privileged position of being able to cocoon themselves inside for months on end while lecturing others on their “selfishness”.
Parasite would be a far more appropriate term than virus.
Every one of your cells is endosymbiotic with one, for a start.
PS Where exactly is he getting those splits from?
Not being funny but are really trying to tell us that from wherever it is you are in the UK you have a better insight into how Nevada is going than Jon Ralston?
The French (or the Western world) are seen as a soft touch.
Offence (please no)
Incitement (possibly)
Free for all (hmmm)
Trump would need a turnout of roughly 13.5m on the day, for a total turnout of 23.2m in order to take the lead. There's only 16.9m registered voters in Texas.