2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Bully for you and you would like to ram your beliefs down other people's throats.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?
The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.
If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
Why not say you regret that Generalissimo Franco didn't leave a successor party in the British Isles and leave it at that?
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
Would you bother with a 12 week scan ?
There are other reasons for finding problems pre-birth than doing an abortion. Some can be treated pre-birth.* For others, you can prepare, get support in place and there are several where interventions soon after birth (which are possible anyway, but benefit from being planned, particularly with respect to truly informed consent) can have a great impact.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
What a weird and meaningless statement
What were your exceptional circumstances where aborting a baby is ok, post 12 weeks scans?
There is no doubt that AUKUS has come as a bitter blow to France and the EU
The Guardian this morning headline was the UK and US face backlash amid fears pact could provoke China
Reading the article they named France and China, and squeezed in Theresa May's comments, but did not say how it had been welcomed by the HoC, Japan, South Korea, India and across the Trans Pacific and even from some EU states.
This morning calls from the Dutch to involve the UK in close cooperation with the EU on defence and security is welcome
Is it too much to hope a new attitude to Brexit could also be forthcoming, because longer term the CPTPP is the place for world trade and that includes the EU joining alongside UK and US, who are reopening talks since the announcement of AUKUS
It's been an unmitigated disaster. I can't think of a time when the western democracies were riven with such mistrust and acrimony. From the US perspective - if the debacle in Afghanistan wasn't enough - it's proven that Biden is either senile and/or being advised by numpties. As for Boris - we all know he's a shallow buffoon, but this episode has stamped that with globally tragic consequences.
I am sorry I just do not agree
However if you see the EU as the be all end all it will leave a bitter taste for some, though it has been welcomed by quite a few EU countries
What I see as the be all and end all is unity amongst the western democracies. You obviously rather relish the division because it helps Boris.
It is clear AUKUS has wide support not just here but across the world and in the EU
France will contribute as well as Canada and others, but of course not in the tripartite agreement because by the nature of nuclear powered subs this is held solely by the UK US in the construction of their subs
It has nothing to do with Boris though he has had a good week
I cannot wait till the French undercut them and Laurel and Hardy are left with egg on their smug faces.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?
The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.
If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
I have some sympathy with that view.If the pregancy has developed to the point where safe delivery is possible, the mother should not be able to block the possibility of that sentient being in due course being adopted by other parents.
Be a real laugh if the French poke US and their lapdog in the eye , can only hope it goes that way.
The AUKUS deal probably means jobs in Scotland given what we'll be exporting.
But you don't care about that do you? You'd rather harm the Scottish economy than see Britain succeed. Truly cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
Can you say precisely what these jobs in Scotland will be, just so I can see the size of the nose we’d be cutting off?
Nice change to have Brits suggesting benefits if we stay rather than threatening econogeddon if we leave though. Normal service will be resumed shortly no doubt.
UK subs are built in Barrow. No guarantee that the Aussie subs will be built in the UK (unless ofr course they are from the existing MoD order for the RN, as DA sapiently suggested might be the case: edit: would then be to no net benefit for anyone south or north of the border).
Edit: can't think offhand of any bits of specialist kit made in Scotland, except certain hydraulics.
The option that was pointed out to me by my old mate (a sundodger of long pedigree) on FB last night was the RAN give up on the Collins and do an interim purchase of license built German Type 214 (a much smaller, cheaper and simpler boat which needs a small crew) while they wait to be ushered into their bright new nuclear anglophone future. The RAN flirted with this option in about 2014/5 so it wouldn't be a surprise and would make a lot of financial sense. It also keeps the yard busy until the SSN design is finalised (2030?) which is politically very important.
Thanks. I see the Indonesians and Koreans have Typ 214s too. Historically at least diesel boats also have been quieter than nukes but no idea if that is the case now.
Not the newer ones, I think ? They have fully electric drive, and can run off batteries, with the reactor run at very low power, when they want to be really quiet.
No in service design uses an electric motor for final propulsion - though the next generation US/UK boats may well do.
The big innovation was the American reactor design that allows for moderately high power using natural convection only. So the reactor pumps, which are one of the noisiest things, can be switched off for speeds below 20 knots or so,
This combined with pumpjet technology was why the US Navy spoke of the Seawolf class being quieter at 20 knots than the Improved Los Angeles at 5 knots.
The Chinese and French (certainly the new Barracuda class) boats do, I think.
There is no doubt that AUKUS has come as a bitter blow to France and the EU
The Guardian this morning headline was the UK and US face backlash amid fears pact could provoke China
Reading the article they named France and China, and squeezed in Theresa May's comments, but did not say how it had been welcomed by the HoC, Japan, South Korea, India and across the Trans Pacific and even from some EU states.
This morning calls from the Dutch to involve the UK in close cooperation with the EU on defence and security is welcome
Is it too much to hope a new attitude to Brexit could also be forthcoming, because longer term the CPTPP is the place for world trade and that includes the EU joining alongside UK and US, who are reopening talks since the announcement of AUKUS
It's been an unmitigated disaster. I can't think of a time when the western democracies were riven with such mistrust and acrimony. From the US perspective - if the debacle in Afghanistan wasn't enough - it's proven that Biden is either senile and/or being advised by numpties. As for Boris - we all know he's a shallow buffoon, but this episode has stamped that with globally tragic consequences.
I am sorry I just do not agree
However if you see the EU as the be all end all it will leave a bitter taste for some, though it has been welcomed by quite a few EU countries
What I see as the be all and end all is unity amongst the western democracies. You obviously rather relish the division because it helps Boris.
It is clear AUKUS has wide support not just here but across the world and in the EU
France will contribute as well as Canada and others, but of course not in the tripartite agreement because by the nature of nuclear powered subs this is held solely by the UK US in the construction of their subs
It has nothing to do with Boris though he has had a good week
I cannot wait till the French undercut them and Laurel and Hardy are left with egg on their smug faces.
I wonder what the ratio of abortions is of women with no children vs those who are already mothers. My guess is that in the same situation, ie it’s inconvenient/financially difficult to have a baby, the latter would be less inclined to terminate - stats may prove me wrong though
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
Effectively overturning Roe vs Wade is not much at all to do with Trumpism, that's simply a view taken by Trump for political convenience and is much more part of the 'mainstream' GOP philosophy. The GOP will try and make that happen with or without Trump.
On the upside the approach that Texas is being used could be used for other purposes in other states.
The ability to sue someone for carrying / owning a gun could be used in a whole host of eastern States / California to start an attempt at gun control.
Not a chance. The SCOTUS has already decided it doesn't need to respect prior case law. They'd rapidly injuct such a law as being unconstitutional while letting the Texan law stand.
If you don't need case law to be respected consistently then you can just do as you please and screw anyone else. RIP rule of law.
It is, as they say, slightly more complicated than that. For the UK see, for example, this from 1966:
Their Lordships regard the use of precedent as an indispensable foundation upon which to decide what is the law and its application to individual cases. It provides at least some degree of certainty upon which individuals can rely in the conduct of their affairs, as well as a basis for orderly development of legal rules.
Their Lordships nevertheless recognise that too rigid adherence to precedent may lead to injustice in a particular case and also unduly restrict the proper development of the law. They propose therefore, to modify their present practice and, while treating formal decisions of this house as normally binding, to depart from a previous decision when it appears to be right to do so.
In this connection they will bear in mind the danger of disturbing retrospectively the basis on which contracts, settlement of property, and fiscal arrangements have been entered into and also the especial need for certainty as to the criminal law. This announcement is not intended to affect the use of precedent elsewhere than in this House.
The Practice Statement of 1966 Note that this does not mean that it was intended that the House of Lords would depart from earlier decisions on a regular basis. Indeed since 1966 the House of Lords have only departed from their own past decisions on a handful of occasions.
A good example occurs in the law of tort where the House of Lords in Murphy v. Brentwood [1991] 1 AC 398 overruled the earlier decision of the House of Lords in Anns v. Merton [1978] AC 728. The Practice statement was not intended to change the rules for courts other than the House of Lords.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
They have no legal rights.
Except when their mother is in a car crash.
Or so I dimly remember from law school.
Not so. Procuring an abortion is a serious criminal offence unless a statutory exception applies. The unborn have an absolute right not to be (deliberately) aborted otherwise.
Common sense and humanist instinct says the same. Kicking a woman in the stomach is seen a serious criminal offence. We see it as even more serious when the kicker knows she is pregnant.
From a legal standpoint, the foetus has no justiciable rights, all of that notwithstanding, since UK law does not regard a foetus as a separate person until it is born.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Bully for you and you would like to ram your beliefs down other people's throats.
Mothers should not have the right to murder a sentient being which could be delivered to be brought up by others. Abortion should never be a form of contraception.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Bully for you and you would like to ram your beliefs down other people's throats.
Viva la muerte!
One thing we all have in common, it is coming for all
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Bully for you and you would like to ram your beliefs down other people's throats.
Viva la muerte!
One thing we all have in common, it is coming for all
As is winter. The rowan outside is now in full fruit, and the birch's leaves are turning.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Bully for you and you would like to ram your beliefs down other people's throats.
Viva la muerte!
One thing we all have in common, it is coming for all
As is winter. The rowan outside is now in full fruit, and the birch's leaves are turning.
It is indeed , crisp in the morning now and as you say leaves are turning. Birds have been making hay with elerberries , tree seems to be shaking most of the day.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Bully for you and you would like to ram your beliefs down other people's throats.
Mothers should not have the right to murder a sentient being which could be delivered to be brought up by others. Abortion should never be a form of contraception.
I am not taking part in any religious debate on the topic, for me it a woman's choice and I keep well out of it. I do though dislike religious nutjobs who try to push their crazy ideas onto other people.
Absolutely lovely weather in the square mile today! Company social today as well so everyone's been given the afternoon off if they're in office and going to the social. Unsurprisingly almost everyone has turned up for the free food/booze/other stuff!
Any currency choice for a newly independent Scotland would require its government to bring borrowing down to a sustainable level and commit to low and stable inflation....
This report.... explains how three currency options – a formal currency union with the rest of the UK, joining the euro, and ‘pegging’ a new Scottish currency to the value of another – are not initially viable.
Whatever currency arrangement it chose, Scotland’s ability to borrow would be restricted by what international investors were willing to lend. The implicit Scottish deficit was over 8% of GDP before coronavirus. No advanced economy – especially no small, advanced economy – has consistently borrowed anything like that much in normal times. A sustainable medium-term deficit would be closer to 3%. But this gap cannot be closed by spending less on defence or – at least initially – through higher growth, so some tax increases or spending cuts would be necessary.
Interesting to note that a day after Australia bought those Submarines China applied to join the CPTPP - I suspect just to see what will happen and take umbridge when they discover it's purpose
Raab will have lost his seat. In Parliament, as well as any chance of still being in cabinet.
Truss becoming leader before the election is likely the best way for the Tories to hold onto seats like that, so really he'll need to hope she or Rishi win the leadership before the election.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Bully for you and you would like to ram your beliefs down other people's throats.
Viva la muerte!
One thing we all have in common, it is coming for all
As is winter. The rowan outside is now in full fruit, and the birch's leaves are turning.
It is indeed , crisp in the morning now and as you say leaves are turning. Birds have been making hay with elerberries , tree seems to be shaking most of the day.
As you say, leaves are turning but we had a very pleasant lunch in a Vineyard overlooking the River Crouch, in Mid Essex yesterday. Warm, with beautiful sunshine, with the sun sparkling in the distant river. Fortunately the tide was in!
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
It wasn't really the constitution, the last few weeks were basically a coup d'etat where the military and everyone else just decided that Trump might technically be president but they were just going to ignore him.
In what way was it a coup ? Please give instances, as unless valid executive orders were refused, that’s simply wrong.
OK that's fair, I'm full of shit.
What we do have is generals assuring everybody that Trump won't be able to do things; Pelosi seems to have been told Trump wouldn't be in control of nuclear weapons, the Chinese were told, "If we decide to go to war with you I'll let you know in advance", the Afghans seem to have been told that they'd slow-walk Trump's attempt to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan (that at one point he signed an order for). But the last days seem to have just been total pandemonium, so Trump didn't manage to give clear enough orders about anything mad that they had to overtly disobey.
That’s not how I understood it. On Milley and nuclear weapons, it seems that he instructed the military that they must, whatever happens, consult him before taking any action. As it’s in law that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs be consulted before use of nuclear weapons, that was an entirely appropriate instruction.
And it is, of course, only Congress which has the power to declare war. The scope of executive authority in taking military action in not entirely clear cut, so it is not illegal for generals to delay - though the President of course has the power to sack them. (And their oath is to the Constitution, so they are entitled to refuse to obey an illegal order.)
Had this discussion the other night. It is not the law that the Chief of Staff be consulted before POTUS launches a nuclear strike. The Joint Chiefs of Staff act in an advisory capacity. Bar POTUS, the one who does have a responsibility is the Secretary of Defence whose role is to verify that the actual order came from POTUS. But the SoD would not be able to veto it.
It is also mixing things up to use the defence that Milley was in his rights to stop any potential action by Trump to launch nukes because only Congress has lawful authority to start wars. The two are separate. You don't have to declare a war to launch a nuke e.g. a hypothetical situation where the US decides to take out an organisation it does not recognise by a nuclear strike.
Quite simply, Milley took it upon himself, without telling of his civilian chiefs, to insert himself into the Chain of Command, including the use of nuclear weapons (let's leave aside his conversations with his Chinese counterpart). That is unacceptable.
I get that many here think "it's Trump, it was justified. End of." But, if you want to think about a situation where it could have ended very badly, think of 1962 and Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to launch a full out attack on Cuba but were overruled by JFK. If they had taken your line that the Chief of Staff can instruct the military to check all orders from the President because JFK could not be trusted - and they would have believed, as you do, that they would have been right because they would have thought JFK was endangering the safety of the US - the implications do not bear thinking about.
Be a real laugh if the French poke US and their lapdog in the eye , can only hope it goes that way.
The AUKUS deal probably means jobs in Scotland given what we'll be exporting.
But you don't care about that do you? You'd rather harm the Scottish economy than see Britain succeed. Truly cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
Can you say precisely what these jobs in Scotland will be, just so I can see the size of the nose we’d be cutting off?
Nice change to have Brits suggesting benefits if we stay rather than threatening econogeddon if we leave though. Normal service will be resumed shortly no doubt.
UK subs are built in Barrow. No guarantee that the Aussie subs will be built in the UK (unless ofr course they are from the existing MoD order for the RN, as DA sapiently suggested might be the case: edit: would then be to no net benefit for anyone south or north of the border).
Edit: can't think offhand of any bits of specialist kit made in Scotland, except certain hydraulics.
The option that was pointed out to me by my old mate (a sundodger of long pedigree) on FB last night was the RAN give up on the Collins and do an interim purchase of license built German Type 214 (a much smaller, cheaper and simpler boat which needs a small crew) while they wait to be ushered into their bright new nuclear anglophone future. The RAN flirted with this option in about 2014/5 so it wouldn't be a surprise and would make a lot of financial sense. It also keeps the yard busy until the SSN design is finalised (2030?) which is politically very important.
Thanks. I see the Indonesians and Koreans have Typ 214s too. Historically at least diesel boats also have been quieter than nukes but no idea if that is the case now.
Not the newer ones, I think ? They have fully electric drive, and can run off batteries, with the reactor run at very low power, when they want to be really quiet.
No in service design uses an electric motor for final propulsion - though the next generation US/UK boats may well do.
The big innovation was the American reactor design that allows for moderately high power using natural convection only. So the reactor pumps, which are one of the noisiest things, can be switched off for speeds below 20 knots or so,
This combined with pumpjet technology was why the US Navy spoke of the Seawolf class being quieter at 20 knots than the Improved Los Angeles at 5 knots.
The Chinese and French (certainly the new Barracuda class) boats do, I think.
It would have been better for the USA and everyone else if Trump had won by a clear margin in 2020. No need for the insurrection or the trashing of the democratic process. He'd have happily idled away his second term enriching his family, getting as high as fuck and enjoying the fact that a band plays every time he walks into a room.
It's a view, I suppose. Although probably no AUKUS, which has the capability for both good and evil in the long term.
AUKUS is theatre designed to generate 48-72 hours of favourable headlines for Biden, Johnson and the Fella Down Under. It generates no treaty obligations and changes exactly nothing about deployed forces or command structures.
It worked then. Various serious people called it significant so it achieved its aim.
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
It wasn't really the constitution, the last few weeks were basically a coup d'etat where the military and everyone else just decided that Trump might technically be president but they were just going to ignore him.
In what way was it a coup ? Please give instances, as unless valid executive orders were refused, that’s simply wrong.
OK that's fair, I'm full of shit.
What we do have is generals assuring everybody that Trump won't be able to do things; Pelosi seems to have been told Trump wouldn't be in control of nuclear weapons, the Chinese were told, "If we decide to go to war with you I'll let you know in advance", the Afghans seem to have been told that they'd slow-walk Trump's attempt to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan (that at one point he signed an order for). But the last days seem to have just been total pandemonium, so Trump didn't manage to give clear enough orders about anything mad that they had to overtly disobey.
That’s not how I understood it. On Milley and nuclear weapons, it seems that he instructed the military that they must, whatever happens, consult him before taking any action. As it’s in law that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs be consulted before use of nuclear weapons, that was an entirely appropriate instruction.
And it is, of course, only Congress which has the power to declare war. The scope of executive authority in taking military action in not entirely clear cut, so it is not illegal for generals to delay - though the President of course has the power to sack them. (And their oath is to the Constitution, so they are entitled to refuse to obey an illegal order.)
Had this discussion the other night. It is not the law that the Chief of Staff be consulted before POTUS launches a nuclear strike. The Joint Chiefs of Staff act in an advisory capacity. Bar POTUS, the one who does have a responsibility is the Secretary of Defence whose role is to verify that the actual order came from POTUS. But the SoD would not be able to veto it.
It is also mixing things up to use the defence that Milley was in his rights to stop any potential action by Trump to launch nukes because only Congress has lawful authority to start wars. The two are separate. You don't have to declare a war to launch a nuke e.g. a hypothetical situation where the US decides to take out an organisation it does not recognise by a nuclear strike.
Quite simply, Milley took it upon himself, without telling of his civilian chiefs, to insert himself into the Chain of Command, including the use of nuclear weapons (let's leave aside his conversations with his Chinese counterpart). That is unacceptable.
I get that many here think "it's Trump, it was justified. End of." But, if you want to think about a situation where it could have ended very badly, think of 1962 and Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to launch a full out attack on Cuba but were overruled by JFK. If they had taken your line that the Chief of Staff can instruct the military to check all orders from the President because JFK could not be trusted - and they would have believed, as you do, that they would have been right because they would have thought JFK was endangering the safety of the US - the implications do not bear thinking about.
Do people have to make difficult decisions that could lead to possible bad precedents when a President is attempting to end democracy? Absolutely.
The fault lies with that President and his enablers, not the poor sods trying to navigate a way through his shit.
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
Yougov figures now out, Tories retention rate up and 85% of 2019 Tory voters still voting Tory. Only 78% of 2019 Labour voters still back Labour though.
More 2019 Tory voters, 5%, now back ReformUK than the 4% who back Starmer Labour and 5% of 2019 Labour voters now back the Tories.
Almost all Labour gains have come from the LDs, 35% of 2019 LD voters now back Starmer Labour but 10% of 2019 Labour voters now back the Greens
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
It wasn't really the constitution, the last few weeks were basically a coup d'etat where the military and everyone else just decided that Trump might technically be president but they were just going to ignore him.
In what way was it a coup ? Please give instances, as unless valid executive orders were refused, that’s simply wrong.
OK that's fair, I'm full of shit.
What we do have is generals assuring everybody that Trump won't be able to do things; Pelosi seems to have been told Trump wouldn't be in control of nuclear weapons, the Chinese were told, "If we decide to go to war with you I'll let you know in advance", the Afghans seem to have been told that they'd slow-walk Trump's attempt to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan (that at one point he signed an order for). But the last days seem to have just been total pandemonium, so Trump didn't manage to give clear enough orders about anything mad that they had to overtly disobey.
That’s not how I understood it. On Milley and nuclear weapons, it seems that he instructed the military that they must, whatever happens, consult him before taking any action. As it’s in law that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs be consulted before use of nuclear weapons, that was an entirely appropriate instruction.
And it is, of course, only Congress which has the power to declare war. The scope of executive authority in taking military action in not entirely clear cut, so it is not illegal for generals to delay - though the President of course has the power to sack them. (And their oath is to the Constitution, so they are entitled to refuse to obey an illegal order.)
Had this discussion the other night. It is not the law that the Chief of Staff be consulted before POTUS launches a nuclear strike. The Joint Chiefs of Staff act in an advisory capacity. Bar POTUS, the one who does have a responsibility is the Secretary of Defence whose role is to verify that the actual order came from POTUS. But the SoD would not be able to veto it.
It is also mixing things up to use the defence that Milley was in his rights to stop any potential action by Trump to launch nukes because only Congress has lawful authority to start wars. The two are separate. You don't have to declare a war to launch a nuke e.g. a hypothetical situation where the US decides to take out an organisation it does not recognise by a nuclear strike.
Quite simply, Milley took it upon himself, without telling of his civilian chiefs, to insert himself into the Chain of Command, including the use of nuclear weapons (let's leave aside his conversations with his Chinese counterpart). That is unacceptable.
I get that many here think "it's Trump, it was justified. End of." But, if you want to think about a situation where it could have ended very badly, think of 1962 and Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to launch a full out attack on Cuba but were overruled by JFK. If they had taken your line that the Chief of Staff can instruct the military to check all orders from the President because JFK could not be trusted - and they would have believed, as you do, that they would have been right because they would have thought JFK was endangering the safety of the US - the implications do not bear thinking about.
Do people have to make difficult decisions that could lead to possible bad precedents when a President is attempting to end democracy? Absolutely.
The fault lies with that President and his enablers, not the poor sods trying to navigate a way through his shit.
I agree with that, I wouldn't want Trump launching nukes.
My point is that those celebrating Milley because he acted Trump are at risk of justifying a similar action on the other side. If you want a political example, the reason why the Republicans were able to get rid of the 60-vote SCOTUS filibuster was because Harry Reid had got rid of it for senior judicial appointments and they used his move to justify what they did.
In my mind, the best thing Milley can do is resign, say that he believes he took the right course of action but that he realises his decisions may have been interpreted as a move to usurp civilian control and so believes he needs to step down.
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
That's spot on. This has been terrible for America, and the West's, long-term interests but great for Boris's career.
Once again, the terrible bit for the west is how China has already fractured the coalition. This is a reaction to the reality and getting a group together who are willing to do something about China's global advancement. If we broaden the alliance we're once again moving at the rate of the slowest nation, Germany, because we have to account for their foreign policy objective of not pissing China off at any cost so they can keep selling BMWs and dishwashers to Chinese people.
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
That's spot on. This has been terrible for America, and the West's, long-term interests but great for Boris's career.
How do you square the circle of getting people/countries who want to appease China as a priority, involved in opposing China?
It is more important to get Japan, South Korea and India involved with most of the Anglosphere nations in opposing China as they are in the same region.
The focus with the continental European nations should be keeping them involved in Nato to contain Putin
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
That's spot on. This has been terrible for America, and the West's, long-term interests but great for Boris's career.
I am not sure how much you know or understand the Trans Pacific nor the threat they perceive from China, but the key to these countries is that the US has teamed up with Australia to provide nuclear subs produced by shared technology between the US and UK
The future of world trade will also come through CPTPP and the EU if it is wise will recognise this
The only ones this has been terrible for are France, China and to a lessor degree the EU
Any currency choice for a newly independent Scotland would require its government to bring borrowing down to a sustainable level and commit to low and stable inflation....
This report.... explains how three currency options – a formal currency union with the rest of the UK, joining the euro, and ‘pegging’ a new Scottish currency to the value of another – are not initially viable.
Whatever currency arrangement it chose, Scotland’s ability to borrow would be restricted by what international investors were willing to lend. The implicit Scottish deficit was over 8% of GDP before coronavirus. No advanced economy – especially no small, advanced economy – has consistently borrowed anything like that much in normal times. A sustainable medium-term deficit would be closer to 3%. But this gap cannot be closed by spending less on defence or – at least initially – through higher growth, so some tax increases or spending cuts would be necessary.
It borrows ZERO at present so should not be difficult. Given they would not borrow for the rubbish the UK lumber them with as "Supposed deficit" which in reality is English deficit decision. So usual bollox, as the Scottish spending would bear no resemblance to the drunken spree that constitutes English UK "spending".
Yougov figures now out, Tories retention rate up and 85% of 2019 Tory voters still voting Tory. Only 78% of 2019 Labour voters still back Labour though.
More 2019 Tory voters, 5%, now back ReformUK than the 4% who back Starmer Labour and 5% of 2019 Labour voters now back the Tories.
Almost all Labour gains have come from the LDs, 35% of 2019 LD voters now back Starmer Labour but 10% of 2019 Labour voters now back the Greens
A 35% poll rating from Yougov is ok for Labour in the context of the party being likely to pick up at least 3% from the Greens at a GE. Overall the polls appear to suggest we are now back into Hung Parliament territory with the Tories just short of a majority. I suspect Johnson will need stronger poll figures than this to risk a 2023 election.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?
The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.
If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?
The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.
If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
That's spot on. This has been terrible for America, and the West's, long-term interests but great for Boris's career.
I am not sure how much you know or understand the Trans Pacific nor the threat they perceive from China, but the key to these countries is that the US has teamed up with Australia to provide nuclear subs produced by shared technology between the US and UK
The future of world trade will also come through CPTPP and the EU if it is wise will recognise this
The only ones this has been terrible for are France, China and to a lessor degree the EU
You seem oddly obsessed with the Trans Pacific thing. I promise not to laugh when it all falls through.
Bad news for those expecting the usual speedy results from Canada. Potentially good news for those who won't be getting up at a godawful hour on a Tuesday morning to get the results. Postal ballots won't be counted on the night. Meaning the likely very close election won't be called for up to 5 days.
Bad news for those expecting the usual speedy results from Canada. Potentially good news for those who won't be getting up at a godawful hour on a Tuesday morning to get the results. Postal ballots won't be counted on the night. Meaning the likely very close election won't be called for up to 5 days.
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
That's spot on. This has been terrible for America, and the West's, long-term interests but great for Boris's career.
How do you square the circle of getting people/countries who want to appease China as a priority, involved in opposing China?
It is more important to get Japan, South Korea and India involved with most of the Anglosphere nations in opposing China as they are in the same region.
The focus with the continental European nations should be keeping them involved in Nato to contain Putin
I am not sure how much your knowledge extends to the Trans-Pacific but Japan, India and South Korea are attending the signing by Boris - Biden - Morrison of the new tripartite military and security agreement next week in the US
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
It wasn't really the constitution, the last few weeks were basically a coup d'etat where the military and everyone else just decided that Trump might technically be president but they were just going to ignore him.
In what way was it a coup ? Please give instances, as unless valid executive orders were refused, that’s simply wrong.
OK that's fair, I'm full of shit.
What we do have is generals assuring everybody that Trump won't be able to do things; Pelosi seems to have been told Trump wouldn't be in control of nuclear weapons, the Chinese were told, "If we decide to go to war with you I'll let you know in advance", the Afghans seem to have been told that they'd slow-walk Trump's attempt to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan (that at one point he signed an order for). But the last days seem to have just been total pandemonium, so Trump didn't manage to give clear enough orders about anything mad that they had to overtly disobey.
That’s not how I understood it. On Milley and nuclear weapons, it seems that he instructed the military that they must, whatever happens, consult him before taking any action. As it’s in law that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs be consulted before use of nuclear weapons, that was an entirely appropriate instruction.
And it is, of course, only Congress which has the power to declare war. The scope of executive authority in taking military action in not entirely clear cut, so it is not illegal for generals to delay - though the President of course has the power to sack them. (And their oath is to the Constitution, so they are entitled to refuse to obey an illegal order.)
Had this discussion the other night. It is not the law that the Chief of Staff be consulted before POTUS launches a nuclear strike. The Joint Chiefs of Staff act in an advisory capacity. Bar POTUS, the one who does have a responsibility is the Secretary of Defence whose role is to verify that the actual order came from POTUS. But the SoD would not be able to veto it.
It is also mixing things up to use the defence that Milley was in his rights to stop any potential action by Trump to launch nukes because only Congress has lawful authority to start wars. The two are separate. You don't have to declare a war to launch a nuke e.g. a hypothetical situation where the US decides to take out an organisation it does not recognise by a nuclear strike.
Quite simply, Milley took it upon himself, without telling of his civilian chiefs, to insert himself into the Chain of Command, including the use of nuclear weapons (let's leave aside his conversations with his Chinese counterpart). That is unacceptable.
I get that many here think "it's Trump, it was justified. End of." But, if you want to think about a situation where it could have ended very badly, think of 1962 and Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to launch a full out attack on Cuba but were overruled by JFK. If they had taken your line that the Chief of Staff can instruct the military to check all orders from the President because JFK could not be trusted - and they would have believed, as you do, that they would have been right because they would have thought JFK was endangering the safety of the US - the implications do not bear thinking about.
Do people have to make difficult decisions that could lead to possible bad precedents when a President is attempting to end democracy? Absolutely.
The fault lies with that President and his enablers, not the poor sods trying to navigate a way through his shit.
Biden should give Gen. Milley all three versions of the Medal of Honor.
Bad news for those expecting the usual speedy results from Canada. Potentially good news for those who won't be getting up at a godawful hour on a Tuesday morning to get the results. Postal ballots won't be counted on the night. Meaning the likely very close election won't be called for up to 5 days.
Bad news for those expecting the usual speedy results from Canada. Potentially good news for those who won't be getting up at a godawful hour on a Tuesday morning to get the results. Postal ballots won't be counted on the night. Meaning the likely very close election won't be called for up to 5 days.
The thing I've always found amusing is even though they presumably all know each other, even at the Cabinet of the UK a staffer makes sure to put out little name plates for everyone to make sure they sit in the right place, and/or don't forget what their job title now is.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?
The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.
If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:
Doubt it'll work - even when they propose something popular I don't think they tend to get much reward. Lib Dem conference: Call to scrap Covid laws in pitch for Tory voters
Any currency choice for a newly independent Scotland would require its government to bring borrowing down to a sustainable level and commit to low and stable inflation....
This report.... explains how three currency options – a formal currency union with the rest of the UK, joining the euro, and ‘pegging’ a new Scottish currency to the value of another – are not initially viable.
Whatever currency arrangement it chose, Scotland’s ability to borrow would be restricted by what international investors were willing to lend. The implicit Scottish deficit was over 8% of GDP before coronavirus. No advanced economy – especially no small, advanced economy – has consistently borrowed anything like that much in normal times. A sustainable medium-term deficit would be closer to 3%. But this gap cannot be closed by spending less on defence or – at least initially – through higher growth, so some tax increases or spending cuts would be necessary.
It borrows ZERO at present so should not be difficult. Given they would not borrow for the rubbish the UK lumber them with as "Supposed deficit" which in reality is English deficit decision. So usual bollox, as the Scottish spending would bear no resemblance to the drunken spree that constitutes English UK "spending".
More analysis than you've ever had from the SNP!
Joining a formal currency union does not seem to be a feasible option for Scotland in the short term. Launching a pegged currency also appears unrealistic given the mismatch between Scotland’s prospects of accumulating foreign reserves and the amount needed to manage the exchange rate. Only two options, therefore, are truly open to Scotland straight after independence: informally adopting sterling and launching a new, free-floating currency.
Informally adopting sterling comes with various downsides. But in the short term at least, it may be preferable to launching a new currency. A new currency would probably be particularly volatile in the period straight after independence, when there would be uncertainty about Scotland’s future path and Scotland’s new institutions would lack credibility with markets because of the absence of a track record of prudent fiscal and monetary policy. This volatility, as described in this report, could discourage investment and trade with Scotland and elicit high premiums on the sovereign borrowing rates.
Bad news for those expecting the usual speedy results from Canada. Potentially good news for those who won't be getting up at a godawful hour on a Tuesday morning to get the results. Postal ballots won't be counted on the night. Meaning the likely very close election won't be called for up to 5 days.
Do like this quote about one of the capital city's Ridings.
“In a place like Ottawa-Vanier, well, the returning office is 1,000 kilometres from the polling location, so if the polls close at nine o’clock, those dropped off ballots aren’t going to be at the returning office at 930, they’re going to be there the next day,” she said.
Certainly puts our 5 protected constituencies due to their size and remote nature into some context.
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
That's spot on. This has been terrible for America, and the West's, long-term interests but great for Boris's career.
I am not sure how much you know or understand the Trans Pacific nor the threat they perceive from China, but the key to these countries is that the US has teamed up with Australia to provide nuclear subs produced by shared technology between the US and UK
The future of world trade will also come through CPTPP and the EU if it is wise will recognise this
The only ones this has been terrible for are France, China and to a lessor degree the EU
You seem oddly obsessed with the Trans Pacific thing. I promise not to laugh when it all falls through.
I think your last sentence shows an enormous lack of knowledge of the reality of the area
CPTPP is an existing free trade agreement between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia , Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam
The UK are already in the process of joining and Biden announced yesterday the US is to recommence their application to join
This is the future of world trade and the buffer against China and ironically the EU may need to join in order not to be sidelined
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
It wasn't really the constitution, the last few weeks were basically a coup d'etat where the military and everyone else just decided that Trump might technically be president but they were just going to ignore him.
In what way was it a coup ? Please give instances, as unless valid executive orders were refused, that’s simply wrong.
OK that's fair, I'm full of shit.
What we do have is generals assuring everybody that Trump won't be able to do things; Pelosi seems to have been told Trump wouldn't be in control of nuclear weapons, the Chinese were told, "If we decide to go to war with you I'll let you know in advance", the Afghans seem to have been told that they'd slow-walk Trump's attempt to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan (that at one point he signed an order for). But the last days seem to have just been total pandemonium, so Trump didn't manage to give clear enough orders about anything mad that they had to overtly disobey.
That’s not how I understood it. On Milley and nuclear weapons, it seems that he instructed the military that they must, whatever happens, consult him before taking any action. As it’s in law that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs be consulted before use of nuclear weapons, that was an entirely appropriate instruction.
And it is, of course, only Congress which has the power to declare war. The scope of executive authority in taking military action in not entirely clear cut, so it is not illegal for generals to delay - though the President of course has the power to sack them. (And their oath is to the Constitution, so they are entitled to refuse to obey an illegal order.)
Had this discussion the other night. It is not the law that the Chief of Staff be consulted before POTUS launches a nuclear strike. The Joint Chiefs of Staff act in an advisory capacity. Bar POTUS, the one who does have a responsibility is the Secretary of Defence whose role is to verify that the actual order came from POTUS. But the SoD would not be able to veto it.
It is also mixing things up to use the defence that Milley was in his rights to stop any potential action by Trump to launch nukes because only Congress has lawful authority to start wars. The two are separate. You don't have to declare a war to launch a nuke e.g. a hypothetical situation where the US decides to take out an organisation it does not recognise by a nuclear strike. …
The two are perhaps separate, but in the vast majority of conceivable cases they are not. A response to a first strike, which requires a decision in minutes, is one thing (and why the truncated chain of command, with the sole presidential authority, exists). A first strike decision is an entirely different matter, and it is simply nuts to suggest that any president should be able to launch nukes on a whim without consulting anyone. And in the vast majority of any conceivable cases it would absolutely be a declaration of war. Your further hypothetical, with the implication that again it should be achievable on presidential whim without significant discussion of the policy (and it’s legality) is equally nuts.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Bully for you and you would like to ram your beliefs down other people's throats.
Viva la muerte!
One thing we all have in common, it is coming for all
As is winter. The rowan outside is now in full fruit, and the birch's leaves are turning.
It is indeed , crisp in the morning now and as you say leaves are turning. Birds have been making hay with elerberries , tree seems to be shaking most of the day.
As you say, leaves are turning but we had a very pleasant lunch in a Vineyard overlooking the River Crouch, in Mid Essex yesterday. Warm, with beautiful sunshine, with the sun sparkling in the distant river. Fortunately the tide was in!
OKC, glad you had a pleasant day out and a nice lunch. Starting to get not so nice here and have had the heating on a few times. Hopefully we will see a little more sun before it gets real bad. Really notice it getting dark at nights early now.
If Scotland were to become independent, it would be a small, advanced economy of a similar size to New Zealand and Finland, with a similar GDP per head to the UK. As such, it would be able to borrow from financial markets. Its initial challenge would be to reduce what is currently a very high implicit deficit – 8–9% of GDP. This is higher than the deficit that an independent country would be able to sustain year after year. An independent Scotland would need to reduce its borrowing to around 3% of GDP a year in ‘normal times’ (outside of crises). This is a level that is consistent with debt falling steadily as a share of GDP, is in line with what other similar countries have managed to borrow in the past, and would be a necessary condition for Scotland to join the EU. This would require a substantial fiscal consolidation of 5–6% of GDP over the medium term. The Sustainable Growth Commission proposed some savings – including by spending less on defence – but this amounts to only around 1.2% of GDP, leaving a further consolidation being required of 4–5% of GDP.
Even with a lower deficit, an independent Scotland would likely have to borrow at rates that are somewhat more expensive than UK debt, partly by virtue of being a smaller country but also – at least initially – because it would be a new country with no track record and would therefore be viewed as a riskier prospect.
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
That's spot on. This has been terrible for America, and the West's, long-term interests but great for Boris's career.
I am not sure how much you know or understand the Trans Pacific nor the threat they perceive from China, but the key to these countries is that the US has teamed up with Australia to provide nuclear subs produced by shared technology between the US and UK
The future of world trade will also come through CPTPP and the EU if it is wise will recognise this
The only ones this has been terrible for are France, China and to a lessor degree the EU
You seem oddly obsessed with the Trans Pacific thing. I promise not to laugh when it all falls through.
It is a Tory cult thing, they need to have something to obsess over other than the UK disasters.
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
That's spot on. This has been terrible for America, and the West's, long-term interests but great for Boris's career.
I am not sure how much you know or understand the Trans Pacific nor the threat they perceive from China, but the key to these countries is that the US has teamed up with Australia to provide nuclear subs produced by shared technology between the US and UK
The future of world trade will also come through CPTPP and the EU if it is wise will recognise this
The only ones this has been terrible for are France, China and to a lessor degree the EU
You seem oddly obsessed with the Trans Pacific thing. I promise not to laugh when it all falls through.
It is a Tory cult thing, they need to have something to obsess over other than the UK disasters.
Any currency choice for a newly independent Scotland would require its government to bring borrowing down to a sustainable level and commit to low and stable inflation....
This report.... explains how three currency options – a formal currency union with the rest of the UK, joining the euro, and ‘pegging’ a new Scottish currency to the value of another – are not initially viable.
Whatever currency arrangement it chose, Scotland’s ability to borrow would be restricted by what international investors were willing to lend. The implicit Scottish deficit was over 8% of GDP before coronavirus. No advanced economy – especially no small, advanced economy – has consistently borrowed anything like that much in normal times. A sustainable medium-term deficit would be closer to 3%. But this gap cannot be closed by spending less on defence or – at least initially – through higher growth, so some tax increases or spending cuts would be necessary.
It borrows ZERO at present so should not be difficult. Given they would not borrow for the rubbish the UK lumber them with as "Supposed deficit" which in reality is English deficit decision. So usual bollox, as the Scottish spending would bear no resemblance to the drunken spree that constitutes English UK "spending".
More analysis than you've ever had from the SNP!
Joining a formal currency union does not seem to be a feasible option for Scotland in the short term. Launching a pegged currency also appears unrealistic given the mismatch between Scotland’s prospects of accumulating foreign reserves and the amount needed to manage the exchange rate. Only two options, therefore, are truly open to Scotland straight after independence: informally adopting sterling and launching a new, free-floating currency.
Informally adopting sterling comes with various downsides. But in the short term at least, it may be preferable to launching a new currency. A new currency would probably be particularly volatile in the period straight after independence, when there would be uncertainty about Scotland’s future path and Scotland’s new institutions would lack credibility with markets because of the absence of a track record of prudent fiscal and monetary policy. This volatility, as described in this report, could discourage investment and trade with Scotland and elicit high premiums on the sovereign borrowing rates.
You are obsessed with SNP and hatred of all things Scottish. Can you name any country in the world that does not have a financial currency. Where are all these problem countries that do not have currencies having all these issues. PS: some free analysis for you, it will take some time to split all the institutions in UK , divide the spoils , move Trident , etc , etc. During that time all currency matters will remain as is and when all is agreed and split Scotland will have it's own currency, all rather simple. Keep hating.
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
That's spot on. This has been terrible for America, and the West's, long-term interests but great for Boris's career.
I am not sure how much you know or understand the Trans Pacific nor the threat they perceive from China, but the key to these countries is that the US has teamed up with Australia to provide nuclear subs produced by shared technology between the US and UK
The future of world trade will also come through CPTPP and the EU if it is wise will recognise this
The only ones this has been terrible for are France, China and to a lessor degree the EU
You seem oddly obsessed with the Trans Pacific thing. I promise not to laugh when it all falls through.
I think your last sentence shows an enormous lack of knowledge of the reality of the area
CPTPP is an existing free trade agreement between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia , Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam
The UK are already in the process of joining and Biden announced yesterday the US is to recommence their application to join
This is the future of world trade and the buffer against China and ironically the EU may need to join in order not to be sidelined
The EU will never join the CPTPP, membership of either is mutually exclusive IMO.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
It wasn't really the constitution, the last few weeks were basically a coup d'etat where the military and everyone else just decided that Trump might technically be president but they were just going to ignore him.
In what way was it a coup ? Please give instances, as unless valid executive orders were refused, that’s simply wrong.
OK that's fair, I'm full of shit.
What we do have is generals assuring everybody that Trump won't be able to do things; Pelosi seems to have been told Trump wouldn't be in control of nuclear weapons, the Chinese were told, "If we decide to go to war with you I'll let you know in advance", the Afghans seem to have been told that they'd slow-walk Trump's attempt to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan (that at one point he signed an order for). But the last days seem to have just been total pandemonium, so Trump didn't manage to give clear enough orders about anything mad that they had to overtly disobey.
That’s not how I understood it. On Milley and nuclear weapons, it seems that he instructed the military that they must, whatever happens, consult him before taking any action. As it’s in law that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs be consulted before use of nuclear weapons, that was an entirely appropriate instruction.
And it is, of course, only Congress which has the power to declare war. The scope of executive authority in taking military action in not entirely clear cut, so it is not illegal for generals to delay - though the President of course has the power to sack them. (And their oath is to the Constitution, so they are entitled to refuse to obey an illegal order.)
Had this discussion the other night. It is not the law that the Chief of Staff be consulted before POTUS launches a nuclear strike. The Joint Chiefs of Staff act in an advisory capacity. Bar POTUS, the one who does have a responsibility is the Secretary of Defence whose role is to verify that the actual order came from POTUS. But the SoD would not be able to veto it.
It is also mixing things up to use the defence that Milley was in his rights to stop any potential action by Trump to launch nukes because only Congress has lawful authority to start wars. The two are separate. You don't have to declare a war to launch a nuke e.g. a hypothetical situation where the US decides to take out an organisation it does not recognise by a nuclear strike.
Quite simply, Milley took it upon himself, without telling of his civilian chiefs, to insert himself into the Chain of Command, including the use of nuclear weapons (let's leave aside his conversations with his Chinese counterpart). That is unacceptable.
I get that many here think "it's Trump, it was justified. End of." But, if you want to think about a situation where it could have ended very badly, think of 1962 and Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to launch a full out attack on Cuba but were overruled by JFK. If they had taken your line that the Chief of Staff can instruct the military to check all orders from the President because JFK could not be trusted - and they would have believed, as you do, that they would have been right because they would have thought JFK was endangering the safety of the US - the implications do not bear thinking about.
Do people have to make difficult decisions that could lead to possible bad precedents when a President is attempting to end democracy? Absolutely.
The fault lies with that President and his enablers, not the poor sods trying to navigate a way through his shit.
I agree with that, I wouldn't want Trump launching nukes.
My point is that those celebrating Milley because he acted Trump are at risk of justifying a similar action on the other side. If you want a political example, the reason why the Republicans were able to get rid of the 60-vote SCOTUS filibuster was because Harry Reid had got rid of it for senior judicial appointments and they used his move to justify what they did.
In my mind, the best thing Milley can do is resign, say that he believes he took the right course of action but that he realises his decisions may have been interpreted as a move to usurp civilian control and so believes he needs to step down.
Without knowing the full details if what Milley said, you can’t make that judgment. I would rather that the nuclear rules be rewritten.
Civilian control is a necessity, as is the need for rapid response to a nuclear attack. What has never previously been properly discussed, though, is the constraints on a rogue president. Congress’ sole power to declare war was supposed to achieve that, but fans of executive power have been whittling away at it for some time. Your ‘unrecognised adversary’ hypothetical is just another example of that.
Ah, so a political pressure group is openly paying particular scientists to give their "hot takes" on Covid. No conflicts of interests there whatsoever. Entirely good practice. Certainly explains a lot...
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
That's spot on. This has been terrible for America, and the West's, long-term interests but great for Boris's career.
I am not sure how much you know or understand the Trans Pacific nor the threat they perceive from China, but the key to these countries is that the US has teamed up with Australia to provide nuclear subs produced by shared technology between the US and UK
The future of world trade will also come through CPTPP and the EU if it is wise will recognise this
The only ones this has been terrible for are France, China and to a lessor degree the EU
You seem oddly obsessed with the Trans Pacific thing. I promise not to laugh when it all falls through.
I think your last sentence shows an enormous lack of knowledge of the reality of the area
CPTPP is an existing free trade agreement between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia , Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam
The UK are already in the process of joining and Biden announced yesterday the US is to recommence their application to join
This is the future of world trade and the buffer against China and ironically the EU may need to join in order not to be sidelined
The EU will never join the CPTPP, membership of either is mutually exclusive IMO.
Fair comment so individual EU countries may have a difficult choice
Day 1 is when a period begins Ovulation is generally between day 8 and day 25, but it is not vanishingly rare for ovulation to be as late as days 35-40 or even beyond. The longer duration cycles are more common in younger women and girls whose cycles have not yet settled into regularity. The procreative act will have taken place on the day of ovulation or in the few days before, but fertilised the egg within 24 hours of ovulation. Implantation takes a further 5-10 days to occur.
Abortion will be banned in Texas on day 42.
It would therefore be a very regular edge case occurrence in Texas, and particularly in the youngest women, that a particular abortion becomes illegal not only prior to implantation, but prior to the procreative act that leads to conception.
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
That's spot on. This has been terrible for America, and the West's, long-term interests but great for Boris's career.
How do you square the circle of getting people/countries who want to appease China as a priority, involved in opposing China?
It is more important to get Japan, South Korea and India involved with most of the Anglosphere nations in opposing China as they are in the same region.
The focus with the continental European nations should be keeping them involved in Nato to contain Putin
I am not sure how much your knowledge extends to the Trans-Pacific but Japan, India and South Korea are attending the signing by Boris - Biden - Morrison of the new tripartite military and security agreement next week in the US
Oh whoopee that will make the world a better place, another three dumb asses join the clowns to watch them sign a crappy bit of paper. Really made my day.
Ah, so a political pressure group is openly paying particular scientists to give their "hot takes" on Covid. No conflicts of interests there whatsoever. Entirely good practice. Certainly explains a lot...
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?
The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.
If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:
45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
So you've found a poll from 2012?
And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?
Like I said you are so predictable.
Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:
39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus 17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)
Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical: 40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing 17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)
So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
It wasn't really the constitution, the last few weeks were basically a coup d'etat where the military and everyone else just decided that Trump might technically be president but they were just going to ignore him.
In what way was it a coup ? Please give instances, as unless valid executive orders were refused, that’s simply wrong.
OK that's fair, I'm full of shit.
What we do have is generals assuring everybody that Trump won't be able to do things; Pelosi seems to have been told Trump wouldn't be in control of nuclear weapons, the Chinese were told, "If we decide to go to war with you I'll let you know in advance", the Afghans seem to have been told that they'd slow-walk Trump's attempt to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan (that at one point he signed an order for). But the last days seem to have just been total pandemonium, so Trump didn't manage to give clear enough orders about anything mad that they had to overtly disobey.
That’s not how I understood it. On Milley and nuclear weapons, it seems that he instructed the military that they must, whatever happens, consult him before taking any action. As it’s in law that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs be consulted before use of nuclear weapons, that was an entirely appropriate instruction.
And it is, of course, only Congress which has the power to declare war. The scope of executive authority in taking military action in not entirely clear cut, so it is not illegal for generals to delay - though the President of course has the power to sack them. (And their oath is to the Constitution, so they are entitled to refuse to obey an illegal order.)
Had this discussion the other night. It is not the law that the Chief of Staff be consulted before POTUS launches a nuclear strike. The Joint Chiefs of Staff act in an advisory capacity. Bar POTUS, the one who does have a responsibility is the Secretary of Defence whose role is to verify that the actual order came from POTUS. But the SoD would not be able to veto it.
It is also mixing things up to use the defence that Milley was in his rights to stop any potential action by Trump to launch nukes because only Congress has lawful authority to start wars. The two are separate. You don't have to declare a war to launch a nuke e.g. a hypothetical situation where the US decides to take out an organisation it does not recognise by a nuclear strike.
Quite simply, Milley took it upon himself, without telling of his civilian chiefs, to insert himself into the Chain of Command, including the use of nuclear weapons (let's leave aside his conversations with his Chinese counterpart). That is unacceptable.
I get that many here think "it's Trump, it was justified. End of." But, if you want to think about a situation where it could have ended very badly, think of 1962 and Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to launch a full out attack on Cuba but were overruled by JFK. If they had taken your line that the Chief of Staff can instruct the military to check all orders from the President because JFK could not be trusted - and they would have believed, as you do, that they would have been right because they would have thought JFK was endangering the safety of the US - the implications do not bear thinking about.
Do people have to make difficult decisions that could lead to possible bad precedents when a President is attempting to end democracy? Absolutely.
The fault lies with that President and his enablers, not the poor sods trying to navigate a way through his shit.
I actually assumed something like this - manage the baby - was in place for the whole of his term.
Any currency choice for a newly independent Scotland would require its government to bring borrowing down to a sustainable level and commit to low and stable inflation....
This report.... explains how three currency options – a formal currency union with the rest of the UK, joining the euro, and ‘pegging’ a new Scottish currency to the value of another – are not initially viable.
Whatever currency arrangement it chose, Scotland’s ability to borrow would be restricted by what international investors were willing to lend. The implicit Scottish deficit was over 8% of GDP before coronavirus. No advanced economy – especially no small, advanced economy – has consistently borrowed anything like that much in normal times. A sustainable medium-term deficit would be closer to 3%. But this gap cannot be closed by spending less on defence or – at least initially – through higher growth, so some tax increases or spending cuts would be necessary.
It borrows ZERO at present so should not be difficult. Given they would not borrow for the rubbish the UK lumber them with as "Supposed deficit" which in reality is English deficit decision. So usual bollox, as the Scottish spending would bear no resemblance to the drunken spree that constitutes English UK "spending".
More analysis than you've ever had from the SNP!
Joining a formal currency union does not seem to be a feasible option for Scotland in the short term. Launching a pegged currency also appears unrealistic given the mismatch between Scotland’s prospects of accumulating foreign reserves and the amount needed to manage the exchange rate. Only two options, therefore, are truly open to Scotland straight after independence: informally adopting sterling and launching a new, free-floating currency.
Informally adopting sterling comes with various downsides. But in the short term at least, it may be preferable to launching a new currency. A new currency would probably be particularly volatile in the period straight after independence, when there would be uncertainty about Scotland’s future path and Scotland’s new institutions would lack credibility with markets because of the absence of a track record of prudent fiscal and monetary policy. This volatility, as described in this report, could discourage investment and trade with Scotland and elicit high premiums on the sovereign borrowing rates.
You are obsessed with SNP and hatred of all things Scottish.
As ever you conflate the SNP with "all things Scottish"!
Why not read the reports and educate yourself?
Salmond said independence would be achieved within 18months at a cost of £200 million......of course rUK could say "here's your hat, where's your hurry?" and cut off the subsidy immediately - to help you get used to lower levels of spending.....
Nunavut Riding covers a mere 1.88 MILLION square kilometres. The largest electoral unit in the world which elects just one MP. Folk who spot Labour's failure to win in rural areas may be surprised it is an NDP seat.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roe vs Wade. Once you legalise abortion you can then follow the Texas lead and make a woman's body legal sport for men. Once you do that it isn't that far until women's rights really get rolled back. And if we're doing women that way think what will happen to gays, latinos, blacks?
There are plenty of pro life blacks and latinos and plenty of pro life women too and even some pro life gays.
Texas is also one of the few states, mainly southern, where a majority of voters think abortion should be illegal, so if it becomes more restricted there that is partly a reflection of states rights
"States Rights" exist within a constitutional framework - or should do. A state should not have the right to bring back racial segregation, slavery or in this case the middle ages. Their "shop a slag" law makes women sport for predatory "men".
I would have thought abortion on demand is far more likely to do make women sport for predatory men who can have sex without consequence or risk of her getting pregnant.
Restricting abortion to the first 6 weeks of pregnancy is also hardly the middle ages nor is it slavery. Personally I would leave it a little longer and restrict it after 15-20 weeks rather than the 24 we now have in the UK but Texas can make its own mind up
You're batshit crazy.
Pregnancy tests won't reveal a pregnancy until 4 or 5 weeks in. Many women won't realise they're pregnant until past the six week mark!
Heck the moment of conception is about two weeks in. In week one "of a pregnancy" the woman isn't even pregnant yet since the clock starts at last period, not at moment of conception.
So you're really talking maybe one week of eligibility. If you're lucky. Zero for many women.
And if 50% of Texans wanted blacks to be 2/3rds of a person and enslaved?
Women aren't lucky to control their own bodies, it's their human rights.
The unborn child also has rights, precisely the opposite of slavery
No, they don't. The woman has rights, the foetus has rights when it draws it is born and draws its first breath.
Yes they do and certainly the foetus becomes a living, sentient being well before birth. The only question is what time it does
That is a question much discussed in Special Care Baby Units when I had to do which things. I know I 'helped', in a small way, to 'save' a very premature baby, who never developed fully, and is now a somewhat 'challenged' adult.
So still a living, sentient being then
Where do you put quality of life? I know the grandparents and I know the lad's condition has been a source of considerable worry and concern to his parents and to at least one set of grandparents.
I believe in life, full stop.
Define life, please. And not just the biological one of being able to reproduce.
Human life from the moment a foetus becomes a living, sentient being until death must be protected
Sorry, but what is a 'living, sentient being'?
The age at which a foetus became capable of independent life some years ago was less than now.
And rightly so, the current time limit in the UK is well beyond the European average of 12 weeks let alone the 6 weeks Texas now has.
If we get another Tory majority or there is a Tory government supported by the DUP, I would hope the abortion time limit could be reduced to 12-14 weeks from pregnancy at least
You are, seriously, trying to create a situation where a woman doesn't realise she is pregnant before the cut-off time after which she cannot get an abortion.
I certainly think reducing the abortion time lime to 12 weeks at least as is the average across most of Europe, including in Ireland, should be a priority if we get another Tory majority after the next general election or enough seats to form a Tory government supported by the DUP
Wait a minute you (mis)quoted a Texan poll to support their 6-week limit. What about this British poll:
45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
So you've found a poll from 2012?
And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?
Like I said you are so predictable.
Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:
39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus 17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)
Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical: 40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing 17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)
So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.
Yes because it actually asked about the issue ie reducing the 24 weeks timeframe, not a generic poll like yours so is therefore more accurate. I doubt views have changed much since.
38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.
You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.
So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
That's spot on. This has been terrible for America, and the West's, long-term interests but great for Boris's career.
How do you square the circle of getting people/countries who want to appease China as a priority, involved in opposing China?
It is more important to get Japan, South Korea and India involved with most of the Anglosphere nations in opposing China as they are in the same region.
The focus with the continental European nations should be keeping them involved in Nato to contain Putin
I am not sure how much your knowledge extends to the Trans-Pacific but Japan, India and South Korea are attending the signing by Boris - Biden - Morrison of the new tripartite military and security agreement next week in the US
Oh whoopee that will make the world a better place, another three dumb asses join the clowns to watch them sign a crappy bit of paper. Really made my day.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
The Republican decision to upset the balance of the Supreme Court and to make it overtly partisan is the big problem.
Would John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett rather have Donald Trump than a democracy though? They've already got the court, he didn't pass anything interesting to conservatives except tax cuts and everybody knows he's a menace, so what's in it for them?
Roberts is not the issue. In a normal SCOTUS he would be the swing vote. In this one, he is not. That is the issue. The real test for SCOTUS will be the cases it hears (or declines to hear) following a contested presidential election.
The Dems should be trying to get Breyer (the oldest justice at 83) to retire, while they still control the WH and the Senate. They can't afford for another Ginsburg situation to happen
Very much so. Ginsberg should have retired in her late seventies, when Obama was president and the Dems had the Senate. She must have known there was a chance that, if she clung on until well into her eighties, she might pass away at a time when Republicans were in charge.
Even if she didn’t really want to retire, someone on Obama’s team should have had a polite word in her ear.
Wolfgang Munchau: US, UK, Australia nuclear submarine alliance shows that the EU has been overestimating Biden and underestimating Johnson - a bad combination.
That's spot on. This has been terrible for America, and the West's, long-term interests but great for Boris's career.
I am not sure how much you know or understand the Trans Pacific nor the threat they perceive from China, but the key to these countries is that the US has teamed up with Australia to provide nuclear subs produced by shared technology between the US and UK
The future of world trade will also come through CPTPP and the EU if it is wise will recognise this
The only ones this has been terrible for are France, China and to a lessor degree the EU
You seem oddly obsessed with the Trans Pacific thing. I promise not to laugh when it all falls through.
It is a Tory cult thing, they need to have something to obsess over other than the UK disasters.
Blackford welcomes it Malc
G, Blackford is a stupid windbag, that fact tells me it must be crap.
Bad news for those expecting the usual speedy results from Canada. Potentially good news for those who won't be getting up at a godawful hour on a Tuesday morning to get the results. Postal ballots won't be counted on the night. Meaning the likely very close election won't be called for up to 5 days.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Any currency choice for a newly independent Scotland would require its government to bring borrowing down to a sustainable level and commit to low and stable inflation....
This report.... explains how three currency options – a formal currency union with the rest of the UK, joining the euro, and ‘pegging’ a new Scottish currency to the value of another – are not initially viable.
Whatever currency arrangement it chose, Scotland’s ability to borrow would be restricted by what international investors were willing to lend. The implicit Scottish deficit was over 8% of GDP before coronavirus. No advanced economy – especially no small, advanced economy – has consistently borrowed anything like that much in normal times. A sustainable medium-term deficit would be closer to 3%. But this gap cannot be closed by spending less on defence or – at least initially – through higher growth, so some tax increases or spending cuts would be necessary.
It borrows ZERO at present so should not be difficult. Given they would not borrow for the rubbish the UK lumber them with as "Supposed deficit" which in reality is English deficit decision. So usual bollox, as the Scottish spending would bear no resemblance to the drunken spree that constitutes English UK "spending".
More analysis than you've ever had from the SNP!
Joining a formal currency union does not seem to be a feasible option for Scotland in the short term. Launching a pegged currency also appears unrealistic given the mismatch between Scotland’s prospects of accumulating foreign reserves and the amount needed to manage the exchange rate. Only two options, therefore, are truly open to Scotland straight after independence: informally adopting sterling and launching a new, free-floating currency.
Informally adopting sterling comes with various downsides. But in the short term at least, it may be preferable to launching a new currency. A new currency would probably be particularly volatile in the period straight after independence, when there would be uncertainty about Scotland’s future path and Scotland’s new institutions would lack credibility with markets because of the absence of a track record of prudent fiscal and monetary policy. This volatility, as described in this report, could discourage investment and trade with Scotland and elicit high premiums on the sovereign borrowing rates.
You are obsessed with SNP and hatred of all things Scottish.
As ever you conflate the SNP with "all things Scottish"!
Why not read the reports and educate yourself?
Salmond said independence would be achieved within 18months at a cost of £200 million......of course rUK could say "here's your hat, where's your hurry?" and cut off the subsidy immediately - to help you get used to lower levels of spending.....
I will wait for the real thing rather than waste my time on pointless unionist propaganda. I repeat all countries have currencies why would Scotland be the only country in the world unable to have one. Educate me on that oh wise one.
PS: Yet again I repeat you almost always talk about "Scotland" not the SNP. Read your post and tell me where you talk about SNP or Scottish Government, it is all SCOTLAND. I rest my case, your pathological hatred is well practiced.
Yougov figures now out, Tories retention rate up and 85% of 2019 Tory voters still voting Tory. Only 78% of 2019 Labour voters still back Labour though.
More 2019 Tory voters, 5%, now back ReformUK than the 4% who back Starmer Labour and 5% of 2019 Labour voters now back the Tories.
Almost all Labour gains have come from the LDs, 35% of 2019 LD voters now back Starmer Labour but 10% of 2019 Labour voters now back the Greens
Potentially bad news for Labour because I think most LD voters from 2019 will eventually go back to supporting the party. Labour needs direct switchers from the Tories.
Nunavut Riding covers a mere 1.88 MILLION square kilometres. The largest electoral unit in the world which elects just one MP. Folk who spot Labour's failure to win in rural areas may be surprised it is an NDP seat.
Nunavut Riding covers a mere 1.88 MILLION square kilometres. The largest electoral unit in the world which elects just one MP. Folk who spot Labour's failure to win in rural areas may be surprised it is an NDP seat.
2020 Biden could run on not being Trump and that was enough. 2024 Biden will have to run on his record in office. Also his brain is clearly a piece of shit now so by 2024 you might as well have a cantaloupe with a hair transplant and Ray-Bans.
As Trump will be in jail, that will ensure the field is clear.
And, TBH, a very good thing, too.
No chance Trump will be in jail.
Even if he's guilty, no Jury will be 12 Democrats (and if it were that'd be grounds for appeal surely). And no MAGA is going to convict.
As Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
Even as a non American I find the inability to hold him to account for his attempted coup in January deeply troubling.
The American democratic system is broken and becoming more so. The Republicans claiming fraud in the recall election in California before the votes had even been counted was another sign. One of the major parties in the US is no longer signed up to democratic norms. If they lose they have been cheated even in a deep blue state such as California. There is no acceptance of democratic outcomes. This is not a stable situation and Trump is largely, if not exclusively, responsible.
Yep - the US is in a very, very bad place. It is hard to see how things don't get worse there.
Yep.
There is going to eye popping levels of trouble at next POTUS election.
The fabled constitution just about managed to keep Trump in check and eventually out of office without too much violence.
I can't see it being able to cope a second time.
Really sad to see a major democracy die like this through its own internal cancer.
It wasn't really the constitution, the last few weeks were basically a coup d'etat where the military and everyone else just decided that Trump might technically be president but they were just going to ignore him.
In what way was it a coup ? Please give instances, as unless valid executive orders were refused, that’s simply wrong.
OK that's fair, I'm full of shit.
What we do have is generals assuring everybody that Trump won't be able to do things; Pelosi seems to have been told Trump wouldn't be in control of nuclear weapons, the Chinese were told, "If we decide to go to war with you I'll let you know in advance", the Afghans seem to have been told that they'd slow-walk Trump's attempt to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan (that at one point he signed an order for). But the last days seem to have just been total pandemonium, so Trump didn't manage to give clear enough orders about anything mad that they had to overtly disobey.
That’s not how I understood it. On Milley and nuclear weapons, it seems that he instructed the military that they must, whatever happens, consult him before taking any action. As it’s in law that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs be consulted before use of nuclear weapons, that was an entirely appropriate instruction.
And it is, of course, only Congress which has the power to declare war. The scope of executive authority in taking military action in not entirely clear cut, so it is not illegal for generals to delay - though the President of course has the power to sack them. (And their oath is to the Constitution, so they are entitled to refuse to obey an illegal order.)
Had this discussion the other night. It is not the law that the Chief of Staff be consulted before POTUS launches a nuclear strike. The Joint Chiefs of Staff act in an advisory capacity. Bar POTUS, the one who does have a responsibility is the Secretary of Defence whose role is to verify that the actual order came from POTUS. But the SoD would not be able to veto it.
It is also mixing things up to use the defence that Milley was in his rights to stop any potential action by Trump to launch nukes because only Congress has lawful authority to start wars. The two are separate. You don't have to declare a war to launch a nuke e.g. a hypothetical situation where the US decides to take out an organisation it does not recognise by a nuclear strike.
Quite simply, Milley took it upon himself, without telling of his civilian chiefs, to insert himself into the Chain of Command, including the use of nuclear weapons (let's leave aside his conversations with his Chinese counterpart). That is unacceptable.
I get that many here think "it's Trump, it was justified. End of." But, if you want to think about a situation where it could have ended very badly, think of 1962 and Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to launch a full out attack on Cuba but were overruled by JFK. If they had taken your line that the Chief of Staff can instruct the military to check all orders from the President because JFK could not be trusted - and they would have believed, as you do, that they would have been right because they would have thought JFK was endangering the safety of the US - the implications do not bear thinking about.
Do people have to make difficult decisions that could lead to possible bad precedents when a President is attempting to end democracy? Absolutely.
The fault lies with that President and his enablers, not the poor sods trying to navigate a way through his shit.
I agree with that, I wouldn't want Trump launching nukes.
My point is that those celebrating Milley because he acted Trump are at risk of justifying a similar action on the other side. If you want a political example, the reason why the Republicans were able to get rid of the 60-vote SCOTUS filibuster was because Harry Reid had got rid of it for senior judicial appointments and they used his move to justify what they did.
In my mind, the best thing Milley can do is resign, say that he believes he took the right course of action but that he realises his decisions may have been interpreted as a move to usurp civilian control and so believes he needs to step down.
If a president is mentally incapacitated and there's any risk he might decide to destroy hundreds of thousands of civilians as a result, it is the duty of anyone who can prevent that to do so. It doesn't matter which party that president belongs to, not even the slightest bit.
You are continually gunning for some kind of partisan hypocrisy that has been conspicuously missing in any of the conversations I've seen you have. You're flogging a dead horse.
Any currency choice for a newly independent Scotland would require its government to bring borrowing down to a sustainable level and commit to low and stable inflation....
This report.... explains how three currency options – a formal currency union with the rest of the UK, joining the euro, and ‘pegging’ a new Scottish currency to the value of another – are not initially viable.
Whatever currency arrangement it chose, Scotland’s ability to borrow would be restricted by what international investors were willing to lend. The implicit Scottish deficit was over 8% of GDP before coronavirus. No advanced economy – especially no small, advanced economy – has consistently borrowed anything like that much in normal times. A sustainable medium-term deficit would be closer to 3%. But this gap cannot be closed by spending less on defence or – at least initially – through higher growth, so some tax increases or spending cuts would be necessary.
It borrows ZERO at present so should not be difficult. Given they would not borrow for the rubbish the UK lumber them with as "Supposed deficit" which in reality is English deficit decision. So usual bollox, as the Scottish spending would bear no resemblance to the drunken spree that constitutes English UK "spending".
More analysis than you've ever had from the SNP!
Joining a formal currency union does not seem to be a feasible option for Scotland in the short term. Launching a pegged currency also appears unrealistic given the mismatch between Scotland’s prospects of accumulating foreign reserves and the amount needed to manage the exchange rate. Only two options, therefore, are truly open to Scotland straight after independence: informally adopting sterling and launching a new, free-floating currency.
Informally adopting sterling comes with various downsides. But in the short term at least, it may be preferable to launching a new currency. A new currency would probably be particularly volatile in the period straight after independence, when there would be uncertainty about Scotland’s future path and Scotland’s new institutions would lack credibility with markets because of the absence of a track record of prudent fiscal and monetary policy. This volatility, as described in this report, could discourage investment and trade with Scotland and elicit high premiums on the sovereign borrowing rates.
You are obsessed with SNP and hatred of all things Scottish.
As ever you conflate the SNP with "all things Scottish"!
Why not read the reports and educate yourself?
Salmond said independence would be achieved within 18months at a cost of £200 million......of course rUK could say "here's your hat, where's your hurry?" and cut off the subsidy immediately - to help you get used to lower levels of spending.....
I will wait for the real thing rather than waste my time on pointless unionist propaganda. I repeat all countries have currencies why would Scotland be the only country in the world unable to have one. Educate me on that oh wise one.
It's the Institute for Government - a respected Think Tank - not "propaganda" like the SNP's "Growth Commission" or that perennial joke Richard Murphy.
It doesn't say "Scotland can't have a currency" it says "these are the options".
The report considers 5 main options that an independent Scotland could choose from:
1. formal currency union with rUK 2. joining the euro 3. using sterling informally 4. a new free-floating Scottish currency 5. pegging a new Scottish currency to another or currency basket 2/21
Although perhaps one might be a bit forgiving given the UK's natural tendency to awful Summers.
I know this is Guido, but it's beyond laughable. It's not even as if this summer was particularly warm – it was pretty dull for the most part with September by the far the best month.
Day 1 is when a period begins Ovulation is generally between day 8 and day 25, but it is not vanishingly rare for ovulation to be as late as days 35-40 or even beyond. The longer duration cycles are more common in younger women and girls whose cycles have not yet settled into regularity. The procreative act will have taken place on the day of ovulation or in the few days before, but fertilised the egg within 24 hours of ovulation. Implantation takes a further 5-10 days to occur.
Abortion will be banned in Texas on day 42.
It would therefore be a very regular edge case occurrence in Texas, and particularly in the youngest women, that a particular abortion becomes illegal not only prior to implantation, but prior to the procreative act that leads to conception.
Isn't the law actually based on detection of a foetal heartbeat? (I also wondered how you date a foetus as just before or just after 6 weeks, so looked into it - hard to precisely date from a scan at that point; woman can lie about date of last period etc). That can happen as early as six weeks*, hence it's reported as applying to pregnancies after 6 weeks.
So your edge cases don't apply (unless I am wrong).
Note, I still oppose the law, just pointing out what I found as I had similar thoughts.
*I've personally seen this in an ultrasound on an approx 6 week foetus (now my son). Couldn't see much else, just a blob on the ultrasound, but could see the pulsing very clearly
Comments
* https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/our-services/find-service/womens-health-1/maternity-services/your-pregnancy/spina-bifida-open-fetal-surgery
There's a problem fitting their respective egos in.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-46211384
Dominic Raab does not look pleased to be sat next to his replacement at this morning’s cabinet meeting….
https://twitter.com/SabriSun_Miller/status/1438808451799519232?s=20
This report.... explains how three currency options – a formal currency union with the rest of the UK, joining the euro, and ‘pegging’ a new Scottish currency to the value of another – are not initially viable.
Whatever currency arrangement it chose, Scotland’s ability to borrow would be restricted by what international investors were willing to lend. The implicit Scottish deficit was over 8% of GDP before coronavirus. No advanced economy – especially no small, advanced economy – has consistently borrowed anything like that much in normal times. A sustainable medium-term deficit would be closer to 3%. But this gap cannot be closed by spending less on defence or – at least initially – through higher growth, so some tax increases or spending cuts would be necessary.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/scotland-currency
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58579832
It is also mixing things up to use the defence that Milley was in his rights to stop any potential action by Trump to launch nukes because only Congress has lawful authority to start wars. The two are separate. You don't have to declare a war to launch a nuke e.g. a hypothetical situation where the US decides to take out an organisation it does not recognise by a nuclear strike.
Quite simply, Milley took it upon himself, without telling of his civilian chiefs, to insert himself into the Chain of Command, including the use of nuclear weapons (let's leave aside his conversations with his Chinese counterpart). That is unacceptable.
I get that many here think "it's Trump, it was justified. End of." But, if you want to think about a situation where it could have ended very badly, think of 1962 and Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to launch a full out attack on Cuba but were overruled by JFK. If they had taken your line that the Chief of Staff can instruct the military to check all orders from the President because JFK could not be trusted - and they would have believed, as you do, that they would have been right because they would have thought JFK was endangering the safety of the US - the implications do not bear thinking about.
https://twitter.com/EuroBriefing/status/1438764008178425856
The fault lies with that President and his enablers, not the poor sods trying to navigate a way through his shit.
More 2019 Tory voters, 5%, now back ReformUK than the 4% who back Starmer Labour and 5% of 2019 Labour voters now back the Tories.
Almost all Labour gains have come from the LDs, 35% of 2019 LD voters now back Starmer Labour but 10% of 2019 Labour voters now back the Greens
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/691qntqk1u/TheTimes_VI_Results_210916_W.pdf
My point is that those celebrating Milley because he acted Trump are at risk of justifying a similar action on the other side. If you want a political example, the reason why the Republicans were able to get rid of the 60-vote SCOTUS filibuster was because Harry Reid had got rid of it for senior judicial appointments and they used his move to justify what they did.
In my mind, the best thing Milley can do is resign, say that he believes he took the right course of action but that he realises his decisions may have been interpreted as a move to usurp civilian control and so believes he needs to step down.
Although perhaps one might be a bit forgiving given the UK's natural tendency to awful Summers.
The focus with the continental European nations should be keeping them involved in Nato to contain Putin
The future of world trade will also come through CPTPP and the EU if it is wise will recognise this
The only ones this has been terrible for are France, China and to a lessor degree the EU
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-legal-time-limit-to-have-an-abortion-change
12th September 2021 (excluding don't knows):
65% favour keeping the present limit or increasing it
and you can't even cherry-pick "Conservative voters" as they also have a big majority (62%) disagreeing with you.
Potentially good news for those who won't be getting up at a godawful hour on a Tuesday morning to get the results.
Postal ballots won't be counted on the night. Meaning the likely very close election won't be called for up to 5 days.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-election-2021/elections-canada-says-it-could-take-up-to-5-days-to-count-every-last-ballot-1.5586355
Which may bring Greater Vancouver into play for deciding the election for a change.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/election-profiles-vancouver-north-shore-tri-cities-1.6177533
Obama has now endorsed Trudeau too
https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1438541175607242766?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58594944
37% of UK voters overall want to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks, only 34% want to keep the current 24 weeks time limit
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2012/01/24/limits-abortion-time
45% of 2010 Tory voters on that poll wanted to reduce the time limit or ban abortion, only 40% to keep the time limit as now or increase it
Lib Dem conference: Call to scrap Covid laws in pitch for Tory voters
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58594038
Joining a formal currency union does not seem to be a feasible option for Scotland in the short term. Launching a pegged currency also appears unrealistic given the mismatch between Scotland’s prospects of accumulating foreign reserves and the amount needed to manage the exchange rate. Only two options, therefore, are truly open to Scotland straight after independence: informally adopting sterling and launching a new, free-floating currency.
Informally adopting sterling comes with various downsides. But in the short term at least, it may be preferable to launching a new currency. A new currency would probably be particularly volatile in the period straight after independence, when there would be uncertainty about Scotland’s future path and Scotland’s new institutions would lack credibility with markets because of the absence of a track record of prudent fiscal and monetary policy. This volatility, as described in this report, could discourage investment and trade with Scotland and elicit high premiums on the sovereign borrowing rates.
“In a place like Ottawa-Vanier, well, the returning office is 1,000 kilometres from the polling location, so if the polls close at nine o’clock, those dropped off ballots aren’t going to be at the returning office at 930, they’re going to be there the next day,” she said.
Certainly puts our 5 protected constituencies due to their size and remote nature into some context.
CPTPP is an existing free trade agreement between Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia , Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam
The UK are already in the process of joining and Biden announced yesterday the US is to recommence their application to join
This is the future of world trade and the buffer against China and ironically the EU may need to join in order not to be sidelined
A response to a first strike, which requires a decision in minutes, is one thing (and why the truncated chain of command, with the sole presidential authority, exists).
A first strike decision is an entirely different matter, and it is simply nuts to suggest that any president should be able to launch nukes on a whim without consulting anyone. And in the vast majority of any conceivable cases it would absolutely be a declaration of war.
Your further hypothetical, with the implication that again it should be achievable on presidential whim without significant discussion of the policy (and it’s legality) is equally nuts.
If Scotland were to become independent, it would be a small, advanced economy of a similar size to New Zealand and Finland, with a similar GDP per head to the UK. As such, it would be able to borrow from financial markets. Its initial challenge would be to reduce what is currently a very high implicit deficit – 8–9% of GDP. This is higher than the deficit that an independent country would be able to sustain year after year. An independent Scotland would need to reduce its borrowing to around 3% of GDP a year in ‘normal times’ (outside of crises). This is a level that is consistent with debt falling steadily as a share of GDP, is in line with what other similar countries have managed to borrow in the past, and would be a necessary condition for Scotland to join the EU. This would require a substantial fiscal consolidation of 5–6% of GDP over the medium term. The Sustainable Growth Commission proposed some savings – including by spending less on defence – but this amounts to only around 1.2% of GDP, leaving a further consolidation being required of 4–5% of GDP.
Even with a lower deficit, an independent Scotland would likely have to borrow at rates that are somewhat more expensive than UK debt, partly by virtue of being a smaller country but also – at least initially – because it would be a new country with no track record and would therefore be viewed as a riskier prospect.
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/borrowing-independent-scotland.pdf
Labour and the SNP are not Tories but they back it
PS: some free analysis for you, it will take some time to split all the institutions in UK , divide the spoils , move Trident , etc , etc. During that time all currency matters will remain as is and when all is agreed and split Scotland will have it's own currency, all rather simple. Keep hating.
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1438824398560145411
TLDW LibDem switchers at the by-election are very likely to go back to the Tories for a GE.
I would rather that the nuclear rules be rewritten.
Civilian control is a necessity, as is the need for rapid response to a nuclear attack.
What has never previously been properly discussed, though, is the constraints on a rogue president. Congress’ sole power to declare war was supposed to achieve that, but fans of executive power have been whittling away at it for some time. Your ‘unrecognised adversary’ hypothetical is just another example of that.
Day 1 is when a period begins
Ovulation is generally between day 8 and day 25, but it is not vanishingly rare for ovulation to be as late as days 35-40 or even beyond.
The longer duration cycles are more common in younger women and girls whose cycles have not yet settled into regularity.
The procreative act will have taken place on the day of ovulation or in the few days before, but fertilised the egg within 24 hours of ovulation.
Implantation takes a further 5-10 days to occur.
Abortion will be banned in Texas on day 42.
It would therefore be a very regular edge case occurrence in Texas, and particularly in the youngest women, that a particular abortion becomes illegal not only prior to implantation, but prior to the procreative act that leads to conception.
And you have deliberately misinterpreted it to try and make it seem to give the opposite result that it actually gives?
Like I said you are so predictable.
Even the cherry-picked poll you link to from 2012 has:
39% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing to above 24 weeks versus
17% in favour of reducing the limit to below 20 weeks (plus 6% banning abortion altogether)
Amongst *2010 Conservative voters* the figures are almost identical:
40% in favour of keeping 24 weeks or increasing
17% in favour of reducing below 20 weeks (plus 7% banning abortion altogether)
So even your cherrypicked poll shows that even amongst Conservative voters a big majority disagree with you, just like I said earlier.
Why not read the reports and educate yourself?
Salmond said independence would be achieved within 18months at a cost of £200 million......of course rUK could say "here's your hat, where's your hurry?" and cut off the subsidy immediately - to help you get used to lower levels of spending.....
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-election-2021/three-women-vie-for-nunavut-s-single-parliament-seat-seek-better-support-for-territory-1.5567072g
38% of 2010 Conservative voters wanted to reduce the time limit below 24 weeks and 7% wanted to ban abortion altogether, making 45% altogether to reduce the limit. Only 40% wanted to keep the limit as is or increase it.
You also deliberately ignored the fact 43% wanted to reduce the limit below 24 weeks or ban abortion altogether.
So most voters and most Tory voters wanted to reduce the abortion time limit below 24 weeks, the only question being how far. The key thing is to get the process under way of cutting the time limit, even cutting from 24 weeks to 22 weeks as most voters want would be a start then the process can start on persuading voters to go further
Even if she didn’t really want to retire, someone on Obama’s team should have had a polite word in her ear.
Educate me on that oh wise one.
PS: Yet again I repeat you almost always talk about "Scotland" not the SNP. Read your post and tell me where you talk about SNP or Scottish Government, it is all SCOTLAND. I rest my case, your pathological hatred is well practiced.
All UK rural areas however are majority white
You are continually gunning for some kind of partisan hypocrisy that has been conspicuously missing in any of the conversations I've seen you have. You're flogging a dead horse.
It doesn't say "Scotland can't have a currency" it says "these are the options".
The report considers 5 main options that an independent Scotland could choose from:
1. formal currency union with rUK
2. joining the euro
3. using sterling informally
4. a new free-floating Scottish currency
5. pegging a new Scottish currency to another or currency basket 2/21
https://twitter.com/gemmatetlow/status/1438759698761764865?s=20
So your edge cases don't apply (unless I am wrong).
Note, I still oppose the law, just pointing out what I found as I had similar thoughts.
*I've personally seen this in an ultrasound on an approx 6 week foetus (now my son). Couldn't see much else, just a blob on the ultrasound, but could see the pulsing very clearly