I'm not saying the BBC or anyone else should be hyper-partisan I'm just saying that if a politician says something untrue it should be called out as such, you can't balance out lies in the name of "impartiality".
They do it with Labour and the Tories all the time, if they lie, say they lied.
I wonder why @Luckyguy1983 has never called for investigations into postal votes in Tory areas, is it because he's actually a hyper-partisan hack?
Because I'm not aware of any allegations of postal voting fraud in those areas?
If there are allegations relating to Tory candidates, of course they should be investigated.
I'm not hyper partisan at all actually - I'm broadly 'right wing', pro-Britain, pro-Brexit, but if Corbyn, Sturgeon, Starmer, etc. say something I agree with or do something I admire, I say it.
It's very easy to see if there's likely large scale postal vote cheating, just look at places in the US where postal ballots are very rare (like Texas) and see if you see very different swings.
It's also very easy to take 1,000 or so postal ballots (at random) and then send someone round to check it's genuine.
In the former case, there's very little difference. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if Biden did slightly better in places without postal widespread voting.
And the latter is what the Republicans would be suggesting in Georgia, if they really suspected it.
The GOP will start to distance themselves from him, they will look at the fact they still hold the Senate, the fact they gained some House seats and the fact they don't have to deal with his ego anymore and probably think, all things considered , its not been a bad election after all.
Not yet. As I mentioned, they mostly believe in the fraud line. They just don’t want to say it publicly.
The key will be how much they want to fight. Which is why I keep - very boringly - go back again to saying Arizona is key. Trump gets that, he’s at 242. It’s clear Georgia will be very tight. After that, they will focus on flipping the PA or MI result.
They believe it's fraudulent, but they don't want to propose any of the very simple checks that would establish whether it is or isn't?
The equivalent to the Covid rules would be to make it illegal to smoke, even if only in the presence of people who don’t mind people smoking round them
No it wouldn't.
Lockdown sceptics won't just come into contact with fellow sceptics, they will come into contact with people required to go out for essential purposes. Their refusal to understand that they are a risk to others is the problem.
(Note: I am not a supporter of the current lockdown, but that doesn't mean that I want a free for all)
My problem with arguments like this, is it's like the BBC climate change arguments. The idea the BBC should have climate change deniers on because it "balances" the output. There is reality and there is not.
If somebody is a liar and a fraud they should be called out as such, you can't be objective when it comes to that kind of thing.
I would like this 1000 times if I could.
Objectivity is NOT the same as treating the ravings of the ignorant and charlatans as if they are equally as valid as reasoned argument supported by facts. You question reasoned argument too (because reasonable people can disagree), and allow people to express fringe views, but don't treat the loons with a level of respect to which they are simply not entitled.
We are genuinely fortunate that Trump is not malevolent. Cos it could have got real bad were he to be so. He has, and always has had, an untreatable condition. Mostly harmless. Like 99% of the mentally ill. It has been staring Western society in the face for 4 years. Why did no one speak out is the really disturbing question?
Honestly misinformation and lies are one of the biggest problems of the last decade, on both sides of the equation. We have to get to grips with it this decade or we're headed for something a lot worse than Trump.
There's a point @isam has made before, back in March I think, that if we're prepared to accept such enormous restrictions to our liberties to defeat Covid, why not take such radical action as banning smoking outright rather than fiddling around the edges with it? Estimates of smoking deaths are of the order of magnitude of 80k per year so it's not a daft question in terms of lives saved, though there's a big distinction in terms of who's accepting the risk (only a small fraction of smoking deaths are thought to be from passive smoking, so the smoker takes on most of the risk of their behaviour, whereas "let people judge their own risk" doesn't work so well with infectious disease where your reckless actions may well cause more harm to others)
I am happy to support a total tobacco ban.
Speaking as a life long non-smoker who hates the smell of fags, let’s not be setting any precedents that might affect my booze.
I dunno. Ask my wife after I’ve been on the whisky or spent the day at the beer festival....
Prohibitionists and folk who frankly could best be described as neo-prohibitionists have put forward various arguments for banning or seriously restricting booze based on secondary effects - makes us all poorer due to lower economic productivity of not-entirely-sober workers; risk of being killed by a drink-driver; known association between drinking and various categories of violent crime (from pub brawls to domestic violence).
Some more convincing than others of course, but they do look for ways to counter the "it's my body, I'll imbibe what I want to" argument.
It’s a tricky one. How about we just ban wrong ‘uns from drinking?
NB: Just realised my post above could be read as something sinister - I just meant she doesn’t approve of my breath, and the fact I can’t always take my own jumper off smoothly.
The GOP will start to distance themselves from him, they will look at the fact they still hold the Senate, the fact they gained some House seats and the fact they don't have to deal with his ego anymore and probably think, all things considered , its not been a bad election after all.
Not yet. As I mentioned, they mostly believe in the fraud line. They just don’t want to say it publicly.
The key will be how much they want to fight. Which is why I keep - very boringly - go back again to saying Arizona is key. Trump gets that, he’s at 242. It’s clear Georgia will be very tight. After that, they will focus on flipping the PA or MI result.
They believe it's fraudulent, but they don't want to propose any of the very simple checks that would establish whether it is or isn't?
I'm struggling to understand that logic.
We all know the American electoral system is an absolute sh1tshow on many levels.
Logic doesn’t come into this, it’s about our pure political advantage
Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am shocked by Trump behaviour. I know he said all the stuff on the campaign trial, but I just presumed it was his usual billy bullshitting to the crowd to boost his turn out, and that then when we actually got to the election he would have a bit of a rant about the fake news media always being unfair and all the hate he got for no reason and then bugger off.
He is properly mentally unwell.
He isn't mentally unwell, he is a deeply corrupt human being who is in this to enrich himself and he now fears ruin. In US terms I'm probably a republican or, at a pinch, a blue dog Democrat but my personal dislike towards Trump, christ, well this forum has had 5 years of me ranting on about how dodge the guy is.
Surely if he went with grace, said very close race, just not quite enough, then if the powers that be go after him, he could then claim he was being targeted, its all politically motivated, etc.
And those thinking about backing or advertising say a Trump TV (or reality show, as the big producer used to be his big mate) might think, hmmm, not touching him ever.
Now, well, only the nutters are going to stick up for him.
He has literally blown up any possible future opportunity ever in the future.
The GOP infrastructure (senate leadership, fox news ect) are walking away from Trump.
It's over.
It's all over.
Well, Fox News has been walking away for a bit. James Murdoch is definitely in the anti-Trump camp and Lachlan is more right wing but not as much as his Dad. Their concern will be their ratings if they walk away too quickly. Which is why I don’t think they will call Biden tonight.
I would think that the first Republican who needs to win a Primary, who says that Trump has lost before Trump does, will become an instant hate figure and at risk in their next primary contest.
They won't want to be seen as the bad guy in a stab in the back myth.
Re: my bet on Biden 55% plus. Are they any other large states out there which were called early and who are taking their time about counting their mail in votes at a very leisurely pace and which aren't included in the numbers? Given what's happening in the battleground states, how many more votes might there be out there? Because ultimately, they all get counted.
There's a point @isam has made before, back in March I think, that if we're prepared to accept such enormous restrictions to our liberties to defeat Covid, why not take such radical action as banning smoking outright rather than fiddling around the edges with it? Estimates of smoking deaths are of the order of magnitude of 80k per year so it's not a daft question in terms of lives saved, though there's a big distinction in terms of who's accepting the risk (only a small fraction of smoking deaths are thought to be from passive smoking, so the smoker takes on most of the risk of their behaviour, whereas "let people judge their own risk" doesn't work so well with infectious disease where your reckless actions may well cause more harm to others)
I am happy to support a total tobacco ban.
Speaking as a life long non-smoker who hates the smell of fags, let’s not be setting any precedents that might affect my booze.
I dunno. Ask my wife after I’ve been on the whisky or spent the day at the beer festival....
Prohibitionists and folk who frankly could best be described as neo-prohibitionists have put forward various arguments for banning or seriously restricting booze based on secondary effects - makes us all poorer due to lower economic productivity of not-entirely-sober workers; risk of being killed by a drink-driver; known association between drinking and various categories of violent crime (from pub brawls to domestic violence).
Some more convincing than others of course, but they do look for ways to counter the "it's my body, I'll imbibe what I want to" argument.
What, they think people have a right not to be killed by drunk drivers? And that right deserves protection?
The GOP infrastructure (senate leadership, fox news ect) are walking away from Trump.
It's over.
It's all over.
Well, Fox News has been walking away for a bit. James Murdoch is definitely in the anti-Trump camp and Lachlan is more right wing but not as much as his Dad. Their concern will be their ratings if they walk away too quickly. Which is why I don’t think they will call Biden tonight.
I would think that the first Republican who needs to win a Primary, who says that Trump has lost before Trump does, will become an instant hate figure and at risk in their next primary contest.
They won't want to be seen as the bad guy in a stab in the back myth.
That’s why I wonder about Bush. But I’m probably seeing this through a British “a former PM would do it” lens.
Although Trump will see it as abandoning him or proof various GOP people didn't truly back him and didn't try hard enough, it seems pretty possible that the majority of them backed him, publicly and repeatedly, and worked hard to see him elected in a genuine way, but will not hesitate to disavow this sort of talk, or very quietly walk away from him. They did what they could, they fought for the party and the man, but any obligation is now over. A man as transactional as Trump should know that.
Note how many of the Trump coterie looked to be on hand during that. Count them...anyone who has lost some fingers should still be able to manage it.
Yep he was clearly on his own. Something of a comparison with the other night when they thought he was still in the race. Pence was obviously ordered to tweet something in support as a minimum.
Re: my bet on Biden 55% plus. Are they any other large states out there which were called early and who are taking their time about counting their mail in votes at a very leisurely pace and which aren't included in the numbers? Given what's happening in the battleground states, how many more votes might there be out there? Because ultimately, they all get counted.
There's a point @isam has made before, back in March I think, that if we're prepared to accept such enormous restrictions to our liberties to defeat Covid, why not take such radical action as banning smoking outright rather than fiddling around the edges with it? Estimates of smoking deaths are of the order of magnitude of 80k per year so it's not a daft question in terms of lives saved, though there's a big distinction in terms of who's accepting the risk (only a small fraction of smoking deaths are thought to be from passive smoking, so the smoker takes on most of the risk of their behaviour, whereas "let people judge their own risk" doesn't work so well with infectious disease where your reckless actions may well cause more harm to others)
I am happy to support a total tobacco ban.
Speaking as a life long non-smoker who hates the smell of fags, let’s not be setting any precedents that might affect my booze.
I dunno. Ask my wife after I’ve been on the whisky or spent the day at the beer festival....
Prohibitionists and folk who frankly could best be described as neo-prohibitionists have put forward various arguments for banning or seriously restricting booze based on secondary effects - makes us all poorer due to lower economic productivity of not-entirely-sober workers; risk of being killed by a drink-driver; known association between drinking and various categories of violent crime (from pub brawls to domestic violence).
Some more convincing than others of course, but they do look for ways to counter the "it's my body, I'll imbibe what I want to" argument.
It’s a tricky one. How about we just ban wrong ‘uns from drinking?
NB: Just realised my post above could be read as something sinister - I just meant she doesn’t approve of my breath, and the fact I can’t always take my own jumper off smoothly.
Haha yes I was wondering how to make my reply in such a way as to not suggest that I was suggesting such a thing! I just wanted to convey that your somewhat facetious point about secondary effects of drinking is actually taken pretty seriously by anti-alcohol campaigners (who make a fair bit of input into government policy).
Re: my bet on Biden 55% plus. Are they any other large states out there which were called early and who are taking their time about counting their mail in votes at a very leisurely pace and which aren't included in the numbers? Given what's happening in the battleground states, how many more votes might there be out there? Because ultimately, they all get counted.
California?
Other than California. Obviously to get to 55% i need a bit more than that
The GOP infrastructure (senate leadership, fox news ect) are walking away from Trump.
It's over.
It's all over.
Well, Fox News has been walking away for a bit. James Murdoch is definitely in the anti-Trump camp and Lachlan is more right wing but not as much as his Dad. Their concern will be their ratings if they walk away too quickly. Which is why I don’t think they will call Biden tonight.
Yes, they risk losing viewers to Trump's likely new TV station if they call first for Biden, Fox's ultra right viewership would then follow their hero
Re: my bet on Biden 55% plus. Are they any other large states out there which were called early and who are taking their time about counting their mail in votes at a very leisurely pace and which aren't included in the numbers? Given what's happening in the battleground states, how many more votes might there be out there? Because ultimately, they all get counted.
Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am shocked by Trump behaviour. I know he said all the stuff on the campaign trial, but I just presumed it was his usual billy bullshitting to the crowd to boost his turn out, and that then when we actually got to the election he would have a bit of a rant about the fake news media always being unfair and all the hate he got for no reason and then bugger off.
He is properly mentally unwell.
He isn't mentally unwell, he is a deeply corrupt human being who is in this to enrich himself and he now fears ruin. In US terms I'm probably a republican or, at a pinch, a blue dog Democrat but my personal dislike towards Trump, christ, well this forum has had 5 years of me ranting on about how dodge the guy is.
Surely if he went with grace, said very close race, just not quite enough, then if the powers that be go after him, he could then claim he was being targeted, its all politically motivated, etc.
And those thinking about backing or advertising say a Trump TV (or reality show, as the big producer used to be his big mate) might think, hmmm, not touching him ever.
Now, well, only the nutters are going to stick up for him.
He has literally blown up any possible future opportunity ever in the future.
It was always likely he was incapable of doing that. Despite all the advantages this guy has had, he's always had a grievance in him with a large dose of narcissism. This isn't new, its been on display before was ever in post.
I wonder if Pence is positioning himself for a “...but I don’t agree with the President’s take on which votes are legal.”?
et tu pence?
Would he even need to go that far? If the various cases lose (or mostly lose), Pence can state he agreed with Trump about the challenges but he accepts the verdict of the court like a good american, while Trump will I am sure not shut up about how he was right.
The GOP infrastructure (senate leadership, fox news ect) are walking away from Trump.
It's over.
It's all over.
Well, Fox News has been walking away for a bit. James Murdoch is definitely in the anti-Trump camp and Lachlan is more right wing but not as much as his Dad. Their concern will be their ratings if they walk away too quickly. Which is why I don’t think they will call Biden tonight.
I would think that the first Republican who needs to win a Primary, who says that Trump has lost before Trump does, will become an instant hate figure and at risk in their next primary contest.
They won't want to be seen as the bad guy in a stab in the back myth.
Yes, you come out and criticise Trump, you’ve basically given up any chance of winning the nomination. What is more interesting is the railings against Big Tech and Wall Street. I think that will give a boost to the more populist candidates vs the more traditional free marketers
Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am shocked by Trump behaviour. I know he said all the stuff on the campaign trial, but I just presumed it was his usual billy bullshitting to the crowd to boost his turn out, and that then when we actually got to the election he would have a bit of a rant about the fake news media always being unfair and all the hate he got for no reason and then bugger off.
He is properly mentally unwell.
He isn't mentally unwell, he is a deeply corrupt human being who is in this to enrich himself and he now fears ruin. In US terms I'm probably a republican or, at a pinch, a blue dog Democrat but my personal dislike towards Trump, christ, well this forum has had 5 years of me ranting on about how dodge the guy is.
Surely if he went with grace, said very close race, just not quite enough, then if the powers that be go after him, he could then claim he was being targeted, its all politically motivated, etc.
And those thinking about backing or advertising say a Trump TV (or reality show, as the big producer used to be his big mate) might think, hmmm, not touching him ever.
Now, well, only the nutters are going to stick up for him.
He has literally blown up any possible future opportunity ever in the future.
The problem is, 45%ish of the American electorate voted for the Chief Nutter. At this point I honestly don't think there is anything Trump can do to repel that 45% - he can be taped admitting to sexual assault, use the office of the Presidency to endorse conspiracy theories, buddy up to anti-American dictators, whatever, they either don't care or actively support it. And the 45% is a market of more than 60 million people. Unfortunately I think he'll be milking them for money and publicity for a long time, with a corresponding corrosive affect on American politics.
The GOP infrastructure (senate leadership, fox news ect) are walking away from Trump.
It's over.
It's all over.
Well, Fox News has been walking away for a bit. James Murdoch is definitely in the anti-Trump camp and Lachlan is more right wing but not as much as his Dad. Their concern will be their ratings if they walk away too quickly. Which is why I don’t think they will call Biden tonight.
I would think that the first Republican who needs to win a Primary, who says that Trump has lost before Trump does, will become an instant hate figure and at risk in their next primary contest.
They won't want to be seen as the bad guy in a stab in the back myth.
That’s why I wonder about Bush. But I’m probably seeing this through a British “a former PM would do it” lens.
McConnell could do it. He'll probably never have to face another election in person.
I wonder if Pence is positioning himself for a “...but I don’t agree with the President’s take on which votes are legal.”?
et tu pence?
Pence is Albert Speer.
He isn't going to move against Trump personally. But he definitely isn't going to be in the Fuhrerbunker when the pills start getting handed around and the petrol cans are emptied.
Trump is a classic sociopath. - grandiose sense of self - pathological liar - lack of remorse, shame or guilt - shallow emotions - incapacity for love - need for stimulation - callousness/lack of empathy - impulsive nature - rage and abuse -belief they are all-powerful/all-knowing - irresponsible/unreliable -does not perceive anything is wrong with them - paranoia - extreme narcissism and grandiose
There are other characteristics I haven't mantioned but DT ticks most of those boxes above.
The GOP will start to distance themselves from him, they will look at the fact they still hold the Senate, the fact they gained some House seats and the fact they don't have to deal with his ego anymore and probably think, all things considered , its not been a bad election after all.
Not yet. As I mentioned, they mostly believe in the fraud line. They just don’t want to say it publicly.
The key will be how much they want to fight. Which is why I keep - very boringly - go back again to saying Arizona is key. Trump gets that, he’s at 242. It’s clear Georgia will be very tight. After that, they will focus on flipping the PA or MI result.
They believe it's fraudulent, but they don't want to propose any of the very simple checks that would establish whether it is or isn't?
I'm struggling to understand that logic.
We all know the American electoral system is an absolute sh1tshow on many levels.
Logic doesn’t come into this, it’s about our pure political advantage
If you make an allegation, and it can be easily verified, and you don't want that verification, then I don't believe you really believe it.
The GOP infrastructure (senate leadership, fox news ect) are walking away from Trump.
It's over.
It's all over.
Well, Fox News has been walking away for a bit. James Murdoch is definitely in the anti-Trump camp and Lachlan is more right wing but not as much as his Dad. Their concern will be their ratings if they walk away too quickly. Which is why I don’t think they will call Biden tonight.
Yes, they risk losing viewers to Trump's likely new TV station if they call first for Biden, Fox's ultra right viewership would then follow their hero
I thought James Murdoch had already walked away from Fox News?
Trump is a classic sociopath. - grandiose sense of self - pathological liar - lack of remorse, shame or guilt - shallow emotions - incapacity for love - need for stimulation - callousness/lack of empathy - impulsive nature - rage and abuse -belief they are all-powerful/all-knowing - irresponsible/unreliable -does not perceive anything is wrong with them - paranoia - extreme narcissism and grandiose
There are other characteristics I haven't mantioned but DT ticks most of those boxes above.
You sure you haven't confused those with the attributes of the typical PB poster?
The equivalent to the Covid rules would be to make it illegal to smoke, even if only in the presence of people who don’t mind people smoking round them
No it wouldn't.
Lockdown sceptics won't just come into contact with fellow sceptics, they will come into contact with people required to go out for essential purposes. Their refusal to understand that they are a risk to others is the problem.
(Note: I am not a supporter of the current lockdown, but that doesn't mean that I want a free for all)
Neither do I. I don’t see that they are refusing to understand they are a risk to others though
I think that’s right. Larry Hogan is never going to win - he’s a Republican Governor of a Democratic state - so he’s at liberty to criticise. Others aren’t.
Also bear in mind, the GOP picked up House seats. These new members might not be so keen to ditch Trump.
There’s also a problem here for the GOP leadership. Trump managed to create a truly seismic shift (in comparison with before) in non-white votes. The GOP, at least with Hispanics, are at the point of making a significant break through. If they ditch Trump now, it’s likely they lose that support.
I agree with this idea of not condescending your voters and so on but at what point do you say, there is no hope for you if you will vote for a man so completely and utterly unsuitable for any position of power?
Trump is a classic sociopath. - grandiose sense of self - pathological liar - lack of remorse, shame or guilt - shallow emotions - incapacity for love - need for stimulation - callousness/lack of empathy - impulsive nature - rage and abuse -belief they are all-powerful/all-knowing - irresponsible/unreliable -does not perceive anything is wrong with them - paranoia - extreme narcissism and grandiose
There are other characteristics I haven't mantioned but DT ticks most of those boxes above.
Nah. Its NPD. If someone were having a heart attack live on TV then there would be an intervention. We've a long, long way to go as a society before mental and physical illness are treated equally.
I think that’s right. Larry Hogan is never going to win - he’s a Republican Governor of a Democratic state - so he’s at liberty to criticise. Others aren’t.
Also bear in mind, the GOP picked up House seats. These new members might not be so keen to ditch Trump.
There’s also a problem here for the GOP leadership. Trump managed to create a truly seismic shift (in comparison with before) in non-white votes. The GOP, at least with Hispanics, are at the point of making a significant break through. If they ditch Trump now, it’s likely they lose that support.
Were the Hispanics really pro-Trump? Or were they anti-Biden/socialist?
I agree with this idea of not condescending your voters and so on but at what point do you say, there is no hope for you if you will vote for a man so completely and utterly unsuitable for any position of power?
Seems a bit harsh on Biden voters....
I think what you have to ask if why are they voting for him, yet again. Outside the nutters, I think there are a lot of quiet Americans who have voted for him, not because they worship him, but because of other reasons of massive structural issues in the US (as Trump identified in 2016).
I agree with this idea of not condescending your voters and so on but at what point do you say, there is no hope for you if you will vote for a man so completely and utterly unsuitable for any position of power?
Seems a bit harsh on Biden voters....
I think what you have to ask if why are they voting for him. Outside a small number of nutters, I think there are a lot of quiet Americans who have voted for him, not because they worship him, but because of other reasons (as Trump identified in 2016).
Okay but even then I am struggling to understand why they would vote for him, I really want to understand it but I simply cannot. I genuinely don't want to sound condescending but to me it's nuts.
The equivalent to the Covid rules would be to make it illegal to smoke, even if only in the presence of people who don’t mind people smoking round them
No it wouldn't.
Lockdown sceptics won't just come into contact with fellow sceptics, they will come into contact with people required to go out for essential purposes. Their refusal to understand that they are a risk to others is the problem.
(Note: I am not a supporter of the current lockdown, but that doesn't mean that I want a free for all)
Neither do I. I don’t see that they are refusing to understand they are a risk to others though
Its as simple as spending the night mingling in the pub without a mask, then sitting next to you on the Tube the next day on the way to work. Or being in the clinic room before you etc.
A couple more in my department came down with it this week, though seem not to be occupational exposed. Track and Trace is a waste of space in terms of identifying contacts. We have patients with covid as young as 22 on our ICU, many of them white. This is a serious disease.
It is not irrelevant at this point because this is now about the clear win, proper distance both for the country but ironically for the GOP, who need that kind of loss.
I agree with this idea of not condescending your voters and so on but at what point do you say, there is no hope for you if you will vote for a man so completely and utterly unsuitable for any position of power?
Seems a bit harsh on Biden voters....
I think what you have to ask if why are they voting for him. Outside a small number of nutters, I think there are a lot of quiet Americans who have voted for him, not because they worship him, but because of other reasons (as Trump identified in 2016).
Okay but even then I am struggling to understand why they would vote for him, I really want to understand it but I simply cannot. I genuinely don't want to sound condescending but to me it's nuts.
The really sad thing about this is how the networks have now backed away. This isn't a story for the next 48 hours. He's now the Pub nutter. Best to back away. So why has it been tolerated? Ratings, profits. SAD!!!
There's a point @isam has made before, back in March I think, that if we're prepared to accept such enormous restrictions to our liberties to defeat Covid, why not take such radical action as banning smoking outright rather than fiddling around the edges with it? Estimates of smoking deaths are of the order of magnitude of 80k per year so it's not a daft question in terms of lives saved, though there's a big distinction in terms of who's accepting the risk (only a small fraction of smoking deaths are thought to be from passive smoking, so the smoker takes on most of the risk of their behaviour, whereas "let people judge their own risk" doesn't work so well with infectious disease where your reckless actions may well cause more harm to others)
I am happy to support a total tobacco ban.
Speaking as a life long non-smoker who hates the smell of fags, let’s not be setting any precedents that might affect my booze.
I dunno. Ask my wife after I’ve been on the whisky or spent the day at the beer festival....
Prohibitionists and folk who frankly could best be described as neo-prohibitionists have put forward various arguments for banning or seriously restricting booze based on secondary effects - makes us all poorer due to lower economic productivity of not-entirely-sober workers; risk of being killed by a drink-driver; known association between drinking and various categories of violent crime (from pub brawls to domestic violence).
Some more convincing than others of course, but they do look for ways to counter the "it's my body, I'll imbibe what I want to" argument.
What, they think people have a right not to be killed by drunk drivers? And that right deserves protection?
Minge monkeys.
The question is whether banning or severely limiting the availability of booze is a proportionate response, rather than, say, enhancing police enforcement of drink-drinking laws.
I think that’s right. Larry Hogan is never going to win - he’s a Republican Governor of a Democratic state - so he’s at liberty to criticise. Others aren’t.
Also bear in mind, the GOP picked up House seats. These new members might not be so keen to ditch Trump.
There’s also a problem here for the GOP leadership. Trump managed to create a truly seismic shift (in comparison with before) in non-white votes. The GOP, at least with Hispanics, are at the point of making a significant break through. If they ditch Trump now, it’s likely they lose that support.
The trouble with riding a tiger always comes when you try to get off. Republicans might have a choice between betraying Trump (bad) and sticking with him (worse).
I agree with this idea of not condescending your voters and so on but at what point do you say, there is no hope for you if you will vote for a man so completely and utterly unsuitable for any position of power?
Seems a bit harsh on Biden voters....
I think what you have to ask if why are they voting for him. Outside a small number of nutters, I think there are a lot of quiet Americans who have voted for him, not because they worship him, but because of other reasons (as Trump identified in 2016).
Okay but even then I am struggling to understand why they would vote for him, I really want to understand it but I simply cannot. I genuinely don't want to sound condescending but to me it's nuts.
There are numerous reasons. Don't forget until COVID the economy was going well, and there are a lot of people whose jobs in have gone and believe Trump will get them back or are threatened by Biden e.g. he wants to phase out the oil industry.
Corbyn isn't in the same league as Trump on the nutter stakes, but I have always have grave concerns about his friends and fellow travellers. However, I fully understand why people wanted to vote for him, and even though I think his solutions were wrong, he was addressing many peoples real concerns. Trump shtick played on many of the similar concerns, mainly how globalisation has created losers*, where the deal providing opportunity to work hard will be rewarded in a decent life has been broken.
* I don't mean they are a "loser" (as in negative abuse), I win in a game of winners and losers.
Trump traces it all back to Fox's calling of the state.
Doesn't Arizona going the other way actually undermine him in a way? The Trump argument is "it's funny how all these votes they are 'finding' are Democrat". But they're not, and demonstrably not if Arizona goes the other way - it depends on the local process and which type and location of votes are left to be counted towards the end.
Comments
They do it with Labour and the Tories all the time, if they lie, say they lied.
It's also very easy to take 1,000 or so postal ballots (at random) and then send someone round to check it's genuine.
In the former case, there's very little difference. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if Biden did slightly better in places without postal widespread voting.
And the latter is what the Republicans would be suggesting in Georgia, if they really suspected it.
Ah well, guess they should be more impartial too
I'm struggling to understand that logic.
Lockdown sceptics won't just come into contact with fellow sceptics, they will come into contact with people required to go out for essential purposes. Their refusal to understand that they are a risk to others is the problem.
(Note: I am not a supporter of the current lockdown, but that doesn't mean that I want a free for all)
Objectivity is NOT the same as treating the ravings of the ignorant and charlatans as if they are equally as valid as reasoned argument supported by facts. You question reasoned argument too (because reasonable people can disagree), and allow people to express fringe views, but don't treat the loons with a level of respect to which they are simply not entitled.
Cos it could have got real bad were he to be so.
He has, and always has had, an untreatable condition.
Mostly harmless. Like 99% of the mentally ill.
It has been staring Western society in the face for 4 years.
Why did no one speak out is the really disturbing question?
et tu pence?
NB: Just realised my post above could be read as something sinister - I just meant she doesn’t approve of my breath, and the fact I can’t always take my own jumper off smoothly.
Logic doesn’t come into this, it’s about our pure political advantage
And those thinking about backing or advertising say a Trump TV (or reality show, as the big producer used to be his big mate) might think, hmmm, not touching him ever.
Now, well, only the nutters are going to stick up for him.
He has literally blown up any possible future opportunity ever in the future.
They won't want to be seen as the bad guy in a stab in the back myth.
Minge monkeys.
lost some fingers should still be able to manage it.
https://twitter.com/sintaygaleska/status/1324511884427538434?s=20
He isn't going to move against Trump personally. But he definitely isn't going to be in the Fuhrerbunker when the pills start getting handed around and the petrol cans are emptied.
- grandiose sense of self
- pathological liar
- lack of remorse, shame or guilt
- shallow emotions
- incapacity for love
- need for stimulation
- callousness/lack of empathy
- impulsive nature
- rage and abuse
-belief they are all-powerful/all-knowing
- irresponsible/unreliable
-does not perceive anything is wrong with them
- paranoia
- extreme narcissism and grandiose
There are other characteristics I haven't mantioned but DT ticks most of those boxes above.
Amazing drama in real time.
Also bear in mind, the GOP picked up House seats. These new members might not be so keen to ditch Trump.
There’s also a problem here for the GOP leadership. Trump managed to create a truly seismic shift (in comparison with before) in non-white votes. The GOP, at least with Hispanics, are at the point of making a significant break through. If they ditch Trump now, it’s likely they lose that support.
If someone were having a heart attack live on TV then there would be an intervention.
We've a long, long way to go as a society before mental and physical illness are treated equally.
PA 1.09
GA 1.18
NV 1.05
AZ 1.37
Trump has had his Ratner moment. He went on TV and dissed everyone and support drained away even before he finished talking.
Even Ratner lasted 2 weeks.
I think what you have to ask if why are they voting for him, yet again. Outside the nutters, I think there are a lot of quiet Americans who have voted for him, not because they worship him, but because of other reasons of massive structural issues in the US (as Trump identified in 2016).
Trump traces it all back to Fox's calling of the state.
Next numbers will be out in one hour.
A couple more in my department came down with it this week, though seem not to be occupational exposed. Track and Trace is a waste of space in terms of identifying contacts. We have patients with covid as young as 22 on our ICU, many of them white. This is a serious disease.
https://twitter.com/jessphillips/status/1324512124278853633?s=21
So why has it been tolerated? Ratings, profits. SAD!!!
For more "banning things most people use quite harmlessly because some wront'uns do harm to others" action, see also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm "Doctors' kitchen knives ban call" (apparently "doctors say knives are too pointed" - from 2005, didn't get acted on, the Church of England tried to give the campaign renewed traction last year: https://www.rochester.anglican.org/communications/news/government-urged-to-restrict-the-sale-of-pointed-knives.php ... probably a campaign with rather more in its favour than the headlines that greeted it suggested)
Corbyn isn't in the same league as Trump on the nutter stakes, but I have always have grave concerns about his friends and fellow travellers. However, I fully understand why people wanted to vote for him, and even though I think his solutions were wrong, he was addressing many peoples real concerns. Trump shtick played on many of the similar concerns, mainly how globalisation has created losers*, where the deal providing opportunity to work hard will be rewarded in a decent life has been broken.
* I don't mean they are a "loser" (as in negative abuse), I win in a game of winners and losers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G2V0V1wvwM
She should have been President.