LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
kinabalu: 'Lol @ bollocks poll! Everyone really hates the flag, like me!'
Also kinabalu: 'If after a decade in Opposition Labour can barely hang on to a seat they've held for 50 years that'll be a huge win for them!'
Maybe, just maybe, there's a connection between those two things?
You're falling for cliched groupthink. Or possibly just straining too hard to believe what you want to be true. Either way, you'll make some bad calls if you're not careful. You need to stay alert to changes. And answer me honestly. Your brand new neighbour goes UJ crazy. You approve? You're pleased as punch? Or do you wish he hadn't and want the lovely old one back? Another rhetorical one.
On my road I have three houses flying flags. One Union Jack, one Liver Bird and one Unite.
For obvious reasons I feel closer to two of those than the other, but I respect and don't judge any of them.
The one with the Liver Bird went flag crazy when we won the Premier League, flying the flag of every single country of every player in the squad. A lot of flags!
This post has a slightly odd performative air about it.
You might have spotted another Nazi! A good day for you. Three in total?
Not at all. It's Philip. Just a strange little post, I thought. No big deal.
LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
Tricky one, though. Many people may think as you do, but then think some more and, well, do they want to diss the Queen?
I guarantee you that most people - a very clear majority - would not appreciate their neighbour sticking a great big "patriotic" flag on the roof. They'd probably not make a fuss, for fear of kicking off a feud, but the feeling would be disapproval not approval. C'mon. We all know this. So that survey is a piece of nonsense.
I think you misunderstood me: the Queen is wont to fly the flag on her house, yet most people do not disapprove of her, if they say they disapprove of flying the flag on your house then they're disapproving of the Queen!
More seriously, I feel much the same as you in that seeing a St George flag on a house does not make me want to dash to know the occupants. But I guess it's not so much about the flag as the connotations. Different example, I read a few years back that the clothing brand Lonsdale was favoured by neo-nazis as you could couple it with a jacket so the Lonsdale wording on the front was partially obscurred, leaving 'NSDA'. Now, I wasn't a Lonsdale buyer before, but I certainly wouldn't have been after that. Later they started sponsoring gay and multicultural events to put off the nazi crowd and that detoxified the brand for me (I still never bough any, but I would no longer have been put off by thinking that people would think I was a Nazi). Much the same with the flag. I've no inclination to stick any flag on my house, but say a family member wanted to do so then the thing that would bother me is not the flag, but everyone walking past assuming I'm a racist. So I wouldn't mind it during a football tournament as that connotation would not be there, or at least, not so much. Equally I'd be relaxed about someone sticking a Scotland flag or Isle of Mann or Yorkshire flag on my house. It's not the flag, it's the association between people who fly the England flag and racism (in England) which I don't think exists for the other home nation flags.
Likewise for a neighbour. England flag, I'd think it lowered the tone. Union flag too, although not quite as bad. Other home nation flag or other country flag - eccentric maybe, but not really a problem. It's unfair, but there it is.
Like you, I'm surprised by the poll.
Clothing brands can get hijacked, yes. One I recall. Levi Stapress, Ben Sherman shirt, Doc Martens (with the cushioned sole) - great look but tarnished by association for a while. The survey, I suspect people answered in a false, virtue-signalling way. That's why it's given those bizarre results. Love of flags is part of the new PC. If you don't comply, the antiwokerati "patriot" mob descend on you and you risk being cancelled. Naga Munchetty is the latest to get into hot water, I've just seen. "Respect that flag and make a noise about it too, else you're a wokie worm who hates Britain!" "Reactionaries must speak to students!" "Ban protests that annoy gammons!" It will pass, I'm sure, but right now it's in the ascendancy.
Didn't Fred Perry suspend sales in the US because their polo shirts were being appropriated by the Boogaloo Boys or Proud Boys or whatever the sexually frustrated fascists are calling themselves now?
Time was when no self respecting British Movement type would be seen without a Stone Island top as the logos were pretty similar.
Pretty sure a good chunk of Tommy Robinson's disappeared donations went on Stone Island.
Interesting, Qantas CEO reckons demand for non-stop Oz-UK flights has gone UP because of the pandemic - their number 1 selling international route is Perth-London. And the ME "super connectors" (Emirates/Qatar) aren't going to have much joy - the UK has just suspended flights from Qatar.
Yes absolutely, with the UK and Australia looking to be or stay virus free within the next few months a direct flight will be very popular as it can avoid any chance of quarantine in the ME or Asia.
Plus as it stands the flight will be blissfully sprog-free as there doesn't seem any prospect of them getting a vaccine in sight.
Not sure what that will do to the holiday market tho.
One imagines under 18s will be exempt given no vaccines are approved for them yet.
Interesting though. If that cohort can spread it the exemption would make no sense. Although schools data these last two weeks are encouraging.
Yes the tentative data looks good. We've also got the AZ trial results due soon, Moderna have had a trial approved for 6 months to 17 year olds in the US which if successful takes the lower bound age to basically everyone. We just need to buy more Moderna vaccine doses at some point.
LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
Tricky one, though. Many people may think as you do, but then think some more and, well, do they want to diss the Queen?
I guarantee you that most people - a very clear majority - would not appreciate their neighbour sticking a great big "patriotic" flag on the roof. They'd probably not make a fuss, for fear of kicking off a feud, but the feeling would be disapproval not approval. C'mon. We all know this. So that survey is a piece of nonsense.
I think you misunderstood me: the Queen is wont to fly the flag on her house, yet most people do not disapprove of her, if they say they disapprove of flying the flag on your house then they're disapproving of the Queen!
More seriously, I feel much the same as you in that seeing a St George flag on a house does not make me want to dash to know the occupants. But I guess it's not so much about the flag as the connotations. Different example, I read a few years back that the clothing brand Lonsdale was favoured by neo-nazis as you could couple it with a jacket so the Lonsdale wording on the front was partially obscurred, leaving 'NSDA'. Now, I wasn't a Lonsdale buyer before, but I certainly wouldn't have been after that. Later they started sponsoring gay and multicultural events to put off the nazi crowd and that detoxified the brand for me (I still never bough any, but I would no longer have been put off by thinking that people would think I was a Nazi). Much the same with the flag. I've no inclination to stick any flag on my house, but say a family member wanted to do so then the thing that would bother me is not the flag, but everyone walking past assuming I'm a racist. So I wouldn't mind it during a football tournament as that connotation would not be there, or at least, not so much. Equally I'd be relaxed about someone sticking a Scotland flag or Isle of Mann or Yorkshire flag on my house. It's not the flag, it's the association between people who fly the England flag and racism (in England) which I don't think exists for the other home nation flags.
Likewise for a neighbour. England flag, I'd think it lowered the tone. Union flag too, although not quite as bad. Other home nation flag or other country flag - eccentric maybe, but not really a problem. It's unfair, but there it is.
Like you, I'm surprised by the poll.
Clothing brands can get hijacked, yes. One I recall. Levi Stapress, Ben Sherman shirt, Doc Martens (with the cushioned sole) - great look but tarnished by association for a while. The survey, I suspect people answered in a false, virtue-signalling way. That's why it's given those bizarre results. Love of flags is part of the new PC. If you don't comply, the antiwokerati "patriot" mob descend on you and you risk being cancelled. Naga Munchetty is the latest to get into hot water, I've just seen. "Respect that flag and make a noise about it too, else you're a wokie worm who hates Britain!" "Reactionaries must speak to students!" "Ban protests that annoy gammons!" It will pass, I'm sure, but right now it's in the ascendancy.
Didn't Fred Perry suspend sales in the US because their polo shirts were being appropriated by the Boogaloo Boys or Proud Boys or whatever the sexually frustrated fascists are calling themselves now?
Yes, I think I heard something like that. And in fact a Perry shirt was an acceptable substitute for the Sherman (button down collar) in the rigmarole I mentioned. Also with a "chopper" bike to terrorize people with on the pavements. I'm incriminating myself, I realize.
Interesting combination of policy choices in Germany at the moment. Apparently, their healthcare authorities are getting panicky about exponential case growth, tidal waves of patients swamping hospitals, etc. etc. At the same time, sunshine holidays to the Balearics are starting up again. Go figure.
I repeat what I said this morning, I don't understand where the German reputation for competence comes from. The above seems completely stupid.
Organised is more apposite than competent. It is possible to be incompetent but very methodical about it.
LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
Tricky one, though. Many people may think as you do, but then think some more and, well, do they want to diss the Queen?
I guarantee you that most people - a very clear majority - would not appreciate their neighbour sticking a great big "patriotic" flag on the roof. They'd probably not make a fuss, for fear of kicking off a feud, but the feeling would be disapproval not approval. C'mon. We all know this. So that survey is a piece of nonsense.
I think you misunderstood me: the Queen is wont to fly the flag on her house, yet most people do not disapprove of her, if they say they disapprove of flying the flag on your house then they're disapproving of the Queen!
More seriously, I feel much the same as you in that seeing a St George flag on a house does not make me want to dash to know the occupants. But I guess it's not so much about the flag as the connotations. Different example, I read a few years back that the clothing brand Lonsdale was favoured by neo-nazis as you could couple it with a jacket so the Lonsdale wording on the front was partially obscurred, leaving 'NSDA'. Now, I wasn't a Lonsdale buyer before, but I certainly wouldn't have been after that. Later they started sponsoring gay and multicultural events to put off the nazi crowd and that detoxified the brand for me (I still never bough any, but I would no longer have been put off by thinking that people would think I was a Nazi). Much the same with the flag. I've no inclination to stick any flag on my house, but say a family member wanted to do so then the thing that would bother me is not the flag, but everyone walking past assuming I'm a racist. So I wouldn't mind it during a football tournament as that connotation would not be there, or at least, not so much. Equally I'd be relaxed about someone sticking a Scotland flag or Isle of Mann or Yorkshire flag on my house. It's not the flag, it's the association between people who fly the England flag and racism (in England) which I don't think exists for the other home nation flags.
Likewise for a neighbour. England flag, I'd think it lowered the tone. Union flag too, although not quite as bad. Other home nation flag or other country flag - eccentric maybe, but not really a problem. It's unfair, but there it is.
Like you, I'm surprised by the poll.
Clothing brands can get hijacked, yes. One I recall. Levi Stapress, Ben Sherman shirt, Doc Martens (with the cushioned sole) - great look but tarnished by association for a while. The survey, I suspect people answered in a false, virtue-signalling way. That's why it's given those bizarre results. Love of flags is part of the new PC. If you don't comply, the antiwokerati "patriot" mob descend on you and you risk being cancelled. Naga Munchetty is the latest to get into hot water, I've just seen. "Respect that flag and make a noise about it too, else you're a wokie worm who hates Britain!" "Reactionaries must speak to students!" "Ban protests that annoy gammons!" It will pass, I'm sure, but right now it's in the ascendancy.
Didn't Fred Perry suspend sales in the US because their polo shirts were being appropriated by the Boogaloo Boys or Proud Boys or whatever the sexually frustrated fascists are calling themselves now?
Yes, I think I heard something like that. And in fact a Perry shirt was an acceptable substitute for the Sherman (button down collar) in the rigmarole I mentioned. Also with a "chopper" bike to terrorize people with on the pavements. I'm incriminating myself, I realize.
Hang on, I always wear Ben Sherman shirts and Solovair* air cushion boots!
LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
kinabalu: 'Lol @ bollocks poll! Everyone really hates the flag, like me!'
Also kinabalu: 'If after a decade in Opposition Labour can barely hang on to a seat they've held for 50 years that'll be a huge win for them!'
Maybe, just maybe, there's a connection between those two things?
You're falling for cliched groupthink. Or possibly just straining too hard to believe what you want to be true. Either way, you'll make some bad calls if you're not careful. You need to stay alert to changes. And answer me honestly. Your brand new neighbour goes UJ crazy. You approve? You're pleased as punch? Or do you wish he hadn't and want the lovely old one back? Another rhetorical one.
On my road I have three houses flying flags. One Union Jack, one Liver Bird and one Unite.
For obvious reasons I feel closer to two of those than the other, but I respect and don't judge any of them.
The one with the Liver Bird went flag crazy when we won the Premier League, flying the flag of every single country of every player in the squad. A lot of flags!
This post has a slightly odd performative air about it.
You might have spotted another Nazi! A good day for you. Three in total?
Not at all. It's Philip. Just a strange little post, I thought. No big deal.
What's strange about it?
You asked what we'd think about neighbours flying flags and mine do and I have no problem with it whatsoever. 🤷♂️
I think you live a rather sheltered life if you think flags are weird. You should get out more.
It's the 'Canzuk' shield but the red stars of the NZ Southern Cross appear to have been slightly bleached by DG's tears.
A sneaky nod to White Power? Or less viscerally, the "chaps we can trust"?
You're a strange one.
Do you think the European Union is a nod to White Power?
Do you think CANZUK has more, less or similar level of "whiteness" to the European Union?
You're being too reductive and literal. These mindsets don't work like that. You have to ask why somebody like Grimes is flying the CANZUK shield. I'm sure you don't (do you?) so WTF is he and ilk doing it? I suggest it's for similar reasons that people in the States fly the Dixie flag. This is not to advertise a desire to refight the Civil War. It's to show support for a set of values. A set of values that encompass a high degree of nostalgia for a bygone age and the old ways. A set of values that in many cases are at the very least tinged with racism. It could be, I'm musing here but at the same time it's a little more than musing, that the CANZUK shield is becoming our version of the Confederate flag for our version of those Americans who choose to fly it. In which case, good, because it is a "tell". It's better to know than to not know.
Kinabalu, the Sinfinder General. Pricking the victims, to see if they bleed. Drooling as they strip
It's simply that I lack the peculiar mindset required to assume that anything short of KKK white sheets and hanging trees is not racist. And I note no substantive counter-argument yet offered by anybody as to why somebody like Darren Grimes would be flying this flag. He's from Durham.
Why would half the members of the Labour Party be flying the Palestinian flag when they're from Islington?
Great question and the answer supports my insight. For many (although not all) it is a general values statement rather than being specific to Palestine. It says to the world, "I am an anti-imperialist. I hate the west." Ditto with many symbols. The Dixie flag. The CANZUK shield. Which is where we came in. If you think everyone who flies that flag is simply and only campaigning for free movement in the White Commonwealth with no hinterland of nostalgia tinged with racism, I have a bridge to sell you.
What an odd option to have rather than the courts.
Unlike the presidential election, which President Joe Biden overwhelmingly won by tens of thousands of votes in several key swing states, the margin in this Iowa election is merely six votes out of just under 400,000 votes cast. And Hart's campaign claims that if election officials count the 22 disputed votes — which were not included due to various issues with the ballots — she will win by nine. So those ballots could decide the winner.
But instead of going to the courts or another arbiter that the public might accept as neutral, Hart chose to contest the election in the Democratic-controlled House itself. That is her legal right, but asking an explicitly partisan body to overturn the certified results of an election to seat a member of that party can undermine people's faith in the democratic process.
LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
Tricky one, though. Many people may think as you do, but then think some more and, well, do they want to diss the Queen?
I guarantee you that most people - a very clear majority - would not appreciate their neighbour sticking a great big "patriotic" flag on the roof. They'd probably not make a fuss, for fear of kicking off a feud, but the feeling would be disapproval not approval. C'mon. We all know this. So that survey is a piece of nonsense.
A bit of context. During a Jubilee or a sporting event, I often fly a Union Jack or England flag, but all year round I wouldn't.
Yep. That's, I think, where Middle England is on this. I push the envelope a little (at my age) with my England shirt but I'm comfortable with that during a World Cup or the Euros. I would NOT wear it outside those times. I doubt many on here would either, regardless of how they vote.
Why not?
I'll happily go out in my England shirt or Liverpool or Tranmere Rovers shirt. Why wouldn't I?
Honestly you sound like a conceited judgementalitist Mary Whitehouse throwback with a stick up your arse.
Are we supposed to go to the shops or the pub in a shirt, jacket and tie in your eyes?
The big question is whether, if we'd voted to Remain, the EU would be listening to our advice on vaccines at the moment.
If we had gone it alone in the alternate timeline like we did in reality, then no. But most probably we would've been cajoled into joining the centralized procurement scheme like everyone else did, in which case we'd have no advice to give.
But we might have been able to help them negotiate better contracts in the first place.
Yes, well, 6 votes in a congressional district is one thing - claiming you won an election when you got 7 million fewer votes than the winner is something else.
By the way, whatever happened to all the "mountains" of evidence of election fraud the GOP claimed it possessed showing a systematic attempt by the Democrats, allied with "Big" Tech and Pharma, to cheat Trump out of a second term?
What an odd option to have rather than the courts.
Unlike the presidential election, which President Joe Biden overwhelmingly won by tens of thousands of votes in several key swing states, the margin in this Iowa election is merely six votes out of just under 400,000 votes cast. And Hart's campaign claims that if election officials count the 22 disputed votes — which were not included due to various issues with the ballots — she will win by nine. So those ballots could decide the winner.
But instead of going to the courts or another arbiter that the public might accept as neutral, Hart chose to contest the election in the Democratic-controlled House itself. That is her legal right, but asking an explicitly partisan body to overturn the certified results of an election to seat a member of that party can undermine people's faith in the democratic process.
Agree it's an odd option but the more pertinent point is she actively chose not to go to the courts and instead go to the House, where she knew she had a better chance. Pelosi should have kicked this out but didn't.
Yes, it's politics but let's not have the pontificating of some on here that the Democrats are saints and all their actions can be excused.
LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
Tricky one, though. Many people may think as you do, but then think some more and, well, do they want to diss the Queen?
I guarantee you that most people - a very clear majority - would not appreciate their neighbour sticking a great big "patriotic" flag on the roof. They'd probably not make a fuss, for fear of kicking off a feud, but the feeling would be disapproval not approval. C'mon. We all know this. So that survey is a piece of nonsense.
I think you misunderstood me: the Queen is wont to fly the flag on her house, yet most people do not disapprove of her, if they say they disapprove of flying the flag on your house then they're disapproving of the Queen!
More seriously, I feel much the same as you in that seeing a St George flag on a house does not make me want to dash to know the occupants. But I guess it's not so much about the flag as the connotations. Different example, I read a few years back that the clothing brand Lonsdale was favoured by neo-nazis as you could couple it with a jacket so the Lonsdale wording on the front was partially obscurred, leaving 'NSDA'. Now, I wasn't a Lonsdale buyer before, but I certainly wouldn't have been after that. Later they started sponsoring gay and multicultural events to put off the nazi crowd and that detoxified the brand for me (I still never bough any, but I would no longer have been put off by thinking that people would think I was a Nazi). Much the same with the flag. I've no inclination to stick any flag on my house, but say a family member wanted to do so then the thing that would bother me is not the flag, but everyone walking past assuming I'm a racist. So I wouldn't mind it during a football tournament as that connotation would not be there, or at least, not so much. Equally I'd be relaxed about someone sticking a Scotland flag or Isle of Mann or Yorkshire flag on my house. It's not the flag, it's the association between people who fly the England flag and racism (in England) which I don't think exists for the other home nation flags.
Likewise for a neighbour. England flag, I'd think it lowered the tone. Union flag too, although not quite as bad. Other home nation flag or other country flag - eccentric maybe, but not really a problem. It's unfair, but there it is.
Like you, I'm surprised by the poll.
There are tons of flagpoles round these parts. Within a stone’s throw from the house, there are two England flags (which get occasionally and briefly replaced with Union jacks for reasons I haven’t yet deduced), two skull and crossbones, one EU flag, and one guy who puts up random flags of naval origin.
LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
Tricky one, though. Many people may think as you do, but then think some more and, well, do they want to diss the Queen?
I guarantee you that most people - a very clear majority - would not appreciate their neighbour sticking a great big "patriotic" flag on the roof. They'd probably not make a fuss, for fear of kicking off a feud, but the feeling would be disapproval not approval. C'mon. We all know this. So that survey is a piece of nonsense.
A bit of context. During a Jubilee or a sporting event, I often fly a Union Jack or England flag, but all year round I wouldn't.
Yep. That's, I think, where Middle England is on this. I push the envelope a little (at my age) with my England shirt but I'm comfortable with that during a World Cup or the Euros. I would NOT wear it outside those times. I doubt many on here would either, regardless of how they vote.
Why not?
I'll happily go out in my England shirt or Liverpool or Tranmere Rovers shirt. Why wouldn't I?
Honestly you sound like a conceited judgementalitist Mary Whitehouse throwback with a stick up your arse.
Are we supposed to go to the shops or the pub in a shirt, jacket and tie in your eyes?
Tranmere vs Liverpool - who do you support?
2001 FA Cup ♥
Tranmere.
Was delighted to cheer on Liverpool afterwards to winning the Cup 🏆 - but while the two are playing each other its Tranmere 100%.
It's the 'Canzuk' shield but the red stars of the NZ Southern Cross appear to have been slightly bleached by DG's tears.
A sneaky nod to White Power? Or less viscerally, the "chaps we can trust"?
You're a strange one.
Do you think the European Union is a nod to White Power?
Do you think CANZUK has more, less or similar level of "whiteness" to the European Union?
You're being too reductive and literal. These mindsets don't work like that. You have to ask why somebody like Grimes is flying the CANZUK shield. I'm sure you don't (do you?) so WTF is he and ilk doing it? I suggest it's for similar reasons that people in the States fly the Dixie flag. This is not to advertise a desire to refight the Civil War. It's to show support for a set of values. A set of values that encompass a high degree of nostalgia for a bygone age and the old ways. A set of values that in many cases are at the very least tinged with racism. It could be, I'm musing here but at the same time it's a little more than musing, that the CANZUK shield is becoming our version of the Confederate flag for our version of those Americans who choose to fly it. In which case, good, because it is a "tell". It's better to know than to not know.
Kinabalu, the Sinfinder General. Pricking the victims, to see if they bleed. Drooling as they strip
It's simply that I lack the peculiar mindset required to assume that anything short of KKK white sheets and hanging trees is not racist. And I note no substantive counter-argument yet offered by anybody as to why somebody like Darren Grimes would be flying this flag. He's from Durham.
Why would half the members of the Labour Party be flying the Palestinian flag when they're from Islington?
Great question and the answer supports my insight. For many (although not all) it is a general values statement rather than being specific to Palestine. It says to the world, "I am an anti-imperialist. I hate the west." Ditto with many symbols. The Dixie flag. The CANZUK shield. Which is where we came in. If you think everyone who flies that flag is simply and only campaigning for free movement in the White Commonwealth with no hinterland of nostalgia tinged with racism, I have a bridge to sell you.
Only problem is they're not particularly white compared to most European countries.
The distinction is that White Commonwealth countries were for white settlement, and emigration encouraged. Sometimes South Africa and Rhodesia were included, and the White Highlands of Kenya. Other colonies generally only got soldiers, administrators and commercial exploitation, so anglophone but not for long term emigration.
It's so cool how some people can apparently dedicate most of their free time to figuring out tiny clues (via flag props etc) as to who is and is not racist, and yet completely miss the mountains of evidence that a leader of a political party they happen to support, might be a tiny bit intolerant towards certain groups.
Cutting. But a tad unfair. I've not been an apologist for antisemitism on the left.
Yes, well, 6 votes in a congressional district is one thing - claiming you won an election when you got 7 million fewer votes than the winner is something else.
By the way, whatever happened to all the "mountains" of evidence of election fraud the GOP claimed it possessed showing a systematic attempt by the Democrats, allied with "Big" Tech and Pharma, to cheat Trump out of a second term?
I've no idea. I said at the time that, if Trump had evidence he should present it, and if he didn't, he should shut up. But he had the right to appeal.
Just to let you know, although the Democrats would disagree, supporting having the right to challenge a vote is not the same as saying Dominion was rigging the machines.
Anyway, enough of your "whatabout-ery". Do you think the Democrat move is right or wrong?
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" - Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 5.
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" - Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 5.
So you agree with the move?
Yet when there was the debate back in November on here about whether the states' legislatures had the final say in appointing electors to choose the President, there were howls about stealing the election. Now, it's absolutely fine a vote is overturned by a partisan body just because of the rules?
Funny how your commitment to Democracy only extends to your own side.
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" - Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 5.
So you agree with the move?
Yet when there was the debate back in November on here about whether the states' legislatures had the final say in appointing electors to choose the President, there were howls about stealing the election. Now, it's absolutely fine a vote is overturned by a partisan body just because of the rules?
Funny how your commitment to Democracy only extends to your own side.
Can I ask you both to consider and agree, in light of this, that the Constitution is a crock of outdated shit?
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" - Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 5.
So you agree with the move?
Yet when there was the debate back in November on here about whether the states' legislatures had the final say in appointing electors to choose the President, there were howls about stealing the election. Now, it's absolutely fine a vote is overturned by a partisan body just because of the rules?
Funny how your commitment to Democracy only extends to your own side.
For a minute I read that as extreme individualism :-) .
LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
Tricky one, though. Many people may think as you do, but then think some more and, well, do they want to diss the Queen?
I guarantee you that most people - a very clear majority - would not appreciate their neighbour sticking a great big "patriotic" flag on the roof. They'd probably not make a fuss, for fear of kicking off a feud, but the feeling would be disapproval not approval. C'mon. We all know this. So that survey is a piece of nonsense.
A bit of context. During a Jubilee or a sporting event, I often fly a Union Jack or England flag, but all year round I wouldn't.
Yep. That's, I think, where Middle England is on this. I push the envelope a little (at my age) with my England shirt but I'm comfortable with that during a World Cup or the Euros. I would NOT wear it outside those times. I doubt many on here would either, regardless of how they vote.
Why not?
I'll happily go out in my England shirt or Liverpool or Tranmere Rovers shirt. Why wouldn't I?
Honestly you sound like a conceited judgementalitist Mary Whitehouse throwback with a stick up your arse.
Are we supposed to go to the shops or the pub in a shirt, jacket and tie in your eyes?
Tranmere vs Liverpool - who do you support?
2001 FA Cup ♥
Tranmere.
Was delighted to cheer on Liverpool afterwards to winning the Cup 🏆 - but while the two are playing each other its Tranmere 100%.
Are you old enough to remember 1990 play off semi finals vs Swindon? I went to both. Great games, 2nd leg especially (3-2) I think. Hell of a game. At 5he end the tranmere fans came on the pitch, came to our end and gave us a huge ovation, which was returned. Class. Always respected that.
Anyway, enough of your "whatabout-ery". Do you think the Democrat move is right or wrong?
I'm going to answer this in my usual unequivocal way - yes and no.
If the reasons for the exclusion of the 22 disputed ballots can be challenged and appealed and there is a process for so doing, I think the Democrats have every right to follow that process to its conclusion.
However, the way they are going about this doesn't look good - this needs to be settled by a wholly independent third party who can resolve these issues.
In 1997, the Conservatives appealed the 2-vote win of Mark Oaten in Winchester, got the result annulled and forced a by-election, It didn't end well for them. The wider political point is I suspect all this won't sit well with Iowa voters who will say the election is over and the Democrats should accept the result. A graceful concession now can pay huge dividends in the future - voters will always be kinder to a gallant loser than a sore loser.
LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
kinabalu: 'Lol @ bollocks poll! Everyone really hates the flag, like me!'
Also kinabalu: 'If after a decade in Opposition Labour can barely hang on to a seat they've held for 50 years that'll be a huge win for them!'
Maybe, just maybe, there's a connection between those two things?
You're falling for cliched groupthink. Or possibly just straining too hard to believe what you want to be true. Either way, you'll make some bad calls if you're not careful. You need to stay alert to changes. And answer me honestly. Your brand new neighbour goes UJ crazy. You approve? You're pleased as punch? Or do you wish he hadn't and want the lovely old one back? Another rhetorical one.
The fact that you're struggling so much to comprehend that not everyone hates the national flag, despite having polling data proving you to be very wrong is an apt summation of Labour's current issues: for the party to win, the activists need to lose.
I'm merely casting doubt on a survey that says a clear majority of the country actually APPROVE of people flying the Union Jack on their house. I just think that's a nonsense. I'm surprised anybody on here bar the real fruities disagrees with me on this tbh.
Do you ever wonder if you're actually a total fucking idiot?
I get the strange sense that you do. But not often. But you do. Like, once a month or something, you will wake up in a cold lick of sweat, thinking about yourself, and you cringe, deeply and profoundly - but it is so painful you bury it away and then you go back to your normal glibness, and shallowness, and you feel fine.
I'm right, aren't I?
That's a strong (!) response to my fairly innocuous point (and fails to address it).
But to answer you - no. I have problems but that is decidedly not one of them. I'm actually even more intelligent and perceptive than my rudimentary language skills allow me to demonstrate.
You, OTOH, are able to mask an essential dimness with pyrotechnics of prose. I enjoy your output very much but it doesn't stick around.
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" - Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 5.
So you agree with the move?
Yet when there was the debate back in November on here about whether the states' legislatures had the final say in appointing electors to choose the President, there were howls about stealing the election. Now, it's absolutely fine a vote is overturned by a partisan body just because of the rules?
Funny how your commitment to Democracy only extends to your own side.
Can I ask you both to consider and agree, in light of this, that the Constitution is a crock of outdated shit?
I wouldn't go that far. It's ultimate aim was to stop one body having ultimate control. Hence the checks and balances.
I do agree that where you have a situation like with this or (alternatively) there was a route for Trump to appeal to state legislatures to go against the vote in each state that it is wrong and it needs to be changed.
What is slightly worrying though is that there are some people on this site who have already made it clear that their previously loud protestations about the threat to Democracy only matter when it is their own side that is being threatened. That makes me worried about their attitudes to Democracy in this country.
One of the key advantages imo of ditching Trump for Biden is that you have a President who you can be proud of on the world stage, having tea with the Queen, making great speeches at the UN and generally filling the required moments with suitable words and expressions. I am not sure Biden can manage this.
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" - Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 5.
So you agree with the move?
Yet when there was the debate back in November on here about whether the states' legislatures had the final say in appointing electors to choose the President, there were howls about stealing the election. Now, it's absolutely fine a vote is overturned by a partisan body just because of the rules?
Funny how your commitment to Democracy only extends to your own side.
No one ever said that the state legislatures do not have the right to decide how to appoint presidential electors. The point was that over the last two centuries they all delegated by law that right to the people of their states by popular vote. If any state had enacted, before November 2nd, 2020, to take back or qualify that delegation, they would have had that right. None did. Some are now considering doing so, which is their right, but if they do, it can only apply to any subsequent presidential election as the Constitution is quite explicit that the passing of ex post facto laws are prohibited at both federal and state level.
And how is a candidate that believes they have a case that they are in fact the duly elected member taking their case to the constitutionally mandated forum for such cases in any way, shape of form un-democratic?
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" - Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 5.
So you agree with the move?
Yet when there was the debate back in November on here about whether the states' legislatures had the final say in appointing electors to choose the President, there were howls about stealing the election. Now, it's absolutely fine a vote is overturned by a partisan body just because of the rules?
Funny how your commitment to Democracy only extends to your own side.
Does your commitment to the US constitution only extend to your side ?
Anyway, enough of your "whatabout-ery". Do you think the Democrat move is right or wrong?
I'm going to answer this in my usual unequivocal way - yes and no.
If the reasons for the exclusion of the 22 disputed ballots can be challenged and appealed and there is a process for so doing, I think the Democrats have every right to follow that process to its conclusion.
However, the way they are going about this doesn't look good - this needs to be settled by a wholly independent third party who can resolve these issues.
In 1997, the Conservatives appealed the 2-vote win of Mark Oaten in Winchester, got the result annulled and forced a by-election, It didn't end well for them. The wider political point is I suspect all this won't sit well with Iowa voters who will say the election is over and the Democrats should accept the result. A graceful concession now can pay huge dividends in the future - voters will always be kinder to a gallant loser than a sore loser.
Let me provide some clarity for you on that @stodge
The vote was certified by a bi-partisan Board in Iowa. Hart had the option to go through the courts in Iowa to challenge the result as most would have done. If she was so confident about those 22 votes (which the Board had already rejected), that was the natural route. She didn't. She specifically chose to go a body that she knows was controlled by her party. This is not someone who was convinced of the merits of her case to think she could win.
There shouldn't be a "yes and no" on this one. It's blatantly clear what is happening. Let me ask you this question, if this was a situation where the Republicans were doing such a thing, would you be so yes and no?
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" - Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 5.
So you agree with the move?
Yet when there was the debate back in November on here about whether the states' legislatures had the final say in appointing electors to choose the President, there were howls about stealing the election. Now, it's absolutely fine a vote is overturned by a partisan body just because of the rules?
Funny how your commitment to Democracy only extends to your own side.
Does your commitment to the US constitution only extend to your side ?
That tends to be the stance of the GOP and their supporters.
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" - Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 5.
So you agree with the move?
Yet when there was the debate back in November on here about whether the states' legislatures had the final say in appointing electors to choose the President, there were howls about stealing the election. Now, it's absolutely fine a vote is overturned by a partisan body just because of the rules?
Funny how your commitment to Democracy only extends to your own side.
Does your commitment to the US constitution only extend to your side ?
No, both. Which is why I said at the time that Trump trying to overturn the vote was wrong unless he could challenge the votes legitimately and with proof.
Back to you. Do you condemn this move? I've given you an answer, now provide yours.
We all knew, right from the start, the SNP members would vote to clear Sturgeon even if she confessed to the murder of the firstborn, and the Tory/Labour group would vote to admonish even if Salmond raped one of his secretaries across the desk in front of them.
What seems to have thrown everyone is that Wightman, who is an independent effectively at the end of his career (certainly if he doesn’t get tacit support from the SNP) has come down to admonish even though his political sympathies probably lie more with the SNP.
And that to my mind, whatever actual consequences there, is what is actually damning here. It’s clear that while the partisan hacks were partisan hacks, somebody looking at Sturgeon without prejudice against her has decided she lied to him.
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" - Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 5.
So you agree with the move?
Yet when there was the debate back in November on here about whether the states' legislatures had the final say in appointing electors to choose the President, there were howls about stealing the election. Now, it's absolutely fine a vote is overturned by a partisan body just because of the rules?
Funny how your commitment to Democracy only extends to your own side.
Does your commitment to the US constitution only extend to your side ?
That tends to be the stance of the GOP and their supporters.
Funny how many of you refuse to answer the question of whether you think it is right or wrong but deflect. Interesting illumination of your views on Democracy.
LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
kinabalu: 'Lol @ bollocks poll! Everyone really hates the flag, like me!'
Also kinabalu: 'If after a decade in Opposition Labour can barely hang on to a seat they've held for 50 years that'll be a huge win for them!'
Maybe, just maybe, there's a connection between those two things?
You're falling for cliched groupthink. Or possibly just straining too hard to believe what you want to be true. Either way, you'll make some bad calls if you're not careful. You need to stay alert to changes. And answer me honestly. Your brand new neighbour goes UJ crazy. You approve? You're pleased as punch? Or do you wish he hadn't and want the lovely old one back? Another rhetorical one.
On my road I have three houses flying flags. One Union Jack, one Liver Bird and one Unite.
For obvious reasons I feel closer to two of those than the other, but I respect and don't judge any of them.
The one with the Liver Bird went flag crazy when we won the Premier League, flying the flag of every single country of every player in the squad. A lot of flags!
This post has a slightly odd performative air about it.
Most people don't really care that much what there neighbours do with their land we mostly aren't a nation that goes banging on our neighbours doors to complain they have too many garden gnomes/flags/pebble dashing/painted their front door the wrong colour.
I suspect if you did a poll asking would you rather live next to someone who flies a flag or a judgemental joyless jerk of a woke leftie that the figures would be even more in favour of the flag wavers
That wasn't the survey though. I sense people know I'm right on this but are unable to agree with me in writing for some reason. Perhaps there's a worry I'll store it away and use it against them at a later date. Or even crow about it. Which I wouldn't. I'd just accept the agreement and move on. Life's too short.
Really piece of good news and the right thing to do
Anyone who is prepared to cross the border is a possible vector of transmission and so should be jabbed as a precaution.
Over you come, guys.
Easy for you over 50s to give our vaccine doses away. If the government proposed this I'd be pretty annoyed with it while 25m under 50s are still waiting for their first dose. We should only think about giving doses away once we've got a roadmap for all 18-49 year olds to get their doses before the end of June.
Anyway, enough of your "whatabout-ery". Do you think the Democrat move is right or wrong?
I'm going to answer this in my usual unequivocal way - yes and no.
If the reasons for the exclusion of the 22 disputed ballots can be challenged and appealed and there is a process for so doing, I think the Democrats have every right to follow that process to its conclusion.
However, the way they are going about this doesn't look good - this needs to be settled by a wholly independent third party who can resolve these issues.
In 1997, the Conservatives appealed the 2-vote win of Mark Oaten in Winchester, got the result annulled and forced a by-election, It didn't end well for them. The wider political point is I suspect all this won't sit well with Iowa voters who will say the election is over and the Democrats should accept the result. A graceful concession now can pay huge dividends in the future - voters will always be kinder to a gallant loser than a sore loser.
Let me provide some clarity for you on that @stodge
The vote was certified by a bi-partisan Board in Iowa. Hart had the option to go through the courts in Iowa to challenge the result as most would have done. If she was so confident about those 22 votes (which the Board had already rejected), that was the natural route. She didn't. She specifically chose to go a body that she knows was controlled by her party. This is not someone who was convinced of the merits of her case to think she could win.
There shouldn't be a "yes and no" on this one. It's blatantly clear what is happening. Let me ask you this question, if this was a situation where the Republicans were doing such a thing, would you be so yes and no?
But as I pointed out, it doesn't really matter what any state board or court, or federal court for that matter thinks, when the constitution clearly states it's the House that has the final say.
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" - Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 5.
So you agree with the move?
Yet when there was the debate back in November on here about whether the states' legislatures had the final say in appointing electors to choose the President, there were howls about stealing the election. Now, it's absolutely fine a vote is overturned by a partisan body just because of the rules?
Funny how your commitment to Democracy only extends to your own side.
Can I ask you both to consider and agree, in light of this, that the Constitution is a crock of outdated shit?
I wouldn't go that far. It's ultimate aim was to stop one body having ultimate control. Hence the checks and balances.
I do agree that where you have a situation like with this or (alternatively) there was a route for Trump to appeal to state legislatures to go against the vote in each state that it is wrong and it needs to be changed.
What is slightly worrying though is that there are some people on this site who have already made it clear that their previously loud protestations about the threat to Democracy only matter when it is their own side that is being threatened. That makes me worried about their attitudes to Democracy in this country.
‘No’ would have been quicker.
Ultimately, as long the American people continue to lionise a very flawed system of government, they will have a very flawed system of government.
But it seems they are happier slagging each other off for exploiting the flaws in the constitution than actually trying to fix it.
LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
Tricky one, though. Many people may think as you do, but then think some more and, well, do they want to diss the Queen?
I guarantee you that most people - a very clear majority - would not appreciate their neighbour sticking a great big "patriotic" flag on the roof. They'd probably not make a fuss, for fear of kicking off a feud, but the feeling would be disapproval not approval. C'mon. We all know this. So that survey is a piece of nonsense.
I think you misunderstood me: the Queen is wont to fly the flag on her house, yet most people do not disapprove of her, if they say they disapprove of flying the flag on your house then they're disapproving of the Queen!
More seriously, I feel much the same as you in that seeing a St George flag on a house does not make me want to dash to know the occupants. But I guess it's not so much about the flag as the connotations. Different example, I read a few years back that the clothing brand Lonsdale was favoured by neo-nazis as you could couple it with a jacket so the Lonsdale wording on the front was partially obscurred, leaving 'NSDA'. Now, I wasn't a Lonsdale buyer before, but I certainly wouldn't have been after that. Later they started sponsoring gay and multicultural events to put off the nazi crowd and that detoxified the brand for me (I still never bough any, but I would no longer have been put off by thinking that people would think I was a Nazi). Much the same with the flag. I've no inclination to stick any flag on my house, but say a family member wanted to do so then the thing that would bother me is not the flag, but everyone walking past assuming I'm a racist. So I wouldn't mind it during a football tournament as that connotation would not be there, or at least, not so much. Equally I'd be relaxed about someone sticking a Scotland flag or Isle of Mann or Yorkshire flag on my house. It's not the flag, it's the association between people who fly the England flag and racism (in England) which I don't think exists for the other home nation flags.
Likewise for a neighbour. England flag, I'd think it lowered the tone. Union flag too, although not quite as bad. Other home nation flag or other country flag - eccentric maybe, but not really a problem. It's unfair, but there it is.
Like you, I'm surprised by the poll.
Clothing brands can get hijacked, yes. One I recall. Levi Stapress, Ben Sherman shirt, Doc Martens (with the cushioned sole) - great look but tarnished by association for a while. The survey, I suspect people answered in a false, virtue-signalling way. That's why it's given those bizarre results. Love of flags is part of the new PC. If you don't comply, the antiwokerati "patriot" mob descend on you and you risk being cancelled. Naga Munchetty is the latest to get into hot water, I've just seen. "Respect that flag and make a noise about it too, else you're a wokie worm who hates Britain!" "Reactionaries must speak to students!" "Ban protests that annoy gammons!" It will pass, I'm sure, but right now it's in the ascendancy.
Didn't Fred Perry suspend sales in the US because their polo shirts were being appropriated by the Boogaloo Boys or Proud Boys or whatever the sexually frustrated fascists are calling themselves now?
Yes, I think I heard something like that. And in fact a Perry shirt was an acceptable substitute for the Sherman (button down collar) in the rigmarole I mentioned. Also with a "chopper" bike to terrorize people with on the pavements. I'm incriminating myself, I realize.
Hang on, I always wear Ben Sherman shirts and Solovair* air cushion boots!
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" - Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 5.
So you agree with the move?
Yet when there was the debate back in November on here about whether the states' legislatures had the final say in appointing electors to choose the President, there were howls about stealing the election. Now, it's absolutely fine a vote is overturned by a partisan body just because of the rules?
Funny how your commitment to Democracy only extends to your own side.
Does your commitment to the US constitution only extend to your side ?
That tends to be the stance of the GOP and their supporters.
Funny how many of you refuse to answer the question of whether you think it is right or wrong but deflect. Interesting illumination of your views on Democracy.
Do I think the Democrat has a valid case? I don't know, as I've not looked into the details. Do I think she has the right to take the action she is taking (i.e. appealing to the House to decide)? Absolutely. Do I think this is politically sensible action to take? Well, I was an elector in Winchester in 1997, so my vote was one of the two that awarded the seat to Mark Oaten on the night. Gerald Malone had the right to dispute it, and took it, but I think it is clear that it wasn't very sensible of him. The Liberal Democrats kept the seat until 2010, and possibly would have done so for longer if Mr Oaten's predilections hadn't made it into the national press. If Malone hadn't contested the result, I think the Tories would have had a good chance of winning the seat back sooner.
LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
kinabalu: 'Lol @ bollocks poll! Everyone really hates the flag, like me!'
Also kinabalu: 'If after a decade in Opposition Labour can barely hang on to a seat they've held for 50 years that'll be a huge win for them!'
Maybe, just maybe, there's a connection between those two things?
You're falling for cliched groupthink. Or possibly just straining too hard to believe what you want to be true. Either way, you'll make some bad calls if you're not careful. You need to stay alert to changes. And answer me honestly. Your brand new neighbour goes UJ crazy. You approve? You're pleased as punch? Or do you wish he hadn't and want the lovely old one back? Another rhetorical one.
On my road I have three houses flying flags. One Union Jack, one Liver Bird and one Unite.
For obvious reasons I feel closer to two of those than the other, but I respect and don't judge any of them.
The one with the Liver Bird went flag crazy when we won the Premier League, flying the flag of every single country of every player in the squad. A lot of flags!
This post has a slightly odd performative air about it.
You might have spotted another Nazi! A good day for you. Three in total?
Not at all. It's Philip. Just a strange little post, I thought. No big deal.
What's strange about it?
You asked what we'd think about neighbours flying flags and mine do and I have no problem with it whatsoever. 🤷♂️
I think you live a rather sheltered life if you think flags are weird. You should get out more.
In my locale (and it's quite a big one) there is not a single flag to be seen apart from when there's something like the World Cup on. Not even a Tranmere Rovers one.
It's the 'Canzuk' shield but the red stars of the NZ Southern Cross appear to have been slightly bleached by DG's tears.
A sneaky nod to White Power? Or less viscerally, the "chaps we can trust"?
You're a strange one.
Do you think the European Union is a nod to White Power?
Do you think CANZUK has more, less or similar level of "whiteness" to the European Union?
You're being too reductive and literal. These mindsets don't work like that. You have to ask why somebody like Grimes is flying the CANZUK shield. I'm sure you don't (do you?) so WTF is he and ilk doing it? I suggest it's for similar reasons that people in the States fly the Dixie flag. This is not to advertise a desire to refight the Civil War. It's to show support for a set of values. A set of values that encompass a high degree of nostalgia for a bygone age and the old ways. A set of values that in many cases are at the very least tinged with racism. It could be, I'm musing here but at the same time it's a little more than musing, that the CANZUK shield is becoming our version of the Confederate flag for our version of those Americans who choose to fly it. In which case, good, because it is a "tell". It's better to know than to not know.
Kinabalu, the Sinfinder General. Pricking the victims, to see if they bleed. Drooling as they strip
It's simply that I lack the peculiar mindset required to assume that anything short of KKK white sheets and hanging trees is not racist. And I note no substantive counter-argument yet offered by anybody as to why somebody like Darren Grimes would be flying this flag. He's from Durham.
Why would half the members of the Labour Party be flying the Palestinian flag when they're from Islington?
Great question and the answer supports my insight. For many (although not all) it is a general values statement rather than being specific to Palestine. It says to the world, "I am an anti-imperialist. I hate the west." Ditto with many symbols. The Dixie flag. The CANZUK shield. Which is where we came in. If you think everyone who flies that flag is simply and only campaigning for free movement in the White Commonwealth with no hinterland of nostalgia tinged with racism, I have a bridge to sell you.
LOL. That is a bollocks poll! So you go to some blokes's house and see he's got the flag of St George billowing from the roof - and OVER HALF of people say they APPROVE of that?
Come off it. You get out of there pronto, wondering what's down in the cellar.
No, that's people not answering honestly for fear of coming over as snobby and judgemental.
kinabalu: 'Lol @ bollocks poll! Everyone really hates the flag, like me!'
Also kinabalu: 'If after a decade in Opposition Labour can barely hang on to a seat they've held for 50 years that'll be a huge win for them!'
Maybe, just maybe, there's a connection between those two things?
You're falling for cliched groupthink. Or possibly just straining too hard to believe what you want to be true. Either way, you'll make some bad calls if you're not careful. You need to stay alert to changes. And answer me honestly. Your brand new neighbour goes UJ crazy. You approve? You're pleased as punch? Or do you wish he hadn't and want the lovely old one back? Another rhetorical one.
On my road I have three houses flying flags. One Union Jack, one Liver Bird and one Unite.
For obvious reasons I feel closer to two of those than the other, but I respect and don't judge any of them.
The one with the Liver Bird went flag crazy when we won the Premier League, flying the flag of every single country of every player in the squad. A lot of flags!
This post has a slightly odd performative air about it.
Most people don't really care that much what there neighbours do with their land we mostly aren't a nation that goes banging on our neighbours doors to complain they have too many garden gnomes/flags/pebble dashing/painted their front door the wrong colour.
I suspect if you did a poll asking would you rather live next to someone who flies a flag or a judgemental joyless jerk of a woke leftie that the figures would be even more in favour of the flag wavers
That wasn't the survey though. I sense people know I'm right on this but are unable to agree with me in writing for some reason. Perhaps there's a worry I'll store it away and use it against them at a later date. Or even crow about it. Which I wouldn't. I'd just accept the agreement and move on. Life's too short.
Well speaking for myself I consider you wrong and certainly would rather live next to a flag waver than I would someone like you
Let me provide some clarity for you on that @stodge
The vote was certified by a bi-partisan Board in Iowa. Hart had the option to go through the courts in Iowa to challenge the result as most would have done. If she was so confident about those 22 votes (which the Board had already rejected), that was the natural route. She didn't. She specifically chose to go a body that she knows was controlled by her party. This is not someone who was convinced of the merits of her case to think she could win.
There shouldn't be a "yes and no" on this one. It's blatantly clear what is happening. Let me ask you this question, if this was a situation where the Republicans were doing such a thing, would you be so yes and no?
Thank you for the clarity - as I said in my previous, I don't like the way Hart and the IA Democrats are doing this. If I were advising them, I'd tell them to go through the courts which you seem to accept is a valid route for challenge.
If the legal process ends in your favour, fine, if it doesn't, let it go.
The longer it drags on, the worse it looks for the IA Democrats. Arguing for votes to be counted where there is doubt is reasonable but once the legal process is concluded, the outcome of that needs to be respected by both sides.
I would say exactly the same if the GOP were challenging this.
Let me provide some clarity for you on that @stodge
The vote was certified by a bi-partisan Board in Iowa. Hart had the option to go through the courts in Iowa to challenge the result as most would have done. If she was so confident about those 22 votes (which the Board had already rejected), that was the natural route. She didn't. She specifically chose to go a body that she knows was controlled by her party. This is not someone who was convinced of the merits of her case to think she could win.
There shouldn't be a "yes and no" on this one. It's blatantly clear what is happening. Let me ask you this question, if this was a situation where the Republicans were doing such a thing, would you be so yes and no?
Thank you for the clarity - as I said in my previous, I don't like the way Hart and the IA Democrats are doing this. If I were advising them, I'd tell them to go through the courts which you seem to accept is a valid route for challenge.
If the legal process ends in your favour, fine, if it doesn't, let it go.
The longer it drags on, the worse it looks for the IA Democrats. Arguing for votes to be counted where there is doubt is reasonable but once the legal process is concluded, the outcome of that needs to be respected by both sides.
I would say exactly the same if the GOP were challenging this.
That is fair enough and, yes, once it is done, it is done. If the seat is reversed, this is great election material though for 2022.
The Democrats will never learn. They think they are being smart and all that will happen if the result is reversed is that any GOP House will do exactly the same, if only to show they can. I wouldn't agree with it but that's what will happen.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqVpHrd1O6Q
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/18/opinions/iowa-second-district-us-house-battle-douglas/index.html
*the original Dr Martens, and still made in UK.
You asked what we'd think about neighbours flying flags and mine do and I have no problem with it whatsoever. 🤷♂️
I think you live a rather sheltered life if you think flags are weird. You should get out more.
Unlike the presidential election, which President Joe Biden overwhelmingly won by tens of thousands of votes in several key swing states, the margin in this Iowa election is merely six votes out of just under 400,000 votes cast. And Hart's campaign claims that if election officials count the 22 disputed votes — which were not included due to various issues with the ballots — she will win by nine. So those ballots could decide the winner.
But instead of going to the courts or another arbiter that the public might accept as neutral, Hart chose to contest the election in the Democratic-controlled House itself. That is her legal right, but asking an explicitly partisan body to overturn the certified results of an election to seat a member of that party can undermine people's faith in the democratic process.
By the way, whatever happened to all the "mountains" of evidence of election fraud the GOP claimed it possessed showing a systematic attempt by the Democrats, allied with "Big" Tech and Pharma, to cheat Trump out of a second term?
Probably from too many HIIT workouts.
Any advice? The internet is quite depressing and says it could take MONTHS to heal
Yes, it's politics but let's not have the pontificating of some on here that the Democrats are saints and all their actions can be excused.
Tranmere.
Was delighted to cheer on Liverpool afterwards to winning the Cup 🏆 - but while the two are playing each other its Tranmere 100%.
Just to let you know, although the Democrats would disagree, supporting having the right to challenge a vote is not the same as saying Dominion was rigging the machines.
Anyway, enough of your "whatabout-ery". Do you think the Democrat move is right or wrong?
Talk to one or actually go see one?
Over you come, guys.
Yet when there was the debate back in November on here about whether the states' legislatures had the final say in appointing electors to choose the President, there were howls about stealing the election. Now, it's absolutely fine a vote is overturned by a partisan body just because of the rules?
Funny how your commitment to Democracy only extends to your own side.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi90oes_bzvAhV7VBUIHVKwAUwQFjALegQIAhAD&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpk0JpbTfO0&usg=AOvVaw1pHXyzuxnU-zinp6c7Jk3I
If the reasons for the exclusion of the 22 disputed ballots can be challenged and appealed and there is a process for so doing, I think the Democrats have every right to follow that process to its conclusion.
However, the way they are going about this doesn't look good - this needs to be settled by a wholly independent third party who can resolve these issues.
In 1997, the Conservatives appealed the 2-vote win of Mark Oaten in Winchester, got the result annulled and forced a by-election, It didn't end well for them. The wider political point is I suspect all this won't sit well with Iowa voters who will say the election is over and the Democrats should accept the result. A graceful concession now can pay huge dividends in the future - voters will always be kinder to a gallant loser than a sore loser.
But to answer you - no. I have problems but that is decidedly not one of them. I'm actually even more intelligent and perceptive than my rudimentary language skills allow me to demonstrate.
You, OTOH, are able to mask an essential dimness with pyrotechnics of prose. I enjoy your output very much but it doesn't stick around.
Ta mate. It really is surprisingly painful, and restricting
I do agree that where you have a situation like with this or (alternatively) there was a route for Trump to appeal to state legislatures to go against the vote in each state that it is wrong and it needs to be changed.
What is slightly worrying though is that there are some people on this site who have already made it clear that their previously loud protestations about the threat to Democracy only matter when it is their own side that is being threatened. That makes me worried about their attitudes to Democracy in this country.
One of the key advantages imo of ditching Trump for Biden is that you have a President who you can be proud of on the world stage, having tea with the Queen, making great speeches at the UN and generally filling the required moments with suitable words and expressions. I am not sure Biden can manage this.
And how is a candidate that believes they have a case that they are in fact the duly elected member taking their case to the constitutionally mandated forum for such cases in any way, shape of form un-democratic?
The vote was certified by a bi-partisan Board in Iowa. Hart had the option to go through the courts in Iowa to challenge the result as most would have done. If she was so confident about those 22 votes (which the Board had already rejected), that was the natural route. She didn't. She specifically chose to go a body that she knows was controlled by her party. This is not someone who was convinced of the merits of her case to think she could win.
There shouldn't be a "yes and no" on this one. It's blatantly clear what is happening. Let me ask you this question, if this was a situation where the Republicans were doing such a thing, would you be so yes and no?
Back to you. Do you condemn this move? I've given you an answer, now provide yours.
What seems to have thrown everyone is that Wightman, who is an independent effectively at the end of his career (certainly if he doesn’t get tacit support from the SNP) has come down to admonish even though his political sympathies probably lie more with the SNP.
And that to my mind, whatever actual consequences there, is what is actually damning here. It’s clear that while the partisan hacks were partisan hacks, somebody looking at Sturgeon without prejudice against her has decided she lied to him.
And that is not a good look.
Ultimately, as long the American people continue to lionise a very flawed system of government, they will have a very flawed system of government.
But it seems they are happier slagging each other off for exploiting the flaws in the constitution than actually trying to fix it.
NEW THREAD
If the legal process ends in your favour, fine, if it doesn't, let it go.
The longer it drags on, the worse it looks for the IA Democrats. Arguing for votes to be counted where there is doubt is reasonable but once the legal process is concluded, the outcome of that needs to be respected by both sides.
I would say exactly the same if the GOP were challenging this.
The Democrats will never learn. They think they are being smart and all that will happen if the result is reversed is that any GOP House will do exactly the same, if only to show they can. I wouldn't agree with it but that's what will happen.