Oh God, here we go ahead with the usual "Republicans are going to steal the 2024 election". No surprise it's come out when everyone is waking up to what a disaster Biden is as President.
Meanwhile, you turn a blind eye to Merrick Garland considering using the Patriot Act to prosecute parents who complain about Critical Race Theory in US schools.
ITYM “threaten school board members with violence”.
Then use normal laws on committing violence, the Patriot Act was about terrorism.
Where have you been the last twenty years? The Patriot Act has been misused by administrations of both parties since it was passed. See also RIPA in the UK.
Of course. They are bad pieces of legislation.
My whole point about this is that this whole debate with Trump is just portrayed as a Black and White thing. Republicans devils, Democrats angels. Trump evil, Biden good. It's a crock of shit, both sides rig the system when they can according to the strengths they have. This whole claiming only one side is trying to rig the election is just utter hypocrisy.
You seem to think that complaining that Trump was elected due to Russian interference but doing nothing about it is just as bad as actively overruling the vote. Please explain.
It was more than complaining. For four years, the Democrats did everything they could to de-legitimise his election. The impeachment hearings were essentially payback for his 2016 win. We had numerous articles and Pulitzer prices awarded for claims the election was stolen. Hilary herself said his election was illegitimate and he knew it.
The Democrats actively tried to overrule the vote, they just used different methods to go about it.
You can't honestly believe that tweeting about Trump being illegitimate is just as bad, if not worse, than actively trying to overrule the vote.
Oh God, here we go ahead with the usual "Republicans are going to steal the 2024 election". No surprise it's come out when everyone is waking up to what a disaster Biden is as President.
Meanwhile, you turn a blind eye to Merrick Garland considering using the Patriot Act to prosecute parents who complain about Critical Race Theory in US schools.
ITYM “threaten school board members with violence”.
Then use normal laws on committing violence, the Patriot Act was about terrorism.
Where have you been the last twenty years? The Patriot Act has been misused by administrations of both parties since it was passed. See also RIPA in the UK.
Of course. They are bad pieces of legislation.
My whole point about this is that this whole debate with Trump is just portrayed as a Black and White thing. Republicans devils, Democrats angels. Trump evil, Biden good. It's a crock of shit, both sides rig the system when they can according to the strengths they have. This whole claiming only one side is trying to rig the election is just utter hypocrisy.
Take the rest of the day off, mate, if this is all you've got. Hillary and Biden are both pretty dire, but Trump is about the one human being about whom it is morally permissible to hope for the sake of humanity that he dies or is disabled by illness in the next couple of years.
Oh God no, it is giving me a break from doing some work.
I do not want to be unkind but by 2024 Trump will be my age and my old bones rattle and roll and just about keep me up
Maybe tempus fugit will also arrive for him by then
I'll tell you how. Tribalists turning a blind eye to misbehaviour on their own side, and sanctimonious gits knowing their side is gone rotten and still voting for them.
People who know there's something wrong, wring their hands about it, and then endorse it at the ballot box.
Works both ways. Democrats are as guilty as Republicans. The cries that it is only one side doing it is what is causing this level of distrust.
No it isn't. It's mainly the fact that Trump is so off the scale poisonous. And what is this stuff about how we aren't allowed to say 2016 was rigged, when it plainly was?
Ah ok, so:
"2016 was rigged, illegitimate President elected" = ok to say, not a problem
"2020 was stolen, stop the steal" = existential threat to Democracy and undermining the Republic
Jesus, that in a nutshell highlights the issue.
Saying the Trump presidency was "illegitimate" was proof that they shouldn't have elected Clinton. Trump's Big Lie was proof that they should have.
Tie-breaker: count the attempted coups instigated by each. I'll let others work the abacus on that one.
Are we counting the impeachment hearings as attempted coups? Not all coups involve tanks and guns.
No, we are not. That is entirely within the existing constitutional framework. Sending a mob to hang the VP is not.
The false equivalence on this subject is just bloody astounding.
That's why the potentially legal options to ignore the vote are so concerning, as that doesn't require a coup.
Would you like to explain why it is false equivalence. It gets bandied around as a fact but, in both 2016 and 2020, as I showed, and there is plenty of evidence for you to see, both sides claimed the winner's election was illegitimate and open to question.
You will then claim it is about the January riots and that is the difference which is an argument I would have a lot more sympathy for if it wasn't for the fact I was debating on here post-election about how Trump's tactics were to go down the state legislatures route and everyone agreed this would be a coup. So people on here already accepted you could have a coup without force. You just seemed to have forgotten about it now a more useful argument comes along.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
The end of that thread is laughable hopecasting similar to what we see on PB. The EU has got one lever it can pull, it can unilaterally leave the TCA after 12 months of notice. That's simply not going to happen. It would need unanimous consent and there's no way that all of them will agree to it. Most EU countries give no fucks about the Irish border, loads of them would be happy to kick the Irish out after all of the tax shenanigans for the last 20 years. Some may use this to crowbar Ireland out of the EU and into the TCA and let the UK/Ireland fix their own border issues.
Drop the final 2 Tweets which were ludicorous hopecasting and it was actually a fairly interesting thread.
TL;DR it pretty much exactly mirrored the arguments you, I and a few others have said here for the past four years. The simple fact is if the UK sticks to its guns then the UK holds all the cards. They're bluffing and have nothing they can do.
Not this again
EU activists are now using the exact same arguments I used for the past four years . . . but with a tone of desperation now . . .
Quite frankly, I'm being restrained not saying "I told you so".
The Dave Chappelle special is absolutely brilliant.
Never heard of him - read two scathing reviews of his routine in The Guardian and The Independent, then looked him up on wiki and found out he was a Muslim convert. Suppose the G and i thought it was immaterial to his material
The final paragraph of that first link is quite powerful IMO:
"In a community with an abnormally high rate of depression and suicide, that’s the part that hurt. Every transgender person I know has lost someone by suicide, and rarely has the reason ever been what other trans people have said to them on Twitter. Hell. You said it yourself, Dave: “Twitter isn’t real.” The marginalization, mockery, dehumanization, and violence many of us face everyday of most of our lives is what fuels our despair. For you to use Daphne’s tragedy as your closing tag is the only thing you’ve done that’s made me angry enough to write a letter."
Yes...the depression angle is a bit chicken and egg to me - to be convinced you are really a woman who happened to have been born in a mans body, or vice versa, sounds like mental illness if I am being perfectly honest, and depression is a mental illness from which suicide too often follows. But if you say you think transgender people, or people who want to transition, are mentally ill and should be treated with the same kind of sympathy as those suffering from schizophrenia or autism, rather than mocked in the way Dave Chappelle apparently does,( I haven't seen or heard any of his material) that would be considered offensive.
It's probably offensive even if it's not a 'mental illness' (IMV it most certainly is not a mental illness for many; and calling it such is part of the problem).
As humans, we like to fit people into neat little categories. Male/female. Good/bad. Straight/gay. Child/adult. In reality, the categories cover a multitude of variances, and it can be hard to fit some people into those categories. I'm currently a stay-at-home dad. Some relatives of mine have found this quite hard to understand because it doesn't fit into the neat categories in their minds.
Can you honestly, hand on heart, not say that some of your activities or lifestyle might not be said by some people to be a 'mental illness' ? I've certainly had someone describe my walking as such in the past, and that's before I took up my current running madness ...
I do not want to be unkind but by 2024 Trump will be my age and my old bones rattle and roll and just about keep me up
Maybe tempus fugit will also arrive for him by then
I'll tell you how. Tribalists turning a blind eye to misbehaviour on their own side, and sanctimonious gits knowing their side is gone rotten and still voting for them.
People who know there's something wrong, wring their hands about it, and then endorse it at the ballot box.
Works both ways. Democrats are as guilty as Republicans. The cries that it is only one side doing it is what is causing this level of distrust.
No it isn't. It's mainly the fact that Trump is so off the scale poisonous. And what is this stuff about how we aren't allowed to say 2016 was rigged, when it plainly was?
Ah ok, so:
"2016 was rigged, illegitimate President elected" = ok to say, not a problem
"2020 was stolen, stop the steal" = existential threat to Democracy and undermining the Republic
Jesus, that in a nutshell highlights the issue.
Saying the Trump presidency was "illegitimate" was proof that they shouldn't have elected Clinton. Trump's Big Lie was proof that they should have.
Tie-breaker: count the attempted coups instigated by each. I'll let others work the abacus on that one.
Are we counting the impeachment hearings as attempted coups? Not all coups involve tanks and guns.
No, we are not. That is entirely within the existing constitutional framework. Sending a mob to hang the VP is not.
I don't think Trump sent out a mob to hang the VP. If he did, then you should pass this info on because it would be enough to get him sent to prison.
Re the impeachment point, on your logic, Trump's tactics to get the state legislatures to overturn the results in their states would also not have been a queue because they also would have operated in the existing constitutional framework. Which - in my mind - is wrong. That would have been a coup as well. But it would have been part of the constitutional framework.
Mike Pence appears less sure than you, re: paragraph one.
The Dave Chappelle special is absolutely brilliant.
Never heard of him - read two scathing reviews of his routine in The Guardian and The Independent, then looked him up on wiki and found out he was a Muslim convert. Suppose the G and i thought it was immaterial to his material
The final paragraph of that first link is quite powerful IMO:
"In a community with an abnormally high rate of depression and suicide, that’s the part that hurt. Every transgender person I know has lost someone by suicide, and rarely has the reason ever been what other trans people have said to them on Twitter. Hell. You said it yourself, Dave: “Twitter isn’t real.” The marginalization, mockery, dehumanization, and violence many of us face everyday of most of our lives is what fuels our despair. For you to use Daphne’s tragedy as your closing tag is the only thing you’ve done that’s made me angry enough to write a letter."
Yes...the depression angle is a bit chicken and egg to me - to be convinced you are really a woman who happened to have been born in a mans body, or vice versa, sounds like mental illness if I am being perfectly honest, and depression is a mental illness from which suicide too often follows. But if you say you think transgender people, or people who want to transition, are mentally ill and should be treated with the same kind of sympathy as those suffering from schizophrenia or autism, rather than mocked in the way Dave Chappelle apparently does,( I haven't seen or heard any of his material) that would be considered offensive.
It's probably offensive even if it's not a 'mental illness' (IMV it most certainly is not a mental illness for many; and calling it such is part of the problem).
As humans, we like to fit people into neat little categories. Male/female. Good/bad. Straight/gay. Child/adult. In reality, the categories cover a multitude of variances, and it can be hard to fit some people into those categories. I'm currently a stay-at-home dad. Some relatives of mine have found this quite hard to understand because it doesn't fit into the neat categories in their minds.
Can you honestly, hand on heart, not say that some of your activities or lifestyle might not be said by some people to be a 'mental illness' ? I've certainly had someone describe my walking as such in the past, and that's before I took up my current running madness ...
Well I was a stay at home Dad from Oct 2020-June 2021...
But "In a community with an abnormally high rate of depression and suicide" makes me think there is a level of severe mental illness among transgenders/wannabe transitioners, that veers further off the spectrum than the kind of universal eccentricities that make the world go round. In short, I reckon there is a predisposition to mental illness amongst the kind of people who want to have a sex change, or more bluntly, I think you have to be quite badly mentally ill to want to do it. That's not a reason to be horrible to anyone, I don't think mentally ill people should be made fun of, they should be sympathised with.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I'm so sorry to have to break this to you all, but I am just placing this week's order with Riverford, and I have discovered that they are out of Good Brie.
Well if I'm reading this correctly we get in 2022 Senate elections in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin:
Which should give an idea as to what might happen in 2024.
Interesting point in that link that I'd not appreciated:
"In contrast to 2018, where Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Donald Trump won in 2016, Democrats hold no seats in any state that was won by Trump in 2020. Meanwhile, the GOP is defending two seats (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) in states President Joe Biden won in 2020, compared to just one seat (Nevada won by Hillary Clinton in 2016) that was up for grabs in 2018."
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
The end of that thread is laughable hopecasting similar to what we see on PB. The EU has got one lever it can pull, it can unilaterally leave the TCA after 12 months of notice. That's simply not going to happen. It would need unanimous consent and there's no way that all of them will agree to it. Most EU countries give no fucks about the Irish border, loads of them would be happy to kick the Irish out after all of the tax shenanigans for the last 20 years. Some may use this to crowbar Ireland out of the EU and into the TCA and let the UK/Ireland fix their own border issues.
Drop the final 2 Tweets which were ludicorous hopecasting and it was actually a fairly interesting thread.
TL;DR it pretty much exactly mirrored the arguments you, I and a few others have said here for the past four years. The simple fact is if the UK sticks to its guns then the UK holds all the cards. They're bluffing and have nothing they can do.
Not this again
EU activists are now using the exact same arguments I used for the past four years . . . but with a tone of desperation now . . .
Quite frankly, I'm being restrained not saying "I told you so".
The senators that turned down the chance to bar Trump from office are going to look as silly as the Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn for leader.
Robert has spent the past 11 months assuring us that Trump won’t win re-election but it’s really not clear to me why he is so confident of that.
Me neither.
Biden only just won.
Seems likely there will be a swing back unless he has delivered big time.
And that's before the bollx over fixing the vote and so on.
Well if Trump wins again so be it, it would be the Democrats fault for not delivering for the voters who did not vote for Hillary in 2016 but did vote for Biden in 2020. Plus also for putting up weak candidates against him
Well if I'm reading this correctly we get in 2022 Senate elections in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin:
Which should give an idea as to what might happen in 2024.
Interesting point in that link that I'd not appreciated:
"In contrast to 2018, where Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Donald Trump won in 2016, Democrats hold no seats in any state that was won by Trump in 2020. Meanwhile, the GOP is defending two seats (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) in states President Joe Biden won in 2020, compared to just one seat (Nevada won by Hillary Clinton in 2016) that was up for grabs in 2018."
And if the Democrats retain the Senate it is impossible for the GOP to overturn and object to the EC vote in 2024 as they need both chambers of Congress to vote to do so
John Roberts @john_actuary · 5h Exactly a quarter of a million booster jabs reported in Flag of England, the best yet, and 29% up on last week. We've now jabbed 2.33m, out of 6.2m eligible, so we still have 3.8m beyond 6 months who we could immediately jab.
My wife has her booster tomorrow and I have mine on the 22nd
My wife is approaching the 6 month mark. She tried to book for a booster this morning and the Web site told her to bugger off.
The senators that turned down the chance to bar Trump from office are going to look as silly as the Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn for leader.
Robert has spent the past 11 months assuring us that Trump won’t win re-election but it’s really not clear to me why he is so confident of that.
Me neither.
Biden only just won.
Seems likely there will be a swing back unless he has delivered big time.
And that's before the bollx over fixing the vote and so on.
Well if Trump wins again so be it, it would be the Democrats fault for not delivering for the voters who did not vote for Hillary in 2016 but did vote for Biden in 2020. Plus also for putting up weak candidates against him
If Trump wins it is going to be f*cking nightmare the like of which we've not seen in our lifetimes. The world will be in a very very dark place.
He will be utterly out of control and deranged in a second term.
John Roberts @john_actuary · 5h Exactly a quarter of a million booster jabs reported in Flag of England, the best yet, and 29% up on last week. We've now jabbed 2.33m, out of 6.2m eligible, so we still have 3.8m beyond 6 months who we could immediately jab.
My wife has her booster tomorrow and I have mine on the 22nd
My wife is approaching the 6 month mark. She tried to book for a booster this morning and the Web site told her to bugger off.
I'm so sorry to have to break this to you all, but I am just placing this week's order with Riverford, and I have discovered that they are out of Good Brie.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
Oh God, here we go ahead with the usual "Republicans are going to steal the 2024 election". No surprise it's come out when everyone is waking up to what a disaster Biden is as President.
Meanwhile, you turn a blind eye to Merrick Garland considering using the Patriot Act to prosecute parents who complain about Critical Race Theory in US schools.
ITYM “threaten school board members with violence”.
Then use normal laws on committing violence, the Patriot Act was about terrorism.
Where have you been the last twenty years? The Patriot Act has been misused by administrations of both parties since it was passed. See also RIPA in the UK.
Of course. They are bad pieces of legislation.
My whole point about this is that this whole debate with Trump is just portrayed as a Black and White thing. Republicans devils, Democrats angels. Trump evil, Biden good. It's a crock of shit, both sides rig the system when they can according to the strengths they have. This whole claiming only one side is trying to rig the election is just utter hypocrisy.
Take the rest of the day off, mate, if this is all you've got. Hillary and Biden are both pretty dire, but Trump is about the one human being about whom it is morally permissible to hope for the sake of humanity that he dies or is disabled by illness in the next couple of years.
I generally try not to wish death upon anyone however with Trump I’m compelled to hope he has a quiet death in his sleep as soon as possible because the potential fall-out from his being alive at the next US election is dreadful.
He’s had a good long life of indulgence and fun so not as if I’m hoping for someone to die who still has a life ahead of them and will miss out on the joys of life. He’s done it all…..
His continued existence simply is a massive negative to the world as he is unfortunately and how his supporters have been riled up to madness.
If he went quietly in his sleep tonight it would give time for the trump wing of the GOP to slowly dissolve in time hopefully for a more sane candidate to break through once the cult of personality has gone.
It’s as if he doesn’t get that being the POTUS isn’t a game show, or a wheeze - it’s not the apprentice or one-upmanship at the golf club. It’s not legging a rival over in the New York property market - it’s real lives and deaths in the US and beyond but he cannot see his need for personal responsibility - sort of like the Daily Mail who put the need for clicks through wild headlines about shortages over the damage it does……
John Roberts @john_actuary · 5h Exactly a quarter of a million booster jabs reported in Flag of England, the best yet, and 29% up on last week. We've now jabbed 2.33m, out of 6.2m eligible, so we still have 3.8m beyond 6 months who we could immediately jab.
My wife has her booster tomorrow and I have mine on the 22nd
My wife is approaching the 6 month mark. She tried to book for a booster this morning and the Web site told her to bugger off.
Is she over 70
No. She was in whatever group number was higher risk, hence early first and second jabs. The Web site does say wait until you are contacted, but we thought we'd give it a shot.
The senators that turned down the chance to bar Trump from office are going to look as silly as the Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn for leader.
Robert has spent the past 11 months assuring us that Trump won’t win re-election but it’s really not clear to me why he is so confident of that.
Me neither.
Biden only just won.
Seems likely there will be a swing back unless he has delivered big time.
And that's before the bollx over fixing the vote and so on.
Well if Trump wins again so be it, it would be the Democrats fault for not delivering for the voters who did not vote for Hillary in 2016 but did vote for Biden in 2020. Plus also for putting up weak candidates against him
If Trump wins it is going to be f*cking nightmare the like of which we've not seen in our lifetimes. The world will be in a very very dark place.
He will be utterly out of control and deranged in a second term.
3 more years of Biden then 4 of Trump. That’s highly likely long enough that the UAP issue will be thrown out into the open whether the US govt wishes it or not. Which means either Biden makes the big announcement or it will be Trump that delivers the most impactful speech in human history. Not how Hollywood has imagined it all these years for sure!
Oh for the simple days of the 1990s when the Cold War had been won, history was over, the Internet was a tool for geeks rather than political propagandists and we could sleep soundly in our beds knowing that Jeff Goldblum had our backs.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
The damage will come from those in NI who reject the protocol no matter the EU
I do not want to be unkind but by 2024 Trump will be my age and my old bones rattle and roll and just about keep me up
Maybe tempus fugit will also arrive for him by then
I'll tell you how. Tribalists turning a blind eye to misbehaviour on their own side, and sanctimonious gits knowing their side is gone rotten and still voting for them.
People who know there's something wrong, wring their hands about it, and then endorse it at the ballot box.
Works both ways. Democrats are as guilty as Republicans. The cries that it is only one side doing it is what is causing this level of distrust.
No it isn't. It's mainly the fact that Trump is so off the scale poisonous. And what is this stuff about how we aren't allowed to say 2016 was rigged, when it plainly was?
Ah ok, so:
"2016 was rigged, illegitimate President elected" = ok to say, not a problem
"2020 was stolen, stop the steal" = existential threat to Democracy and undermining the Republic
Jesus, that in a nutshell highlights the issue.
Saying the Trump presidency was "illegitimate" was proof that they shouldn't have elected Clinton. Trump's Big Lie was proof that they should have.
Tie-breaker: count the attempted coups instigated by each. I'll let others work the abacus on that one.
Are we counting the impeachment hearings as attempted coups? Not all coups involve tanks and guns.
No, we are not. That is entirely within the existing constitutional framework. Sending a mob to hang the VP is not.
The false equivalence on this subject is just bloody astounding.
That's why the potentially legal options to ignore the vote are so concerning, as that doesn't require a coup.
Would you like to explain why it is false equivalence. It gets bandied around as a fact but, in both 2016 and 2020, as I showed, and there is plenty of evidence for you to see, both sides claimed the winner's election was illegitimate and open to question.
You will then claim it is about the January riots and that is the difference which is an argument I would have a lot more sympathy for if it wasn't for the fact I was debating on here post-election about how Trump's tactics were to go down the state legislatures route and everyone agreed this would be a coup. So people on here already accepted you could have a coup without force. You just seemed to have forgotten about it now a more useful argument comes along.
Ed, the Dems accepted the result, Trump & Co tried to overturn it by vexatious litigation, intimidation and violence. Your take on this is just absurd. Please please stop it.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
The damage will come from those in NI who reject the protocol no matter the EU
The Northern Irish rejected Brexit, they'll just have to suck it up.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
So what you're suggesting is that Ireland will impose a land border on the island? Are you certifiable?
I do not want to be unkind but by 2024 Trump will be my age and my old bones rattle and roll and just about keep me up
Maybe tempus fugit will also arrive for him by then
I'll tell you how. Tribalists turning a blind eye to misbehaviour on their own side, and sanctimonious gits knowing their side is gone rotten and still voting for them.
People who know there's something wrong, wring their hands about it, and then endorse it at the ballot box.
Works both ways. Democrats are as guilty as Republicans. The cries that it is only one side doing it is what is causing this level of distrust.
No it isn't. It's mainly the fact that Trump is so off the scale poisonous. And what is this stuff about how we aren't allowed to say 2016 was rigged, when it plainly was?
Ah ok, so:
"2016 was rigged, illegitimate President elected" = ok to say, not a problem
"2020 was stolen, stop the steal" = existential threat to Democracy and undermining the Republic
Jesus, that in a nutshell highlights the issue.
Saying the Trump presidency was "illegitimate" was proof that they shouldn't have elected Clinton. Trump's Big Lie was proof that they should have.
Tie-breaker: count the attempted coups instigated by each. I'll let others work the abacus on that one.
Are we counting the impeachment hearings as attempted coups? Not all coups involve tanks and guns.
No, we are not. That is entirely within the existing constitutional framework. Sending a mob to hang the VP is not.
The false equivalence on this subject is just bloody astounding.
That's why the potentially legal options to ignore the vote are so concerning, as that doesn't require a coup.
Would you like to explain why it is false equivalence. It gets bandied around as a fact but, in both 2016 and 2020, as I showed, and there is plenty of evidence for you to see, both sides claimed the winner's election was illegitimate and open to question.
You will then claim it is about the January riots and that is the difference which is an argument I would have a lot more sympathy for if it wasn't for the fact I was debating on here post-election about how Trump's tactics were to go down the state legislatures route and everyone agreed this would be a coup. So people on here already accepted you could have a coup without force. You just seemed to have forgotten about it now a more useful argument comes along.
Ed, the Dems accepted the result, Trump & Co tried to overturn it by vexatious litigation, intimidation and violence. Your take on this is just absurd. Please please stop it.
Come on Kinablu. I accepted that Biden won in 2020 and criticised Trump but you have posters on this site today saying that Trump's win in 2016 was illegitimate and therefore it was fine for Hilary to condemn his election as illegitimate. There are double standards here. Hilary said in 2019 he was an illegitimate President. Stop trying to make out the Democrats played fair post-2016, they didn't.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
The damage will come from those in NI who reject the protocol no matter the EU
The Northern Irish rejected Brexit, they'll just have to suck it up.
I would suggest that may not prove to be a construct response
Well if I'm reading this correctly we get in 2022 Senate elections in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin:
Which should give an idea as to what might happen in 2024.
Interesting point in that link that I'd not appreciated:
"In contrast to 2018, where Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Donald Trump won in 2016, Democrats hold no seats in any state that was won by Trump in 2020. Meanwhile, the GOP is defending two seats (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) in states President Joe Biden won in 2020, compared to just one seat (Nevada won by Hillary Clinton in 2016) that was up for grabs in 2018."
And if the Democrats retain the Senate it is impossible for the GOP to overturn and object to the EC vote in 2024 as they need both chambers of Congress to vote to do so
I wish I could post the link but the guy who is renowned for being spot on when it comes to the Democrat's vote share (can't remember his name, NYT had the piece) said that 2024 is the real problem year for the Democrats when it comes to the Senate.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
The damage will come from those in NI who reject the protocol no matter the EU
The Northern Irish rejected Brexit, they'll just have to suck it up.
I would suggest that may not prove to be a construct response
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
The damage will come from those in NI who reject the protocol no matter the EU
I have no doubt this issue is destroying Northern Ireland. Which is why the Unionists IMO are making a third Brexit related mistake with the Protocol. No-one else has the same interest in the long term success of Northern Ireland. UKG certainly don't, as demonstrated by their Protocol shenanigans. Catholics and the Irish think Northern Ireland an anathema.
So while I get they hate the Irish Sea border, they need keep people onside who don't share their love of the Northern Irish state, but will stick with the status quo in the interests of a peaceful life. Hence they need the Protocol, much as they despise it.
The Dave Chappelle special is absolutely brilliant.
Never heard of him - read two scathing reviews of his routine in The Guardian and The Independent, then looked him up on wiki and found out he was a Muslim convert. Suppose the G and i thought it was immaterial to his material
The final paragraph of that first link is quite powerful IMO:
"In a community with an abnormally high rate of depression and suicide, that’s the part that hurt. Every transgender person I know has lost someone by suicide, and rarely has the reason ever been what other trans people have said to them on Twitter. Hell. You said it yourself, Dave: “Twitter isn’t real.” The marginalization, mockery, dehumanization, and violence many of us face everyday of most of our lives is what fuels our despair. For you to use Daphne’s tragedy as your closing tag is the only thing you’ve done that’s made me angry enough to write a letter."
Yes...the depression angle is a bit chicken and egg to me - to be convinced you are really a woman who happened to have been born in a mans body, or vice versa, sounds like mental illness if I am being perfectly honest, and depression is a mental illness from which suicide too often follows. But if you say you think transgender people, or people who want to transition, are mentally ill and should be treated with the same kind of sympathy as those suffering from schizophrenia or autism, rather than mocked in the way Dave Chappelle apparently does,( I haven't seen or heard any of his material) that would be considered offensive.
It's probably offensive even if it's not a 'mental illness' (IMV it most certainly is not a mental illness for many; and calling it such is part of the problem).
As humans, we like to fit people into neat little categories. Male/female. Good/bad. Straight/gay. Child/adult. In reality, the categories cover a multitude of variances, and it can be hard to fit some people into those categories. I'm currently a stay-at-home dad. Some relatives of mine have found this quite hard to understand because it doesn't fit into the neat categories in their minds.
Can you honestly, hand on heart, not say that some of your activities or lifestyle might not be said by some people to be a 'mental illness' ? I've certainly had someone describe my walking as such in the past, and that's before I took up my current running madness ...
Well I was a stay at home Dad from Oct 2020-June 2021...
But "In a community with an abnormally high rate of depression and suicide" makes me think there is a level of severe mental illness among transgenders/wannabe transitioners, that veers further off the spectrum than the kind of universal eccentricities that make the world go round. In short, I reckon there is a predisposition to mental illness amongst the kind of people who want to have a sex change, or more bluntly, I think you have to be quite badly mentally ill to want to do it. That's not a reason to be horrible to anyone, I don't think mentally ill people should be made fun of, they should be sympathised with.
Suicide rates amongst gay people are higher than they are amongst others (1). Would you say that being gay is therefore indicative of a 'mental illness'? Until the 1970s, homosexuality was taken by the US as being a 'mental illness'. Nowadays it is seen as just being part of life's rich tapestry. That's progress.
One of my trans friends committed suicide. I don't think his suicide had anything to do with his transition; IMV it was a result of trauma earlier in his life. (*) Did transitioning make his life harder? Perhaps. Was it a mental illness? No. Was his suicide brought on, in part, by society's reaction to his transition? It's very difficult to know, but as an outside observer, I'd argue yes. It certainly didn't help.
I knew another trans friend from when he was 13 in school. He always wanted to be a girl (despite not looking like one at all - he was taller than me and very manly). Was he mentally ill? No - aside from choosing to be friends with me.
These are two trans people I knew very well. One is dead; the other is happily transitioned. I don't particularly see either as being 'mentally ill'.
Suicide has many potential causes: depression and drug/alcohol use prominent amongst them. Having known trans people, depression caused by people's reaction to them is all too believable.
(*) There is a complicating factor here. How much did his wish to transition have to do with that earlier trauma? In our few conversations about it, he denied it: but I will never know.
The senators that turned down the chance to bar Trump from office are going to look as silly as the Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn for leader.
Robert has spent the past 11 months assuring us that Trump won’t win re-election but it’s really not clear to me why he is so confident of that.
Me neither.
Biden only just won.
Seems likely there will be a swing back unless he has delivered big time.
And that's before the bollx over fixing the vote and so on.
Yes the same logic that says "old white guy wins due to ultra narrow margins in the rust belt does not make him an election winning genius" applies equally regardless of the party they come from.
With Florida redistricting poised to smash the Dems and Dem "moderates" determined to sink Biden's agenda I would say the GOP should be odds on to win Congress at the moment.
I will never not be amused by the cool calm rational bettor absolutely losing it when factual statements are made about their hero.
Indeed.
Well, I actually don't care that much for Trump. I think he was the better choice in 2016 and 2020 but, if you think I'd be arsed going out to cheer him, forget it.
However, I do like highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how one election was treated vs the others. I see that the line of defence now is that it is the January riots which is the defining factor when it comes to behaviour. Which is funny, given pre-January riots the comments were all the same.
And no need to worry about the bets @Alistair, your analysis was one of the reasons why I made money on 2020, so thanks a lot for that
Well if I'm reading this correctly we get in 2022 Senate elections in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin:
Which should give an idea as to what might happen in 2024.
Interesting point in that link that I'd not appreciated:
"In contrast to 2018, where Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Donald Trump won in 2016, Democrats hold no seats in any state that was won by Trump in 2020. Meanwhile, the GOP is defending two seats (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) in states President Joe Biden won in 2020, compared to just one seat (Nevada won by Hillary Clinton in 2016) that was up for grabs in 2018."
And if the Democrats retain the Senate it is impossible for the GOP to overturn and object to the EC vote in 2024 as they need both chambers of Congress to vote to do so
I wish I could post the link but the guy who is renowned for being spot on when it comes to the Democrat's vote share (can't remember his name, NYT had the piece) said that 2024 is the real problem year for the Democrats when it comes to the Senate.
Yes but the new Senate would not meet until January 2025 anyway, by which time the EC will already have met and elected the new President
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
The damage will come from those in NI who reject the protocol no matter the EU
The Northern Irish rejected Brexit, they'll just have to suck it up.
I would suggest that may not prove to be a construct response
Well it is the truth.
It as much the truth as it is the truth to say that Liverpool - Walton voted for Labour.
There was no NI Brexit referendum, there was only a UK one. NI can either choose to be in a post-Brexit UK, or a unified Ireland. There is no "stay in the UK but without Brexit" option.
Well if I'm reading this correctly we get in 2022 Senate elections in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin:
Which should give an idea as to what might happen in 2024.
Interesting point in that link that I'd not appreciated:
"In contrast to 2018, where Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Donald Trump won in 2016, Democrats hold no seats in any state that was won by Trump in 2020. Meanwhile, the GOP is defending two seats (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) in states President Joe Biden won in 2020, compared to just one seat (Nevada won by Hillary Clinton in 2016) that was up for grabs in 2018."
And if the Democrats retain the Senate it is impossible for the GOP to overturn and object to the EC vote in 2024 as they need both chambers of Congress to vote to do so
I wish I could post the link but the guy who is renowned for being spot on when it comes to the Democrat's vote share (can't remember his name, NYT had the piece) said that 2024 is the real problem year for the Democrats when it comes to the Senate.
Yes but the new Senate would not meet until January 2025 anyway, by which time the EC will already have met and elected the new President
Absolutely, it wouldn't make a difference for that election.
I think one risk even pre-2022 is that one of Manchin / Sinema get tired of the abuse thrown their way by the progressives and break away from the Democrats. Not saying they would defect to the GOP but will be interesting to watch.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
The damage will come from those in NI who reject the protocol no matter the EU
I have no doubt this issue is destroying Northern Ireland. Which is why the Unionists IMO are making a third Brexit related mistake with the Protocol. No-one else has the same interest in the long term success of Northern Ireland. UKG certainly don't, as demonstrated by their Protocol shenanigans. Catholics and the Irish think Northern Ireland an anathema.
So while I get they hate the Irish Sea border, they need keep people onside who don't share their love of the Northern Irish state, but will stick with the status quo in the interests of a peaceful life. Hence they need the Protocol, much as they despise it.
I think you are wrong and that the NI protocol needs either a sensible compromise or kicked into the long grass
I will never not be amused by the cool calm rational bettor absolutely losing it when factual statements are made about their hero.
Indeed.
Well, I actually don't care that much for Trump. I think he was the better choice in 2016 and 2020 but, if you think I'd be arsed going out to cheer him, forget it.
However, I do like highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how one election was treated vs the others. I see that the line of defence now is that it is the January riots which is the defining factor when it comes to behaviour. Which is funny, given pre-January riots the comments were all the same.
And no need to worry about the bets @Alistair, your analysis was one of the reasons why I made money on 2020, so thanks a lot for that
Yes, no one would ever consider your posts, particularly on this thread, as cheerleading for Trump.
I'm so sorry to have to break this to you all, but I am just placing this week's order with Riverford, and I have discovered that they are out of Good Brie.
The senators that turned down the chance to bar Trump from office are going to look as silly as the Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn for leader.
Robert has spent the past 11 months assuring us that Trump won’t win re-election but it’s really not clear to me why he is so confident of that.
Me neither.
Biden only just won.
Seems likely there will be a swing back unless he has delivered big time.
And that's before the bollx over fixing the vote and so on.
Well if Trump wins again so be it, it would be the Democrats fault for not delivering for the voters who did not vote for Hillary in 2016 but did vote for Biden in 2020. Plus also for putting up weak candidates against him
If Trump wins it is going to be f*cking nightmare the like of which we've not seen in our lifetimes. The world will be in a very very dark place.
He will be utterly out of control and deranged in a second term.
Trump was out of control and deranged in his first term. What stopped him doing incredible damage were all the ex-Generals surrounding him who remembered the oath they took, and the cabinet appointments who were nuts but not nearly as nuts as Trump. Trump and his team will not make that mistake again, he will be surrounded by people who place their loyalty to Trump over any concerns about obeying the law or harming their nation and the world.
I'm so sorry to have to break this to you all, but I am just placing this week's order with Riverford, and I have discovered that they are out of Good Brie.
The 'like' I have just given you is out of sympathy, not Schadenfreude.
I will never not be amused by the cool calm rational bettor absolutely losing it when factual statements are made about their hero.
Indeed.
Well, I actually don't care that much for Trump. I think he was the better choice in 2016 and 2020 but, if you think I'd be arsed going out to cheer him, forget it.
However, I do like highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how one election was treated vs the others. I see that the line of defence now is that it is the January riots which is the defining factor when it comes to behaviour. Which is funny, given pre-January riots the comments were all the same.
And no need to worry about the bets @Alistair, your analysis was one of the reasons why I made money on 2020, so thanks a lot for that
Yes, no one would ever consider your posts, particularly on this thread, as cheerleading for Trump.
I saw him as the better bet. Simple as that. He has plenty of faults but the idea that he is uniquely evil, I find utterly hilarious. And I am glad he won in 2016. I think, if Hilary had won, there was a decent chance we might have ended up in a war with Russia over the Crimea / Ukraine.
But, at the end of the day, thinking Trump is evil incarnate is essentially a proxy for legitimised snobbery. His supporters are all thick, racist, ignorant etc etc and people who despise Trump are naturally people of a superior intellect.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
The damage will come from those in NI who reject the protocol no matter the EU
I have no doubt this issue is destroying Northern Ireland. Which is why the Unionists IMO are making a third Brexit related mistake with the Protocol. No-one else has the same interest in the long term success of Northern Ireland. UKG certainly don't, as demonstrated by their Protocol shenanigans. Catholics and the Irish think Northern Ireland an anathema.
So while I get they hate the Irish Sea border, they need keep people onside who don't share their love of the Northern Irish state, but will stick with the status quo in the interests of a peaceful life. Hence they need the Protocol, much as they despise it.
I think you are wrong and that the NI protocol needs either a sensible compromise or kicked into the long grass
Totally agree Northern Ireland Protocol* needs compromise. Unfortunately the principal actors - UKG, Unionists, Irish and EU Commission - have manoeuvred themselves into a situation where compromise looks unlikely. Northern Ireland is the huge loser.
* Should also note the NIP is itself a compromise. It means every party avoids one worst outcome from their PoV.
Legislatures and Governors are all elected too (Secretaries of State appointed by the Governor).
All have to agree to measures restricting ballot access and at the moment only 23 states out of 50 have both a GOP governor and GOP controlled legislature, nowhere near enough to win the EC by themselves in 2024 and even fewer than the 25 states Trump won in 2020 when he lost to Biden.
If the GOP win enough states to control ballot access then the mood is likely heading for a GOP president again anyway
Correction - In USA, of the 47 states that have a Secretary of State (all except Alaska, Hawaii & Utah) 35 are elected by popular vote, the remaining dozen are gubernatorial appointments.
BTW & FYI, in great State of Washington, the ONLY statewide elected Republican is our Secretary of State, Kim Wyman. Worth noting that she owes her reelection last year to Democrats who split their tickets in her favor.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
The damage will come from those in NI who reject the protocol no matter the EU
The Northern Irish rejected Brexit, they'll just have to suck it up.
I would suggest that may not prove to be a construct response
Well it is the truth.
It as much the truth as it is the truth to say that Liverpool - Walton voted for Labour.
There was no NI Brexit referendum, there was only a UK one. NI can either choose to be in a post-Brexit UK, or a unified Ireland. There is no "stay in the UK but without Brexit" option.
Which is why I said they had to suck it up.
Try reading and not spouting off your preprogrammed responses.
John Roberts @john_actuary · 5h Exactly a quarter of a million booster jabs reported in Flag of England, the best yet, and 29% up on last week. We've now jabbed 2.33m, out of 6.2m eligible, so we still have 3.8m beyond 6 months who we could immediately jab.
My wife has her booster tomorrow and I have mine on the 22nd
My wife is approaching the 6 month mark. She tried to book for a booster this morning and the Web site told her to bugger off.
Is she over 70
No. She was in whatever group number was higher risk, hence early first and second jabs. The Web site does say wait until you are contacted, but we thought we'd give it a shot.
Certainly in Scotland , so far my brother's with has got appointment but she is 70 ish, my wife who was on the high risk group is yet to get hers. We had same message, ie wait till you are contacted. Assume they are working their way down the lists. We are over 6 months from last jab now.
All this stuff about Trump is far too complicated for my liking. For whatever reason, the American people made him President in 2016, a stunning victory for somebody quite so stupid. Then they thought better of it in 2020.
All I care about is that they don't make the 2016 mistake again in 2024. I don't really care what methods are used to stop him being re-elected, as long as they work. The man is not fit to run a whelk stall, let alone the USA. Be gone, idiot.
3 more years of Biden then 4 of Trump. That’s highly likely long enough that the UAP issue will be thrown out into the open whether the US govt wishes it or not. Which means either Biden makes the big announcement or it will be Trump that delivers the most impactful speech in human history. Not how Hollywood has imagined it all these years for sure!
Oh for the simple days of the 1990s when the Cold War had been won, history was over, the Internet was a tool for geeks rather than political propagandists and we could sleep soundly in our beds knowing that Jeff Goldblum had our backs.
Hell yes. The good old days when the inevitable spread of liberal democracy and free markets meant that we were mainly concerned with where the tax surpluses should go, or what we ought to do converting swords into ploughshares. We even thought China would be next after the Soviet Union went pop!
It’s not the restrictions on voting access that are a concern, that’s par for the course and the GQP has already done as much as it can in this area; the latest changes probably won’t make much difference.
The real concern is the states legislating to allow their legislatures to ignore the popular vote and impose their own slate of electors. Perfectly constitutional, as previously discussed at length here on PB.
I have never seriously thought about the possibility of the USA breaking up. But I could see a situation where the national popular vote is massively in favour of the Dem Presidential candidate, the Dem candidate would have won the electoral college vote under normal conditions, but lose it because of those types of shenanigans, and then the East and West Coast basically saying, we're out, we are not going to stand for this any more.
I can't and, for the reason that mentioned below. At the end of the day, wealthy liberals - who are going to be the ones who will have to get behind this idea to make it a reality - know that breaking away would essentially mean they couldn't rely on the force of the state to protect them from the crowds. California is already seeing an exodus of police officers going to places like Idaho. It isn't going to happen.
I think that is an incredibly complacent view. At very least, I would foresee violent civil unrest, devolving into constitutional crises, as Trump tries to use the military to step in in Dem controlled states where governors refuse to enforce the suppression of demonstrations demanded by Trump.
The bulk of the US' economic wealth is produced in heavily Democratic states.
Where does this idea coming from that Trump is going to send in the tanks to crush demonstrations? Is there seriously one bit of evidence - outside the fantasy wanking offs of the New Yorker and The Atlantic - that he ever envisaged using mass force to crush his opponents.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
The damage will come from those in NI who reject the protocol no matter the EU
I have no doubt this issue is destroying Northern Ireland. Which is why the Unionists IMO are making a third Brexit related mistake with the Protocol. No-one else has the same interest in the long term success of Northern Ireland. UKG certainly don't, as demonstrated by their Protocol shenanigans. Catholics and the Irish think Northern Ireland an anathema.
So while I get they hate the Irish Sea border, they need keep people onside who don't share their love of the Northern Irish state, but will stick with the status quo in the interests of a peaceful life. Hence they need the Protocol, much as they despise it.
I think you are wrong and that the NI protocol needs either a sensible compromise or kicked into the long grass
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
The damage will come from those in NI who reject the protocol no matter the EU
The Northern Irish rejected Brexit, they'll just have to suck it up.
I would suggest that may not prove to be a construct response
Well it is the truth.
It as much the truth as it is the truth to say that Liverpool - Walton voted for Labour.
There was no NI Brexit referendum, there was only a UK one. NI can either choose to be in a post-Brexit UK, or a unified Ireland. There is no "stay in the UK but without Brexit" option.
Which is why I said they had to suck it up.
Try reading and not spouting off your preprogrammed responses.
They don't have to suck it up.
They have a choice. Post-Brexit UK, or unified Ireland.
No sucking required. The power is in their hands to choose.
That's more than Labour voters in Liverpool have had for the past decade, in a democracy you have to accept when you lose a vote and Remain voters in Northern Ireland lost the vote they didn't win it, same as Remain voters in Scotland and everywhere else in the United Kingdom.
It’s not the restrictions on voting access that are a concern, that’s par for the course and the GQP has already done as much as it can in this area; the latest changes probably won’t make much difference.
The real concern is the states legislating to allow their legislatures to ignore the popular vote and impose their own slate of electors. Perfectly constitutional, as previously discussed at length here on PB.
I have never seriously thought about the possibility of the USA breaking up. But I could see a situation where the national popular vote is massively in favour of the Dem Presidential candidate, the Dem candidate would have won the electoral college vote under normal conditions, but lose it because of those types of shenanigans, and then the East and West Coast basically saying, we're out, we are not going to stand for this any more.
I can't and, for the reason that mentioned below. At the end of the day, wealthy liberals - who are going to be the ones who will have to get behind this idea to make it a reality - know that breaking away would essentially mean they couldn't rely on the force of the state to protect them from the crowds. California is already seeing an exodus of police officers going to places like Idaho. It isn't gOoing to happen.
I think that is an incredibly complacent view. At very least, I would foresee violent civil unrest, devolving into constitutional crises, as Trump tries to use the military to step in in Dem controlled states where governors refuse to enforce the suppression of demonstrations demanded by Trump.
The bulk of the US' economic wealth is produced in heavily Democratic states.
Where does this idea coming from that Trump is going to send in the tanks to crush demonstrations? Is there seriously one bit of evidence - outside the fantasy wanking offs of the New Yorker and The Atlantic - that he ever envisaged using mass force to crush his opponents.
(1) If that is true, what was being proposed had also been used by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Bush Senior (the last for the LA 1992 riots);
(2) Connected to (1), was this confirmed or is this like The Atlantic story about Trump bad-mouthing the dead i.e. false? I ask because the claim was made in a book and, let's be honest, that would be the sort of things that an author might use to boost sales...
I will never not be amused by the cool calm rational bettor absolutely losing it when factual statements are made about their hero.
Indeed.
Well, I actually don't care that much for Trump. I think he was the better choice in 2016 and 2020 but, if you think I'd be arsed going out to cheer him, forget it.
However, I do like highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how one election was treated vs the others. I see that the line of defence now is that it is the January riots which is the defining factor when it comes to behaviour. Which is funny, given pre-January riots the comments were all the same.
And no need to worry about the bets @Alistair, your analysis was one of the reasons why I made money on 2020, so thanks a lot for that
Yes, no one would ever consider your posts, particularly on this thread, as cheerleading for Trump.
I saw him as the better bet. Simple as that. He has plenty of faults but the idea that he is uniquely evil, I find utterly hilarious. And I am glad he won in 2016. I think, if Hilary had won, there was a decent chance we might have ended up in a war with Russia over the Crimea / Ukraine.
But, at the end of the day, thinking Trump is evil incarnate is essentially a proxy for legitimised snobbery. His supporters are all thick, racist, ignorant etc etc and people who despise Trump are naturally people of a superior intellect.
Not so. I think Trump is thick, racist, ignorant etc etc. Don't know about his supporters; there's a lot of them.
I do not want to be unkind but by 2024 Trump will be my age and my old bones rattle and roll and just about keep me up
Maybe tempus fugit will also arrive for him by then
I'll tell you how. Tribalists turning a blind eye to misbehaviour on their own side, and sanctimonious gits knowing their side is gone rotten and still voting for them.
People who know there's something wrong, wring their hands about it, and then endorse it at the ballot box.
Works both ways. Democrats are as guilty as Republicans. The cries that it is only one side doing it is what is causing this level of distrust.
No it isn't. It's mainly the fact that Trump is so off the scale poisonous. And what is this stuff about how we aren't allowed to say 2016 was rigged, when it plainly was?
Ah ok, so:
"2016 was rigged, illegitimate President elected" = ok to say, not a problem
"2020 was stolen, stop the steal" = existential threat to Democracy and undermining the Republic
Jesus, that in a nutshell highlights the issue.
Saying the Trump presidency was "illegitimate" was proof that they shouldn't have elected Clinton. Trump's Big Lie was proof that they should have.
Tie-breaker: count the attempted coups instigated by each. I'll let others work the abacus on that one.
Are we counting the impeachment hearings as attempted coups? Not all coups involve tanks and guns.
No, we are not. That is entirely within the existing constitutional framework. Sending a mob to hang the VP is not.
The false equivalence on this subject is just bloody astounding.
That's why the potentially legal options to ignore the vote are so concerning, as that doesn't require a coup.
Would you like to explain why it is false equivalence. It gets bandied around as a fact but, in both 2016 and 2020, as I showed, and there is plenty of evidence for you to see, both sides claimed the winner's election was illegitimate and open to question.
You will then claim it is about the January riots and that is the difference which is an argument I would have a lot more sympathy for if it wasn't for the fact I was debating on here post-election about how Trump's tactics were to go down the state legislatures route and everyone agreed this would be a coup. So people on here already accepted you could have a coup without force. You just seemed to have forgotten about it now a more useful argument comes along.
Ed, the Dems accepted the result, Trump & Co tried to overturn it by vexatious litigation, intimidation and violence. Your take on this is just absurd. Please please stop it.
Come on Kinablu. I accepted that Biden won in 2020 and criticised Trump but you have posters on this site today saying that Trump's win in 2016 was illegitimate and therefore it was fine for Hilary to condemn his election as illegitimate. There are double standards here. Hilary said in 2019 he was an illegitimate President. Stop trying to make out the Democrats played fair post-2016, they didn't.
Failure to condemn equally 2 things that aren't even close to being equivalent is not double standards.
The senators that turned down the chance to bar Trump from office are going to look as silly as the Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn for leader.
Robert has spent the past 11 months assuring us that Trump won’t win re-election but it’s really not clear to me why he is so confident of that.
Me neither.
Biden only just won.
Seems likely there will be a swing back unless he has delivered big time.
And that's before the bollx over fixing the vote and so on.
Well if Trump wins again so be it, it would be the Democrats fault for not delivering for the voters who did not vote for Hillary in 2016 but did vote for Biden in 2020. Plus also for putting up weak candidates against him
If Trump wins it is going to be f*cking nightmare the like of which we've not seen in our lifetimes. The world will be in a very very dark place.
He will be utterly out of control and deranged in a second term.
3 more years of Biden then 4 of Trump. That’s highly likely long enough that the UAP issue will be thrown out into the open whether the US govt wishes it or not. Which means either Biden makes the big announcement or it will be Trump that delivers the most impactful speech in human history. Not how Hollywood has imagined it all these years for sure!
Oh for the simple days of the 1990s when the Cold War had been won, history was over, the Internet was a tool for geeks rather than political propagandists and we could sleep soundly in our beds knowing that Jeff Goldblum had our backs.
If we get '3 more years of Biden thn 4 of Trump' what makes you believe he'll stop at 4?
I will never not be amused by the cool calm rational bettor absolutely losing it when factual statements are made about their hero.
Indeed.
Well, I actually don't care that much for Trump. I think he was the better choice in 2016 and 2020 but, if you think I'd be arsed going out to cheer him, forget it.
However, I do like highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how one election was treated vs the others. I see that the line of defence now is that it is the January riots which is the defining factor when it comes to behaviour. Which is funny, given pre-January riots the comments were all the same.
And no need to worry about the bets @Alistair, your analysis was one of the reasons why I made money on 2020, so thanks a lot for that
The trouble is, full all the equivalence you'd like to make between some things that were said, those who judged Trump to be the threat to American democracy were right.
They saw something like January 6th coming years out; you didn't.
Actually, I don't think they did either (and I certainly didn't). What people had in mind was an organised coup with Trump arresting opponents and declaring something like marshal law. What happened was a disorganised rabble who stormed the Capitol and who were so intent on organising a coup that they didn't bring much in the way of firepower to carry out their threat. Trump's behaviour then was totally wrong and he should not have held the speech but, if he was looking to carry out a coup, he should have had a word with a few chaps in Africa and South America as to how to do it properly.
I will never not be amused by the cool calm rational bettor absolutely losing it when factual statements are made about their hero.
Indeed.
Well, I actually don't care that much for Trump. I think he was the better choice in 2016 and 2020 but, if you think I'd be arsed going out to cheer him, forget it.
However, I do like highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how one election was treated vs the others. I see that the line of defence now is that it is the January riots which is the defining factor when it comes to behaviour. Which is funny, given pre-January riots the comments were all the same.
And no need to worry about the bets @Alistair, your analysis was one of the reasons why I made money on 2020, so thanks a lot for that
Yes, no one would ever consider your posts, particularly on this thread, as cheerleading for Trump.
I saw him as the better bet. Simple as that. He has plenty of faults but the idea that he is uniquely evil, I find utterly hilarious. And I am glad he won in 2016. I think, if Hilary had won, there was a decent chance we might have ended up in a war with Russia over the Crimea / Ukraine.
But, at the end of the day, thinking Trump is evil incarnate is essentially a proxy for legitimised snobbery. His supporters are all thick, racist, ignorant etc etc and people who despise Trump are naturally people of a superior intellect.
Not so. I think Trump is thick, racist, ignorant etc etc. Don't know about his supporters; there's a lot of them.
Anybody voting for Trump in 2020 knew what they were getting. Unlike in 2016 they can't pretend that they didn't know what Trump would be like or claim that they thought that holding the office would moderate his views and behaviour.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
The damage will come from those in NI who reject the protocol no matter the EU
The Northern Irish rejected Brexit, they'll just have to suck it up.
I would suggest that may not prove to be a construct response
Well it is the truth.
It as much the truth as it is the truth to say that Liverpool - Walton voted for Labour.
There was no NI Brexit referendum, there was only a UK one. NI can either choose to be in a post-Brexit UK, or a unified Ireland. There is no "stay in the UK but without Brexit" option.
Which is why I said they had to suck it up.
Try reading and not spouting off your preprogrammed responses.
They don't have to suck it up.
They have a choice. Post-Brexit UK, or unified Ireland.
No sucking required. The power is in their hands to choose.
That's more than Labour voters in Liverpool have had for the past decade, in a democracy you have to accept when you lose a vote and Remain voters in Northern Ireland lost the vote they didn't win it, same as Remain voters in Scotland and everywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Every DUP seat in NI except East Londonderry voted Leave, it was the SF and SDLP and Alliance seats that voted Remain.
NI had a bigger Leave vote than London percentage wise.
A hard border with Ireland could have been imposed in NI on the same terms as the hard border GB has with the EU. However it would have required redrawing the boundaries most likely, so the SF and SDLP areas rejoined the Republic while Antrim and the DUP areas stayed in the UK
I do not want to be unkind but by 2024 Trump will be my age and my old bones rattle and roll and just about keep me up
Maybe tempus fugit will also arrive for him by then
I'll tell you how. Tribalists turning a blind eye to misbehaviour on their own side, and sanctimonious gits knowing their side is gone rotten and still voting for them.
People who know there's something wrong, wring their hands about it, and then endorse it at the ballot box.
Works both ways. Democrats are as guilty as Republicans. The cries that it is only one side doing it is what is causing this level of distrust.
No it isn't. It's mainly the fact that Trump is so off the scale poisonous. And what is this stuff about how we aren't allowed to say 2016 was rigged, when it plainly was?
Ah ok, so:
"2016 was rigged, illegitimate President elected" = ok to say, not a problem
"2020 was stolen, stop the steal" = existential threat to Democracy and undermining the Republic
Jesus, that in a nutshell highlights the issue.
Saying the Trump presidency was "illegitimate" was proof that they shouldn't have elected Clinton. Trump's Big Lie was proof that they should have.
Tie-breaker: count the attempted coups instigated by each. I'll let others work the abacus on that one.
Are we counting the impeachment hearings as attempted coups? Not all coups involve tanks and guns.
No, we are not. That is entirely within the existing constitutional framework. Sending a mob to hang the VP is not.
The false equivalence on this subject is just bloody astounding.
That's why the potentially legal options to ignore the vote are so concerning, as that doesn't require a coup.
Would you like to explain why it is false equivalence. It gets bandied around as a fact but, in both 2016 and 2020, as I showed, and there is plenty of evidence for you to see, both sides claimed the winner's election was illegitimate and open to question.
You will then claim it is about the January riots and that is the difference which is an argument I would have a lot more sympathy for if it wasn't for the fact I was debating on here post-election about how Trump's tactics were to go down the state legislatures route and everyone agreed this would be a coup. So people on here already accepted you could have a coup without force. You just seemed to have forgotten about it now a more useful argument comes along.
Ed, the Dems accepted the result, Trump & Co tried to overturn it by vexatious litigation, intimidation and violence. Your take on this is just absurd. Please please stop it.
Come on Kinablu. I accepted that Biden won in 2020 and criticised Trump but you have posters on this site today saying that Trump's win in 2016 was illegitimate and therefore it was fine for Hilary to condemn his election as illegitimate. There are double standards here. Hilary said in 2019 he was an illegitimate President. Stop trying to make out the Democrats played fair post-2016, they didn't.
Failure to condemn equally 2 things that aren't even close to being equivalent is not double standards.
I asked Kle this question before but why are they not equivalent? What are the specific factors that make it thus?
The Dave Chappelle special is absolutely brilliant.
Never heard of him - read two scathing reviews of his routine in The Guardian and The Independent, then looked him up on wiki and found out he was a Muslim convert. Suppose the G and i thought it was immaterial to his material
The final paragraph of that first link is quite powerful IMO:
"In a community with an abnormally high rate of depression and suicide, that’s the part that hurt. Every transgender person I know has lost someone by suicide, and rarely has the reason ever been what other trans people have said to them on Twitter. Hell. You said it yourself, Dave: “Twitter isn’t real.” The marginalization, mockery, dehumanization, and violence many of us face everyday of most of our lives is what fuels our despair. For you to use Daphne’s tragedy as your closing tag is the only thing you’ve done that’s made me angry enough to write a letter."
Yes...the depression angle is a bit chicken and egg to me - to be convinced you are really a woman who happened to have been born in a mans body, or vice versa, sounds like mental illness if I am being perfectly honest, and depression is a mental illness from which suicide too often follows. But if you say you think transgender people, or people who want to transition, are mentally ill and should be treated with the same kind of sympathy as those suffering from schizophrenia or autism, rather than mocked in the way Dave Chappelle apparently does,( I haven't seen or heard any of his material) that would be considered offensive.
It's probably offensive even if it's not a 'mental illness' (IMV it most certainly is not a mental illness for many; and calling it such is part of the problem).
As humans, we like to fit people into neat little categories. Male/female. Good/bad. Straight/gay. Child/adult. In reality, the categories cover a multitude of variances, and it can be hard to fit some people into those categories. I'm currently a stay-at-home dad. Some relatives of mine have found this quite hard to understand because it doesn't fit into the neat categories in their minds.
Can you honestly, hand on heart, not say that some of your activities or lifestyle might not be said by some people to be a 'mental illness' ? I've certainly had someone describe my walking as such in the past, and that's before I took up my current running madness ...
Well I was a stay at home Dad from Oct 2020-June 2021...
But "In a community with an abnormally high rate of depression and suicide" makes me think there is a level of severe mental illness among transgenders/wannabe transitioners, that veers further off the spectrum than the kind of universal eccentricities that make the world go round. In short, I reckon there is a predisposition to mental illness amongst the kind of people who want to have a sex change, or more bluntly, I think you have to be quite badly mentally ill to want to do it. That's not a reason to be horrible to anyone, I don't think mentally ill people should be made fun of, they should be sympathised with.
Suicide rates amongst gay people are higher than they are amongst others (1). Would you say that being gay is therefore indicative of a 'mental illness'? Until the 1970s, homosexuality was taken by the US as being a 'mental illness'. Nowadays it is seen as just being part of life's rich tapestry. That's progress.
One of my trans friends committed suicide. I don't think his suicide had anything to do with his transition; IMV it was a result of trauma earlier in his life. (*) Did transitioning make his life harder? Perhaps. Was it a mental illness? No. Was his suicide brought on, in part, by society's reaction to his transition? It's very difficult to know, but as an outside observer, I'd argue yes. It certainly didn't help.
I knew another trans friend from when he was 13 in school. He always wanted to be a girl (despite not looking like one at all - he was taller than me and very manly). Was he mentally ill? No - aside from choosing to be friends with me.
These are two trans people I knew very well. One is dead; the other is happily transitioned. I don't particularly see either as being 'mentally ill'.
Suicide has many potential causes: depression and drug/alcohol use prominent amongst them. Having known trans people, depression caused by people's reaction to them is all too believable.
(*) There is a complicating factor here. How much did his wish to transition have to do with that earlier trauma? In our few conversations about it, he denied it: but I will never know.
I think there is good evidence that commencing hormonal transition improves symptoms of psychological distress, at least for some time.*
I think that other psychiatric disorders, and personality types including ASD are particularly common in people being assessed for gender dysphoria. How much of this is primary, and how much is secondary to the gender dysphoria is a tricky one requiring time, expertise and sensitivity to untangle.
*in the longer term a lifetime of synthetic hormones is not free of psychological consequences.
I will never not be amused by the cool calm rational bettor absolutely losing it when factual statements are made about their hero.
Indeed.
Well, I actually don't care that much for Trump. I think he was the better choice in 2016 and 2020 but, if you think I'd be arsed going out to cheer him, forget it.
However, I do like highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how one election was treated vs the others. I see that the line of defence now is that it is the January riots which is the defining factor when it comes to behaviour. Which is funny, given pre-January riots the comments were all the same.
And no need to worry about the bets @Alistair, your analysis was one of the reasons why I made money on 2020, so thanks a lot for that
Yes, no one would ever consider your posts, particularly on this thread, as cheerleading for Trump.
I saw him as the better bet. Simple as that. He has plenty of faults but the idea that he is uniquely evil, I find utterly hilarious. And I am glad he won in 2016. I think, if Hilary had won, there was a decent chance we might have ended up in a war with Russia over the Crimea / Ukraine.
But, at the end of the day, thinking Trump is evil incarnate is essentially a proxy for legitimised snobbery. His supporters are all thick, racist, ignorant etc etc and people who despise Trump are naturally people of a superior intellect.
Not so. I think Trump is thick, racist, ignorant etc etc. Don't know about his supporters; there's a lot of them.
And that's fine. That is democracy. I think what you said before in your first paragraph was right - he won in 2016, he didn't in 2020. Simple as that. Not sure about using any methods to stop him running again though (I know you disagree)
I don't often comment on US politics but I'll offer this thought.
IF the Democrats and their allies "stole" the 2020 election through voter fraud, manipulation of voting machines etc, it must have been a superbly co-ordinated and executed plan as it seemed to wrong foot the Republicans completely. Given they succeeded in 2020, they could well do the same in 2024 and perpetuate a Democrat administration - if we are to believe the Democrats and their allies in business are that clever, manipulative and have that much money to throw at it.
The Republicans may have the officials but if the votes are counted and re-counted, they'll still lose because the votes themselves will appear to be legitimately cast.
I well remember someone commenting on the Pennsylvania numbers and saying, given the strong pro-Biden bias in mail-in ballots, Trump needed to be 17 points ahead on the on-day ballots to overcome that advantage.
Trump won the on-day ballots by 14 - his supporters, voting on the day, were insufficient to overcome the advantage the Democrats enjoyed in the mail-in ballots. I can well see why the GOP is determined to restrict or close down mail-in balloting.
I do not want to be unkind but by 2024 Trump will be my age and my old bones rattle and roll and just about keep me up
Maybe tempus fugit will also arrive for him by then
I'll tell you how. Tribalists turning a blind eye to misbehaviour on their own side, and sanctimonious gits knowing their side is gone rotten and still voting for them.
People who know there's something wrong, wring their hands about it, and then endorse it at the ballot box.
Works both ways. Democrats are as guilty as Republicans. The cries that it is only one side doing it is what is causing this level of distrust.
No it isn't. It's mainly the fact that Trump is so off the scale poisonous. And what is this stuff about how we aren't allowed to say 2016 was rigged, when it plainly was?
Ah ok, so:
"2016 was rigged, illegitimate President elected" = ok to say, not a problem
"2020 was stolen, stop the steal" = existential threat to Democracy and undermining the Republic
Jesus, that in a nutshell highlights the issue.
Saying the Trump presidency was "illegitimate" was proof that they shouldn't have elected Clinton. Trump's Big Lie was proof that they should have.
Tie-breaker: count the attempted coups instigated by each. I'll let others work the abacus on that one.
Are we counting the impeachment hearings as attempted coups? Not all coups involve tanks and guns.
No, we are not. That is entirely within the existing constitutional framework. Sending a mob to hang the VP is not.
The false equivalence on this subject is just bloody astounding.
That's why the potentially legal options to ignore the vote are so concerning, as that doesn't require a coup.
Would you like to explain why it is false equivalence. It gets bandied around as a fact but, in both 2016 and 2020, as I showed, and there is plenty of evidence for you to see, both sides claimed the winner's election was illegitimate and open to question.
You will then claim it is about the January riots and that is the difference which is an argument I would have a lot more sympathy for if it wasn't for the fact I was debating on here post-election about how Trump's tactics were to go down the state legislatures route and everyone agreed this would be a coup. So people on here already accepted you could have a coup without force. You just seemed to have forgotten about it now a more useful argument comes along.
Ed, the Dems accepted the result, Trump & Co tried to overturn it by vexatious litigation, intimidation and violence. Your take on this is just absurd. Please please stop it.
Come on Kinablu. I accepted that Biden won in 2020 and criticised Trump but you have posters on this site today saying that Trump's win in 2016 was illegitimate and therefore it was fine for Hilary to condemn his election as illegitimate. There are double standards here. Hilary said in 2019 he was an illegitimate President. Stop trying to make out the Democrats played fair post-2016, they didn't.
Failure to condemn equally 2 things that aren't even close to being equivalent is not double standards.
I asked Kle this question before but why are they not equivalent? What are the specific factors that make it thus?
Asked and answered about 20 times in this thread alone.
I don't often comment on US politics but I'll offer this thought.
IF the Democrats and their allies "stole" the 2020 election through voter fraud, manipulation of voting machines etc, it must have been a superbly co-ordinated and executed plan as it seemed to wrong foot the Republicans completely. Given they succeeded in 2020, they could well do the same in 2024 and perpetuate a Democrat administration - if we are to believe the Democrats and their allies in business are that clever, manipulative and have that much money to throw at it.
The Republicans may have the officials but if the votes are counted and re-counted, they'll still lose because the votes themselves will appear to be legitimately cast.
I well remember someone commenting on the Pennsylvania numbers and saying, given the strong pro-Biden bias in mail-in ballots, Trump needed to be 17 points ahead on the on-day ballots to overcome that advantage.
Trump won the on-day ballots by 14 - his supporters, voting on the day, were insufficient to overcome the advantage the Democrats enjoyed in the mail-in ballots. I can well see why the GOP is determined to restrict or close down mail-in balloting.
I do not want to be unkind but by 2024 Trump will be my age and my old bones rattle and roll and just about keep me up
Maybe tempus fugit will also arrive for him by then
I'll tell you how. Tribalists turning a blind eye to misbehaviour on their own side, and sanctimonious gits knowing their side is gone rotten and still voting for them.
People who know there's something wrong, wring their hands about it, and then endorse it at the ballot box.
Works both ways. Democrats are as guilty as Republicans. The cries that it is only one side doing it is what is causing this level of distrust.
No it isn't. It's mainly the fact that Trump is so off the scale poisonous. And what is this stuff about how we aren't allowed to say 2016 was rigged, when it plainly was?
Ah ok, so:
"2016 was rigged, illegitimate President elected" = ok to say, not a problem
"2020 was stolen, stop the steal" = existential threat to Democracy and undermining the Republic
Jesus, that in a nutshell highlights the issue.
Saying the Trump presidency was "illegitimate" was proof that they shouldn't have elected Clinton. Trump's Big Lie was proof that they should have.
Tie-breaker: count the attempted coups instigated by each. I'll let others work the abacus on that one.
Are we counting the impeachment hearings as attempted coups? Not all coups involve tanks and guns.
No, we are not. That is entirely within the existing constitutional framework. Sending a mob to hang the VP is not.
The false equivalence on this subject is just bloody astounding.
That's why the potentially legal options to ignore the vote are so concerning, as that doesn't require a coup.
Would you like to explain why it is false equivalence. It gets bandied around as a fact but, in both 2016 and 2020, as I showed, and there is plenty of evidence for you to see, both sides claimed the winner's election was illegitimate and open to question.
You will then claim it is about the January riots and that is the difference which is an argument I would have a lot more sympathy for if it wasn't for the fact I was debating on here post-election about how Trump's tactics were to go down the state legislatures route and everyone agreed this would be a coup. So people on here already accepted you could have a coup without force. You just seemed to have forgotten about it now a more useful argument comes along.
Ed, the Dems accepted the result, Trump & Co tried to overturn it by vexatious litigation, intimidation and violence. Your take on this is just absurd. Please please stop it.
Come on Kinablu. I accepted that Biden won in 2020 and criticised Trump but you have posters on this site today saying that Trump's win in 2016 was illegitimate and therefore it was fine for Hilary to condemn his election as illegitimate. There are double standards here. Hilary said in 2019 he was an illegitimate President. Stop trying to make out the Democrats played fair post-2016, they didn't.
Failure to condemn equally 2 things that aren't even close to being equivalent is not double standards.
I asked Kle this question before but why are they not equivalent? What are the specific factors that make it thus?
Asked and answered about 20 times in this thread alone.
I think it has been someone saying false equivalence 20 times (and more) - that is not the same as explaining why
I hope Trump fucks off and dies tbh. He's a threat to democracy and a loathsome person who has tried to overthrow the legitimate winners of the US election.
The Dave Chappelle special is absolutely brilliant.
Never heard of him - read two scathing reviews of his routine in The Guardian and The Independent, then looked him up on wiki and found out he was a Muslim convert. Suppose the G and i thought it was immaterial to his material
The final paragraph of that first link is quite powerful IMO:
"In a community with an abnormally high rate of depression and suicide, that’s the part that hurt. Every transgender person I know has lost someone by suicide, and rarely has the reason ever been what other trans people have said to them on Twitter. Hell. You said it yourself, Dave: “Twitter isn’t real.” The marginalization, mockery, dehumanization, and violence many of us face everyday of most of our lives is what fuels our despair. For you to use Daphne’s tragedy as your closing tag is the only thing you’ve done that’s made me angry enough to write a letter."
Yes...the depression angle is a bit chicken and egg to me - to be convinced you are really a woman who happened to have been born in a mans body, or vice versa, sounds like mental illness if I am being perfectly honest, and depression is a mental illness from which suicide too often follows. But if you say you think transgender people, or people who want to transition, are mentally ill and should be treated with the same kind of sympathy as those suffering from schizophrenia or autism, rather than mocked in the way Dave Chappelle apparently does,( I haven't seen or heard any of his material) that would be considered offensive.
It's probably offensive even if it's not a 'mental illness' (IMV it most certainly is not a mental illness for many; and calling it such is part of the problem).
As humans, we like to fit people into neat little categories. Male/female. Good/bad. Straight/gay. Child/adult. In reality, the categories cover a multitude of variances, and it can be hard to fit some people into those categories. I'm currently a stay-at-home dad. Some relatives of mine have found this quite hard to understand because it doesn't fit into the neat categories in their minds.
Can you honestly, hand on heart, not say that some of your activities or lifestyle might not be said by some people to be a 'mental illness' ? I've certainly had someone describe my walking as such in the past, and that's before I took up my current running madness ...
Well I was a stay at home Dad from Oct 2020-June 2021...
But "In a community with an abnormally high rate of depression and suicide" makes me think there is a level of severe mental illness among transgenders/wannabe transitioners, that veers further off the spectrum than the kind of universal eccentricities that make the world go round. In short, I reckon there is a predisposition to mental illness amongst the kind of people who want to have a sex change, or more bluntly, I think you have to be quite badly mentally ill to want to do it. That's not a reason to be horrible to anyone, I don't think mentally ill people should be made fun of, they should be sympathised with.
Suicide rates amongst gay people are higher than they are amongst others (1). Would you say that being gay is therefore indicative of a 'mental illness'? Until the 1970s, homosexuality was taken by the US as being a 'mental illness'. Nowadays it is seen as just being part of life's rich tapestry. That's progress.
One of my trans friends committed suicide. I don't think his suicide had anything to do with his transition; IMV it was a result of trauma earlier in his life. (*) Did transitioning make his life harder? Perhaps. Was it a mental illness? No. Was his suicide brought on, in part, by society's reaction to his transition? It's very difficult to know, but as an outside observer, I'd argue yes. It certainly didn't help.
I knew another trans friend from when he was 13 in school. He always wanted to be a girl (despite not looking like one at all - he was taller than me and very manly). Was he mentally ill? No - aside from choosing to be friends with me.
These are two trans people I knew very well. One is dead; the other is happily transitioned. I don't particularly see either as being 'mentally ill'.
Suicide has many potential causes: depression and drug/alcohol use prominent amongst them. Having known trans people, depression caused by people's reaction to them is all too believable.
(*) There is a complicating factor here. How much did his wish to transition have to do with that earlier trauma? In our few conversations about it, he denied it: but I will never know.
I think there is good evidence that commencing hormonal transition improves symptoms of psychological distress, at least for some time.*
I think that other psychiatric disorders, and personality types including ASD are particularly common in people being assessed for gender dysphoria. How much of this is primary, and how much is secondary to the gender dysphoria is a tricky one requiring time, expertise and sensitivity to untangle.
*in the longer term a lifetime of synthetic hormones is not free of psychological consequences.
I spoke to somebody last night whose son is transitioning. He said the worst part was that their child was now of the view that they had never had any happy moments pre-transition and all they had were unhappy memories. It was apparently very hard on their brother who had in his own mind happy memories of times shared together.
I think it's important that those of us who think the UK has no reasonable case to make re Article 16 or a renegotiation (raises hand) do acknowledge that Brexiteers have a point when they say that regardless, the EU is in a very difficult position re the Protocol. 1/
I have made the same point a couple of times here. Ireland can't tolerate either being separated from the Single Market or a hard border in the Island. (UKG would also not tolerate a hard land border if it actually cared two shits about Northern Ireland). Ireland needs the border to be in the Irish Sea. Its diplomacy for the past five years has been laser focused on that goal.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
The damage will come from those in NI who reject the protocol no matter the EU
The Northern Irish rejected Brexit, they'll just have to suck it up.
I would suggest that may not prove to be a construct response
Well it is the truth.
It as much the truth as it is the truth to say that Liverpool - Walton voted for Labour.
There was no NI Brexit referendum, there was only a UK one. NI can either choose to be in a post-Brexit UK, or a unified Ireland. There is no "stay in the UK but without Brexit" option.
Which is why I said they had to suck it up.
Try reading and not spouting off your preprogrammed responses.
They don't have to suck it up.
They have a choice. Post-Brexit UK, or unified Ireland.
No sucking required. The power is in their hands to choose.
That's more than Labour voters in Liverpool have had for the past decade, in a democracy you have to accept when you lose a vote and Remain voters in Northern Ireland lost the vote they didn't win it, same as Remain voters in Scotland and everywhere else in the United Kingdom.
Every DUP seat in NI except East Londonderry voted Leave, it was the SF and SDLP and Alliance seats that voted Remain.
NI had a bigger Leave vote than London percentage wise.
A hard border with Ireland could have been imposed in NI on the same terms as the hard border GB has with the EU. However it would have required redrawing the boundaries most likely, so the SF and SDLP areas rejoined the Republic while Antrim and the DUP areas stayed in the UK
Splitting the 6 counties may not be such a bad idea.
I think it's fair to say that both are unlikely to ever vote SNP and that they reside at that rather precious, rarefied altitude of wanting independence but not wanting to do the dirty work of being portrayed as nationalists, not uncommon in creative types. Also safe to say that they'll never go back to Labour, Corbyn was the last doleful hoot of that train leaving the station.
I have a friend, a successful painter who some of the less yahooish types on here might even have heard of, who says the thing that makes him most angry about Labour and the Better Together campaign is that they turned him into a nationalist. That offers a more hardheaded approach to the acualité.
I will never not be amused by the cool calm rational bettor absolutely losing it when factual statements are made about their hero.
Indeed.
Well, I actually don't care that much for Trump. I think he was the better choice in 2016 and 2020 but, if you think I'd be arsed going out to cheer him, forget it.
However, I do like highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how one election was treated vs the others. I see that the line of defence now is that it is the January riots which is the defining factor when it comes to behaviour. Which is funny, given pre-January riots the comments were all the same.
And no need to worry about the bets @Alistair, your analysis was one of the reasons why I made money on 2020, so thanks a lot for that
Yes, no one would ever consider your posts, particularly on this thread, as cheerleading for Trump.
I saw him as the better bet. Simple as that. He has plenty of faults but the idea that he is uniquely evil, I find utterly hilarious. And I am glad he won in 2016. I think, if Hilary had won, there was a decent chance we might have ended up in a war with Russia over the Crimea / Ukraine.
But, at the end of the day, thinking Trump is evil incarnate is essentially a proxy for legitimised snobbery. His supporters are all thick, racist, ignorant etc etc and people who despise Trump are naturally people of a superior intellect.
Not so. I think Trump is thick, racist, ignorant etc etc. Don't know about his supporters; there's a lot of them.
And that's fine. That is democracy. I think what you said before in your first paragraph was right - he won in 2016, he didn't in 2020. Simple as that. Not sure about using any methods to stop him running again though (I know you disagree)
No, I didn't say using any methods to stop him running again - read my post, I said using any methods to stop him being re-elected (i.e. as President). Not the same thing at all.
I will never not be amused by the cool calm rational bettor absolutely losing it when factual statements are made about their hero.
Indeed.
Well, I actually don't care that much for Trump. I think he was the better choice in 2016 and 2020 but, if you think I'd be arsed going out to cheer him, forget it.
However, I do like highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how one election was treated vs the others. I see that the line of defence now is that it is the January riots which is the defining factor when it comes to behaviour. Which is funny, given pre-January riots the comments were all the same.
And no need to worry about the bets @Alistair, your analysis was one of the reasons why I made money on 2020, so thanks a lot for that
Yes, no one would ever consider your posts, particularly on this thread, as cheerleading for Trump.
I saw him as the better bet. Simple as that. He has plenty of faults but the idea that he is uniquely evil, I find utterly hilarious. And I am glad he won in 2016. I think, if Hilary had won, there was a decent chance we might have ended up in a war with Russia over the Crimea / Ukraine.
But, at the end of the day, thinking Trump is evil incarnate is essentially a proxy for legitimised snobbery. His supporters are all thick, racist, ignorant etc etc and people who despise Trump are naturally people of a superior intellect.
Not so. I think Trump is thick, racist, ignorant etc etc. Don't know about his supporters; there's a lot of them.
And that's fine. That is democracy. I think what you said before in your first paragraph was right - he won in 2016, he didn't in 2020. Simple as that. Not sure about using any methods to stop him running again though (I know you disagree)
No, I didn't say using any methods to stop him running again - read my post, I said using any methods to stop him being re-elected (i.e. as President). Not the same thing at all.
Still not great though. If he had been re-elected, would you have accepted it?
I'm so sorry to have to break this to you all, but I am just placing this week's order with Riverford, and I have discovered that they are out of Good Brie.
What no Somerset Brie? Are you having to order the French muck instead?
Incidentally, while I don't think Boris and Trump have much in common, they do share one personality trait that is quite unpleasant, though a bit misplaced in both instances. Narcissism. They both think their personalities, and looks, are extremely attractive, particularly to women.
The head of NI manufacturing has said he doesn’t understand why the UK is making the role of the ECJ a red line . If ECJ oversight is removed then this will impact NI access to the single market .
So it looks like this is an effort by no 10 to stop NI from increasing trade with the EU. NI could end up with the best of both worlds as the EUs proposals are likely to reduce many of the checks and so the lunatics in no 10 have decided that NI can’t be seen to be doing well from their arrangements and are now going to embark on making impossible demands .
I will never not be amused by the cool calm rational bettor absolutely losing it when factual statements are made about their hero.
Indeed.
Well, I actually don't care that much for Trump. I think he was the better choice in 2016 and 2020 but, if you think I'd be arsed going out to cheer him, forget it.
However, I do like highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how one election was treated vs the others. I see that the line of defence now is that it is the January riots which is the defining factor when it comes to behaviour. Which is funny, given pre-January riots the comments were all the same.
And no need to worry about the bets @Alistair, your analysis was one of the reasons why I made money on 2020, so thanks a lot for that
Yes, no one would ever consider your posts, particularly on this thread, as cheerleading for Trump.
I saw him as the better bet. Simple as that. He has plenty of faults but the idea that he is uniquely evil, I find utterly hilarious. And I am glad he won in 2016. I think, if Hilary had won, there was a decent chance we might have ended up in a war with Russia over the Crimea / Ukraine.
But, at the end of the day, thinking Trump is evil incarnate is essentially a proxy for legitimised snobbery. His supporters are all thick, racist, ignorant etc etc and people who despise Trump are naturally people of a superior intellect.
Not so. I think Trump is thick, racist, ignorant etc etc. Don't know about his supporters; there's a lot of them.
If Hilary had gotten us into a war with Russia, Trump's "racism" would have been the least of our problems.
I think it's fair to say that both are unlikely to ever vote SNP and that they reside at that rather precious, rarefied altitude of wanting independence but not wanting to do the dirty work of being portrayed as nationalists, not uncommon in creative types. Also safe to say that they'll never go back to Labour, Corbyn was the last doleful hoot of that train leaving the station.
I have a friend, a successful painter who some of the less yahooish types on here might even have heard of, who says the thing that makes him most angry about Labour and the Better Together campaign is that they turned him into a nationalist. That offers a more hardheaded approach to the acualité.
"It also delivers a vivid portrait of Gillespie’s early working-class life, at times permeated with strong anti-Tory sentiment: “Of course,” says Gillespie, “I’m from Glasgow, there’s got to be.”
Glasgow of course voted for independence even in 2014
The head of NI manufacturing has said he doesn’t understand why the UK is making the role of the ECJ a red line . If ECJ oversight is removed then this will impact NI access to the single market .
So it looks like this is an effort by no 10 to stop NI from increasing trade with the EU. NI could end up with the best of both worlds as the EUs proposals are likely to reduce many of the checks and so the lunatics in no 10 have decided that NI can’t be seen to be doing well from their arrangements and are now going to embark on making impossible demands .
You have a one track devotion to the EU and now calling those who may have a different view 'lunatics'
As I understand it HMG is not willing to have ECJ judgment over NI
We are a third country to the EU and therefore a mechanism has to be found that is reasonable to both sides
I will never not be amused by the cool calm rational bettor absolutely losing it when factual statements are made about their hero.
Indeed.
Well, I actually don't care that much for Trump. I think he was the better choice in 2016 and 2020 but, if you think I'd be arsed going out to cheer him, forget it.
However, I do like highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how one election was treated vs the others. I see that the line of defence now is that it is the January riots which is the defining factor when it comes to behaviour. Which is funny, given pre-January riots the comments were all the same.
And no need to worry about the bets @Alistair, your analysis was one of the reasons why I made money on 2020, so thanks a lot for that
Yes, no one would ever consider your posts, particularly on this thread, as cheerleading for Trump.
I saw him as the better bet. Simple as that. He has plenty of faults but the idea that he is uniquely evil, I find utterly hilarious. And I am glad he won in 2016. I think, if Hilary had won, there was a decent chance we might have ended up in a war with Russia over the Crimea / Ukraine.
But, at the end of the day, thinking Trump is evil incarnate is essentially a proxy for legitimised snobbery. His supporters are all thick, racist, ignorant etc etc and people who despise Trump are naturally people of a superior intellect.
Not so. I think Trump is thick, racist, ignorant etc etc. Don't know about his supporters; there's a lot of them.
If Hilary had gotten us into a war with Russia, Trump's "racism" would have been the least of our problems.
That's a fabulous non-sequitur.
Still, at least you're acknowledging Trump's racism.
The head of NI manufacturing has said he doesn’t understand why the UK is making the role of the ECJ a red line . If ECJ oversight is removed then this will impact NI access to the single market .
So it looks like this is an effort by no 10 to stop NI from increasing trade with the EU. NI could end up with the best of both worlds as the EUs proposals are likely to reduce many of the checks and so the lunatics in no 10 have decided that NI can’t be seen to be doing well from their arrangements and are now going to embark on making impossible demands .
I have some sympathy for objections to the EUCJ having a role in a sovereign state outside of its jurisdiction, even if its role is a technical one of interpreting the law relating to the Single Market that Northern Ireland is part of.
But we are where we are and have to make the best of the mess we have put ourselves into.
The head of NI manufacturing has said he doesn’t understand why the UK is making the role of the ECJ a red line . If ECJ oversight is removed then this will impact NI access to the single market .
So it looks like this is an effort by no 10 to stop NI from increasing trade with the EU. NI could end up with the best of both worlds as the EUs proposals are likely to reduce many of the checks and so the lunatics in no 10 have decided that NI can’t be seen to be doing well from their arrangements and are now going to embark on making impossible demands .
I have some sympathy for objections to the EUCJ having a role in a sovereign state outside of its jurisdiction, even if its role is a technical one of interpreting the law relating to the Single Market that Northern Ireland is part of.
But we are where we are and have to make the best of the mess we have put ourselves into.
The logical thing to do is to have an arbitration process. One Party ruling on the other Parties jurisdiction isn't acceptable.
I do not want to be unkind but by 2024 Trump will be my age and my old bones rattle and roll and just about keep me up
Maybe tempus fugit will also arrive for him by then
I'll tell you how. Tribalists turning a blind eye to misbehaviour on their own side, and sanctimonious gits knowing their side is gone rotten and still voting for them.
People who know there's something wrong, wring their hands about it, and then endorse it at the ballot box.
Works both ways. Democrats are as guilty as Republicans. The cries that it is only one side doing it is what is causing this level of distrust.
No it isn't. It's mainly the fact that Trump is so off the scale poisonous. And what is this stuff about how we aren't allowed to say 2016 was rigged, when it plainly was?
Ah ok, so:
"2016 was rigged, illegitimate President elected" = ok to say, not a problem
"2020 was stolen, stop the steal" = existential threat to Democracy and undermining the Republic
Jesus, that in a nutshell highlights the issue.
Saying the Trump presidency was "illegitimate" was proof that they shouldn't have elected Clinton. Trump's Big Lie was proof that they should have.
Tie-breaker: count the attempted coups instigated by each. I'll let others work the abacus on that one.
Are we counting the impeachment hearings as attempted coups? Not all coups involve tanks and guns.
No, we are not. That is entirely within the existing constitutional framework. Sending a mob to hang the VP is not.
The false equivalence on this subject is just bloody astounding.
That's why the potentially legal options to ignore the vote are so concerning, as that doesn't require a coup.
Would you like to explain why it is false equivalence. It gets bandied around as a fact but, in both 2016 and 2020, as I showed, and there is plenty of evidence for you to see, both sides claimed the winner's election was illegitimate and open to question.
You will then claim it is about the January riots and that is the difference which is an argument I would have a lot more sympathy for if it wasn't for the fact I was debating on here post-election about how Trump's tactics were to go down the state legislatures route and everyone agreed this would be a coup. So people on here already accepted you could have a coup without force. You just seemed to have forgotten about it now a more useful argument comes along.
Ed, the Dems accepted the result, Trump & Co tried to overturn it by vexatious litigation, intimidation and violence. Your take on this is just absurd. Please please stop it.
Come on Kinablu. I accepted that Biden won in 2020 and criticised Trump but you have posters on this site today saying that Trump's win in 2016 was illegitimate and therefore it was fine for Hilary to condemn his election as illegitimate. There are double standards here. Hilary said in 2019 he was an illegitimate President. Stop trying to make out the Democrats played fair post-2016, they didn't.
I hope Trump fucks off and dies tbh. He's a threat to democracy and a loathsome person who has tried to overthrow the legitimate winners of the US election.
When i think of Trump , I think of Robert Maxwell..
I'm so sorry to have to break this to you all, but I am just placing this week's order with Riverford, and I have discovered that they are out of Good Brie.
What no Somerset Brie? Are you having to order the French muck instead?
I hope Trump fucks off and dies tbh. He's a threat to democracy and a loathsome person who has tried to overthrow the legitimate winners of the US election.
When i think of Trump , I think of Robert Maxwell..
The senators that turned down the chance to bar Trump from office are going to look as silly as the Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn for leader.
Robert has spent the past 11 months assuring us that Trump won’t win re-election but it’s really not clear to me why he is so confident of that.
Me neither.
Biden only just won.
Seems likely there will be a swing back unless he has delivered big time.
And that's before the bollx over fixing the vote and so on.
Well if Trump wins again so be it, it would be the Democrats fault for not delivering for the voters who did not vote for Hillary in 2016 but did vote for Biden in 2020. Plus also for putting up weak candidates against him
If Trump wins it is going to be f*cking nightmare the like of which we've not seen in our lifetimes. The world will be in a very very dark place.
He will be utterly out of control and deranged in a second term.
For once I agree with your catastrophizing. There's nothing bigger to worry about in this world right now than the prospect of this sociopathic monster getting another go at being US president. I was confident in my call that he would lose WH20 and then fade as far as serious politics goes. Well I was wrong on the 2nd point. He looms. My hunch is he will not see the oval office again, something or someone will prevent it, but it's not the strongest hunch I've ever had. I'm laying him but in this case I don’t recommend people follow me. He doesn't look that short at the current 5.8. God what a terrible sentence to finish on. Sorry all.
The head of NI manufacturing has said he doesn’t understand why the UK is making the role of the ECJ a red line . If ECJ oversight is removed then this will impact NI access to the single market .
So it looks like this is an effort by no 10 to stop NI from increasing trade with the EU. NI could end up with the best of both worlds as the EUs proposals are likely to reduce many of the checks and so the lunatics in no 10 have decided that NI can’t be seen to be doing well from their arrangements and are now going to embark on making impossible demands .
I have some sympathy for objections to the EUCJ having a role in a sovereign state outside of its jurisdiction, even if its role is a technical one of interpreting the law relating to the Single Market that Northern Ireland is part of.
But we are where we are and have to make the best of the mess we have put ourselves into.
The logical thing to do is to have an arbitration process. One Party ruling on the other Parties jurisdiction isn't acceptable.
The difference between NI and the UK mainland is that NI is part of the Single Market, while UK mainland isn't. It makes practical sense for EU institutions to enforce compliance with its market rules, even if the constitutional position is iffy.
I do not want to be unkind but by 2024 Trump will be my age and my old bones rattle and roll and just about keep me up
Maybe tempus fugit will also arrive for him by then
I'll tell you how. Tribalists turning a blind eye to misbehaviour on their own side, and sanctimonious gits knowing their side is gone rotten and still voting for them.
People who know there's something wrong, wring their hands about it, and then endorse it at the ballot box.
Works both ways. Democrats are as guilty as Republicans. The cries that it is only one side doing it is what is causing this level of distrust.
No it isn't. It's mainly the fact that Trump is so off the scale poisonous. And what is this stuff about how we aren't allowed to say 2016 was rigged, when it plainly was?
Ah ok, so:
"2016 was rigged, illegitimate President elected" = ok to say, not a problem
"2020 was stolen, stop the steal" = existential threat to Democracy and undermining the Republic
Jesus, that in a nutshell highlights the issue.
Saying the Trump presidency was "illegitimate" was proof that they shouldn't have elected Clinton. Trump's Big Lie was proof that they should have.
Tie-breaker: count the attempted coups instigated by each. I'll let others work the abacus on that one.
Are we counting the impeachment hearings as attempted coups? Not all coups involve tanks and guns.
No, we are not. That is entirely within the existing constitutional framework. Sending a mob to hang the VP is not.
The false equivalence on this subject is just bloody astounding.
That's why the potentially legal options to ignore the vote are so concerning, as that doesn't require a coup.
Would you like to explain why it is false equivalence. It gets bandied around as a fact but, in both 2016 and 2020, as I showed, and there is plenty of evidence for you to see, both sides claimed the winner's election was illegitimate and open to question.
You will then claim it is about the January riots and that is the difference which is an argument I would have a lot more sympathy for if it wasn't for the fact I was debating on here post-election about how Trump's tactics were to go down the state legislatures route and everyone agreed this would be a coup. So people on here already accepted you could have a coup without force. You just seemed to have forgotten about it now a more useful argument comes along.
Ed, the Dems accepted the result, Trump & Co tried to overturn it by vexatious litigation, intimidation and violence. Your take on this is just absurd. Please please stop it.
Come on Kinablu. I accepted that Biden won in 2020 and criticised Trump but you have posters on this site today saying that Trump's win in 2016 was illegitimate and therefore it was fine for Hilary to condemn his election as illegitimate. There are double standards here. Hilary said in 2019 he was an illegitimate President. Stop trying to make out the Democrats played fair post-2016, they didn't.
Ancient history was never my strong point, but did the Dems storm Capitol Hill in 2017?
I will never not be amused by the cool calm rational bettor absolutely losing it when factual statements are made about their hero.
Indeed.
Well, I actually don't care that much for Trump. I think he was the better choice in 2016 and 2020 but, if you think I'd be arsed going out to cheer him, forget it.
However, I do like highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how one election was treated vs the others. I see that the line of defence now is that it is the January riots which is the defining factor when it comes to behaviour. Which is funny, given pre-January riots the comments were all the same.
And no need to worry about the bets @Alistair, your analysis was one of the reasons why I made money on 2020, so thanks a lot for that
Yes, no one would ever consider your posts, particularly on this thread, as cheerleading for Trump.
I saw him as the better bet. Simple as that. He has plenty of faults but the idea that he is uniquely evil, I find utterly hilarious. And I am glad he won in 2016. I think, if Hilary had won, there was a decent chance we might have ended up in a war with Russia over the Crimea / Ukraine.
But, at the end of the day, thinking Trump is evil incarnate is essentially a proxy for legitimised snobbery. His supporters are all thick, racist, ignorant etc etc and people who despise Trump are naturally people of a superior intellect.
Not so. I think Trump is thick, racist, ignorant etc etc. Don't know about his supporters; there's a lot of them.
If Hilary had gotten us into a war with Russia, Trump's "racism" would have been the least of our problems.
That's a fabulous non-sequitur.
Still, at least you're acknowledging Trump's racism.
Hard to say. His son-in-law is Jewish and certainly the feedback I've had is that he's not that bothered than skin colour.
He certainly has less dubious form than good old Joe Biden who hung out with Southern Racists senators and who sponsored the 1994 Crime Bill. That was one of his appeals to having Biden as VP i.e. to reassure people he wouldn't be radical on race.
The head of NI manufacturing has said he doesn’t understand why the UK is making the role of the ECJ a red line . If ECJ oversight is removed then this will impact NI access to the single market .
So it looks like this is an effort by no 10 to stop NI from increasing trade with the EU. NI could end up with the best of both worlds as the EUs proposals are likely to reduce many of the checks and so the lunatics in no 10 have decided that NI can’t be seen to be doing well from their arrangements and are now going to embark on making impossible demands .
I have some sympathy for objections to the EUCJ having a role in a sovereign state outside of its jurisdiction, even if its role is a technical one of interpreting the law relating to the Single Market that Northern Ireland is part of.
But we are where we are and have to make the best of the mess we have put ourselves into.
The logical thing to do is to have an arbitration process. One Party ruling on the other Parties jurisdiction isn't acceptable.
The difference between NI and the UK mainland is that NI is part of the Single Market, while UK mainland isn't. It makes practical sense for EU institutions to enforce compliance with its market rules, even if the constitutional position is iffy.
The difference between NI and the Irish Republic is that NI is part of the United Kingdom, while the Republic is not.
It makes practical sense to have an arbitration process.
I do not want to be unkind but by 2024 Trump will be my age and my old bones rattle and roll and just about keep me up
Maybe tempus fugit will also arrive for him by then
I'll tell you how. Tribalists turning a blind eye to misbehaviour on their own side, and sanctimonious gits knowing their side is gone rotten and still voting for them.
People who know there's something wrong, wring their hands about it, and then endorse it at the ballot box.
Works both ways. Democrats are as guilty as Republicans. The cries that it is only one side doing it is what is causing this level of distrust.
No it isn't. It's mainly the fact that Trump is so off the scale poisonous. And what is this stuff about how we aren't allowed to say 2016 was rigged, when it plainly was?
Ah ok, so:
"2016 was rigged, illegitimate President elected" = ok to say, not a problem
"2020 was stolen, stop the steal" = existential threat to Democracy and undermining the Republic
Jesus, that in a nutshell highlights the issue.
Saying the Trump presidency was "illegitimate" was proof that they shouldn't have elected Clinton. Trump's Big Lie was proof that they should have.
Tie-breaker: count the attempted coups instigated by each. I'll let others work the abacus on that one.
Are we counting the impeachment hearings as attempted coups? Not all coups involve tanks and guns.
No, we are not. That is entirely within the existing constitutional framework. Sending a mob to hang the VP is not.
The false equivalence on this subject is just bloody astounding.
That's why the potentially legal options to ignore the vote are so concerning, as that doesn't require a coup.
Would you like to explain why it is false equivalence. It gets bandied around as a fact but, in both 2016 and 2020, as I showed, and there is plenty of evidence for you to see, both sides claimed the winner's election was illegitimate and open to question.
You will then claim it is about the January riots and that is the difference which is an argument I would have a lot more sympathy for if it wasn't for the fact I was debating on here post-election about how Trump's tactics were to go down the state legislatures route and everyone agreed this would be a coup. So people on here already accepted you could have a coup without force. You just seemed to have forgotten about it now a more useful argument comes along.
Ed, the Dems accepted the result, Trump & Co tried to overturn it by vexatious litigation, intimidation and violence. Your take on this is just absurd. Please please stop it.
Come on Kinablu. I accepted that Biden won in 2020 and criticised Trump but you have posters on this site today saying that Trump's win in 2016 was illegitimate and therefore it was fine for Hilary to condemn his election as illegitimate. There are double standards here. Hilary said in 2019 he was an illegitimate President. Stop trying to make out the Democrats played fair post-2016, they didn't.
Ancient history was never my strong point, but did the Dems storm Capitol Hill in 2017?
No but they said Trump was illegitimate.
And, as I mentioned before, plenty on here were saying pre-January riots that Trump was organising a coup when he was attempting to get individual states to overturn the election results. So, the coup claims pre-date then.
As I understand it HMG is not willing to have ECJ judgment over NI
Would have been nice if they had mentioned that when they agreed to it a couple of years ago.
They did. They said all along they didn't want to agree to that.
It was agreed temporarily as part of the Protocol with an exit mechanism if the Protocol caused issues. The Protocol caused issues, so now its time to find a new solution instead.
Comments
If so, you are deranged.
I don't recall any reports of any such legislation being passed.
I'm not saying this won't happen but I would just like to know the position as of today.
Quite frankly, I'm being restrained not saying "I told you so".
As humans, we like to fit people into neat little categories. Male/female. Good/bad. Straight/gay. Child/adult. In reality, the categories cover a multitude of variances, and it can be hard to fit some people into those categories. I'm currently a stay-at-home dad. Some relatives of mine have found this quite hard to understand because it doesn't fit into the neat categories in their minds.
Can you honestly, hand on heart, not say that some of your activities or lifestyle might not be said by some people to be a 'mental illness' ? I've certainly had someone describe my walking as such in the past, and that's before I took up my current running madness ...
Heathrow airport information: the Heathrow Pods transportation system will be opening again on 21st October.
But "In a community with an abnormally high rate of depression and suicide" makes me think there is a level of severe mental illness among transgenders/wannabe transitioners, that veers further off the spectrum than the kind of universal eccentricities that make the world go round. In short, I reckon there is a predisposition to mental illness amongst the kind of people who want to have a sex change, or more bluntly, I think you have to be quite badly mentally ill to want to do it. That's not a reason to be horrible to anyone, I don't think mentally ill people should be made fun of, they should be sympathised with.
Robert has spent the past 11 months assuring us that Trump won’t win re-election but it’s really not clear to me why he is so confident of that.
Biden only just won.
Seems likely there will be a swing back unless he has delivered big time.
And that's before the bollx over fixing the vote and so on.
"In contrast to 2018, where Democrats were defending 10 seats in states that Donald Trump won in 2016, Democrats hold no seats in any state that was won by Trump in 2020. Meanwhile, the GOP is defending two seats (Wisconsin and Pennsylvania) in states President Joe Biden won in 2020, compared to just one seat (Nevada won by Hillary Clinton in 2016) that was up for grabs in 2018."
He will be utterly out of control and deranged in a second term.
Other member states are supportive of the Irish position, but that support isn't unlimited. At the end of the day they will force Ireland to choose one of a hard land border or separation from the Single Market. Ireland in that case will choose the hard land border to stay in the Single Market. From Ireland's perspective, the Protocol is all about not being forced to make that choice and to force the problem onto tthe British instead.
The situation is now complicated a treaty having now been signed compelling the UK to have that Irish Sea border. Other member states who may sympathetically see the Irish border issue as not their problem, certainly don't accept the UK trashng binding treaties. This strengthens the hand of Ireland and the EU commission in facing down the UK, but it also reduces the scope for more flexible arrangements.
The EU (as well as the UK) can impose more or less whatever remedies they like, against the other party, including triggering A16 in the first place. Any arbitration gets applied after the fact, possibly as much as a year later once it's ground through the governance. It comes down to who can do more damage to the other.
He’s had a good long life of indulgence and fun so not as if I’m hoping for someone to die who still has a life ahead of them and will miss out on the joys of life. He’s done it all…..
His continued existence simply is a massive negative to the world as he is unfortunately and how his supporters have been riled up to madness.
If he went quietly in his sleep tonight it would give time for the trump wing of the GOP to slowly dissolve in time hopefully for a more sane candidate to break through once the cult of personality has gone.
It’s as if he doesn’t get that being the POTUS isn’t a game show, or a wheeze - it’s not the apprentice or one-upmanship at the golf club. It’s not legging a rival over in the New York property market - it’s real lives and deaths in the US and beyond but he cannot see his need for personal responsibility - sort of like the Daily Mail who put the need for clicks through wild headlines about shortages over the damage it does……
Oh for the simple days of the 1990s when the Cold War had been won, history was over, the Internet was a tool for geeks rather than political propagandists and we could sleep soundly in our beds knowing that Jeff Goldblum had our backs.
I thought you were a big fan of diversity and tolerance?
So while I get they hate the Irish Sea border, they need keep people onside who don't share their love of the Northern Irish state, but will stick with the status quo in the interests of a peaceful life. Hence they need the Protocol, much as they despise it.
One of my trans friends committed suicide. I don't think his suicide had anything to do with his transition; IMV it was a result of trauma earlier in his life. (*) Did transitioning make his life harder? Perhaps. Was it a mental illness? No. Was his suicide brought on, in part, by society's reaction to his transition? It's very difficult to know, but as an outside observer, I'd argue yes. It certainly didn't help.
I knew another trans friend from when he was 13 in school. He always wanted to be a girl (despite not looking like one at all - he was taller than me and very manly). Was he mentally ill? No - aside from choosing to be friends with me.
These are two trans people I knew very well. One is dead; the other is happily transitioned. I don't particularly see either as being 'mentally ill'.
Suicide has many potential causes: depression and drug/alcohol use prominent amongst them. Having known trans people, depression caused by people's reaction to them is all too believable.
(1): https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/suicide-rates-fall-among-gay-youth-still-outpace-straight-peers-n1135141 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth
(*) There is a complicating factor here. How much did his wish to transition have to do with that earlier trauma? In our few conversations about it, he denied it: but I will never know.
With Florida redistricting poised to smash the Dems and Dem "moderates" determined to sink Biden's agenda I would say the GOP should be odds on to win Congress at the moment.
However, I do like highlighting the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to how one election was treated vs the others. I see that the line of defence now is that it is the January riots which is the defining factor when it comes to behaviour. Which is funny, given pre-January riots the comments were all the same.
And no need to worry about the bets @Alistair, your analysis was one of the reasons why I made money on 2020, so thanks a lot for that
There was no NI Brexit referendum, there was only a UK one. NI can either choose to be in a post-Brexit UK, or a unified Ireland. There is no "stay in the UK but without Brexit" option.
I think one risk even pre-2022 is that one of Manchin / Sinema get tired of the abuse thrown their way by the progressives and break away from the Democrats. Not saying they would defect to the GOP but will be interesting to watch.
But, at the end of the day, thinking Trump is evil incarnate is essentially a proxy for legitimised snobbery. His supporters are all thick, racist, ignorant etc etc and people who despise Trump are naturally people of a superior intellect.
* Should also note the NIP is itself a compromise. It means every party avoids one worst outcome from their PoV.
BTW & FYI, in great State of Washington, the ONLY statewide elected Republican is our Secretary of State, Kim Wyman. Worth noting that she owes her reelection last year to Democrats who split their tickets in her favor.
Try reading and not spouting off your preprogrammed responses.
Assume they are working their way down the lists. We are over 6 months from last jab now.
All I care about is that they don't make the 2016 mistake again in 2024. I don't really care what methods are used to stop him being re-elected, as long as they work. The man is not fit to run a whelk stall, let alone the USA. Be gone, idiot.
Czech President Milos Zeman has been taken to hospital amid political upheaval after a surprise opposition win in parliamentary elections.
The 77-year-old is a heavy smoker and former heavy drinker who uses a wheelchair and suffers from diabetes.
He was due to lead talks on forming a new government after Saturday's vote.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58863671
They have a choice. Post-Brexit UK, or unified Ireland.
No sucking required. The power is in their hands to choose.
That's more than Labour voters in Liverpool have had for the past decade, in a democracy you have to accept when you lose a vote and Remain voters in Northern Ireland lost the vote they didn't win it, same as Remain voters in Scotland and everywhere else in the United Kingdom.
(1) If that is true, what was being proposed had also been used by Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Bush Senior (the last for the LA 1992 riots);
(2) Connected to (1), was this confirmed or is this like The Atlantic story about Trump bad-mouthing the dead i.e. false? I ask because the claim was made in a book and, let's be honest, that would be the sort of things that an author might use to boost sales...
NI had a bigger Leave vote than London percentage wise.
A hard border with Ireland could have been imposed in NI on the same terms as the hard border GB has with the EU. However it would have required redrawing the boundaries most likely, so the SF and SDLP areas rejoined the Republic while Antrim and the DUP areas stayed in the UK
I think that other psychiatric disorders, and personality types including ASD are particularly common in people being assessed for gender dysphoria. How much of this is primary, and how much is secondary to the gender dysphoria is a tricky one requiring time, expertise and sensitivity to untangle.
*in the longer term a lifetime of synthetic hormones is not free of psychological consequences.
I don't often comment on US politics but I'll offer this thought.
IF the Democrats and their allies "stole" the 2020 election through voter fraud, manipulation of voting machines etc, it must have been a superbly co-ordinated and executed plan as it seemed to wrong foot the Republicans completely. Given they succeeded in 2020, they could well do the same in 2024 and perpetuate a Democrat administration - if we are to believe the Democrats and their allies in business are that clever, manipulative and have that much money to throw at it.
The Republicans may have the officials but if the votes are counted and re-counted, they'll still lose because the votes themselves will appear to be legitimately cast.
I well remember someone commenting on the Pennsylvania numbers and saying, given the strong pro-Biden bias in mail-in ballots, Trump needed to be 17 points ahead on the on-day ballots to overcome that advantage.
Trump won the on-day ballots by 14 - his supporters, voting on the day, were insufficient to overcome the advantage the Democrats enjoyed in the mail-in ballots. I can well see why the GOP is determined to restrict or close down mail-in balloting.
I think it's fair to say that both are unlikely to ever vote SNP and that they reside at that rather precious, rarefied altitude of wanting independence but not wanting to do the dirty work of being portrayed as nationalists, not uncommon in creative types. Also safe to say that they'll never go back to Labour, Corbyn was the last doleful hoot of that train leaving the station.
I have a friend, a successful painter who some of the less yahooish types on here might even have heard of, who says the thing that makes him most angry about Labour and the Better Together campaign is that they turned him into a nationalist. That offers a more hardheaded approach to the acualité.
So it looks like this is an effort by no 10 to stop NI from increasing trade with the EU. NI could end up with the best of both worlds as the EUs proposals are likely to reduce many of the checks and so the lunatics in no 10 have decided that NI can’t be seen to be doing well from their arrangements and are now going to embark on making impossible demands .
Glasgow of course voted for independence even in 2014
As I understand it HMG is not willing to have ECJ judgment over NI
We are a third country to the EU and therefore a mechanism has to be found that is reasonable to both sides
Still, at least you're acknowledging Trump's racism.
But we are where we are and have to make the best of the mess we have put ourselves into.
He certainly has less dubious form than good old Joe Biden who hung out with Southern Racists senators and who sponsored the 1994 Crime Bill. That was one of his appeals to having Biden as VP i.e. to reassure people he wouldn't be radical on race.
It makes practical sense to have an arbitration process.
And, as I mentioned before, plenty on here were saying pre-January riots that Trump was organising a coup when he was attempting to get individual states to overturn the election results. So, the coup claims pre-date then.
It was agreed temporarily as part of the Protocol with an exit mechanism if the Protocol caused issues. The Protocol caused issues, so now its time to find a new solution instead.