politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gerrymandered congressional districts could save the House for
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gerrymandered congressional districts could save the House for the GOP
The Great Dealmaker has not had the greatest first seven months in the White House. No wall, no healthcare reform, a chaotic West Wing and innumerable self-inflicted PR gaffes are not an ideal start to a presidency. Ironically, the one president that Trump rates himself behind is perhaps the only one to have had a worse start: at least there’s been no civil war so far.
Comments
-
First
0 -
Second, like the Democrats.0
-
Third like the SNP!
0 -
I'm looking forward to that dayCarlottaVance said:Third like the SNP!
0 -
Government shutdowns seem to be a weapon of the Republicans, not the Democrats, especially following Newt Gingrich.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States#List_of_federal_shutdowns0 -
I could have been first but chose to read David's excellent article first.0
-
That texan hurricane could be Trump's Katrima.
Trump has pardoned racist sherriff joe arpachio
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender militsry ban.0 -
Mr 619,
"Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender militsry ban."
I'd be surprised by that. I assume you have the polling data?0 -
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender militsry ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/0 -
At least they've got a 'how not to do it' model - I hope the US military has learned lessons too - but if there are a lot of poor black neighbourhoods inundated, as in New Orleans - then things could look very ugly very quickly....619 said:That texan hurricane could be Trump's Katrima.
0 -
Thank you, Ms Vance. The reason I'd be surprised is that I'd assume the 'don't particularly care' would be in the majority.
0 -
For clarity - only Republicans support the Transgender ban:CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender militsry ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/
The poll found that 60% of Republicans said they oppose transgender service. Every other polling segment, including party affiliation, gender, education, age group and racial group, said they supported transgender service by margins of 22% points or higher, the Quinnipiac University poll found.0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Nothing quite like getting up twice during the night to take the dog out (upset stomach). Mind you, her predecessor used to get terrible diarrhoea that would take 1-2 hours to clean up, so...
Mr. Herdson, interesting article but don't you think a Republican challenger might arise?
F1: plan to put the pre-qualifying article up at the usual time but there's an off-chance I might have to attend to the hound.0 -
You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide0 -
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender militsry ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/0 -
The disappointing thing about the Trump presidency is its dysfunctionality, not his policies or views. Too many people seem to have an inbuilt antipathy to Trump and the GOP, rather than assessing the administration on its competency. Those who criticised Trump for condemning the vile Antifa equally with the racist far right fall into this category.
Anyway, the UK has its own blonde buffoon from NY who is a walking disaster - the Foreign Secretary.0 -
https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/901249232031686657daodao said:The disappointing thing about the Trump presidency is its dysfunctionality, not his policies or views.
0 -
Laura Pillock......CarlottaVance said:You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide0 -
Whilst i disagree with that, moderate Tories do let the extremists paint the rest of them the same way without challengeCarlottaVance said:You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide
Look at the way Trump is toxifying fhe GOP to such a massive degree.0 -
I am still genuinely surprised he pardoned the sheriff.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/901249232031686657daodao said:The disappointing thing about the Trump presidency is its dysfunctionality, not his policies or views.
Says a lot about my naivety I supppose0 -
I don't think opposing is the same as thinking he's "a hateful prick".Roger said:
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender militsry ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/0 -
That’s the difference between conservatives and liberals. We disagree with them and think they’re misguided, they think we are malevolent and evil people.CarlottaVance said:You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide0 -
He has to let the Nazis know he is still on their side somehowAlistair said:
I am still genuinely surprised he pardoned the sheriff.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/901249232031686657daodao said:The disappointing thing about the Trump presidency is its dysfunctionality, not his policies or views.
Says a lot about my naivety I supppose0 -
I don't know if this is accurate, but could be interestingAlistair said:I am still genuinely surprised he pardoned the sheriff.
Says a lot about my naivety I supppose
https://twitter.com/goldengateblond/status/9013035187948748800 -
Trump was right to ban transgender individuals from the armed forces. The military should also be exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination against pederasts/homosexuals and other sexual deviants. There are probably other professions that should be exempt from such non-discrimination laws as well.Roger said:
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender military ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/0 -
You're spending too much time with old folk. Most peope under 55 don't think like that anymore. I find it really refreshing!CD13 said:Mr 619,
"Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender militsry ban."
I'd be surprised by that. I assume you have the polling data?0 -
Thankfully the majority of people/society no longers looks thay way om homosexualsdaodao said:
Trump was right to ban transgender individuals from the armed forces. The military should also be exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination against pederasts/homosexuals and other sexual deviants. There are probably other professions that should be exempt from such non-discrimination laws as well.Roger said:
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender military ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/0 -
Ha. Stupid Trump cant even pardon his racist friends correctlyScott_P said:
I don't know if this is accurate, but could be interestingAlistair said:I am still genuinely surprised he pardoned the sheriff.
Says a lot about my naivety I supppose
https://twitter.com/goldengateblond/status/9013035187948748800 -
I think given how people talk about Corbyn on here, thats def not true...Sandpit said:
That’s the difference between conservatives and liberals. We disagree with them and think they’re misguided, they think we are malevolent and evil people.CarlottaVance said:You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide
0 -
Maybe advertisers hairdressers and everyone in the media. That should add to the unemployment numbersdaodao said:
Trump was right to ban transgender individuals from the armed forces. The military should also be exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination against pederasts/homosexuals and other sexual deviants. There are probably other professions that should be exempt from such non-discrimination laws as well.Roger said:
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender military ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/0 -
I don't think even his wife would argue with 'the 'hateful prick' bitRobD said:
I don't think opposing is the same as thinking he's "a hateful prick".Roger said:
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender militsry ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/0 -
Miss Vance, "That's just the sort of casual racism I'd expect from an elf."0
-
Quid pro quo for Gorka "resigning"619 said:He has to let the Nazis know he is still on their side somehow
@sahilkapur: White House official: "Sebastian Gorka did not resign, but I can confirm he no longer works at the White House."0 -
Under American law, if you accept a pardon you admit guilt. Unlike British or French law, where a pardon can be used to set someone free where the government are convinced an error has been made.Scott_P said:
I don't know if this is accurate, but could be interestingAlistair said:I am still genuinely surprised he pardoned the sheriff.
Says a lot about my naivety I supppose
https://twitter.com/goldengateblond/status/901303518794874880
I can't confirm part two. However, the fifth amendment is designed to stop people incriminating themselves. Logically, if they have already admitted guilt by accepting a pardon, and no longer have to fear prosecution, that clause would no longer apply.
Therefore, if questioned about the guilt of others complicit in any such admitted crimes, refusing to answer might be considered obstruction of justice.0 -
That's hilarious. I think I'm going to print that out and use it when teaching about prejudice!CarlottaVance said:You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide0 -
Who thinks Corbyn is a liberal? I'd be amazed if he did.619 said:
I think given how people talk about Corbyn on here, thats def not true...Sandpit said:
That’s the difference between conservatives and liberals. We disagree with them and think they’re misguided, they think we are malevolent and evil people.CarlottaVance said:You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide
More to the point, generalisations (on both sides) often exclude individuals who are known personally/have a high profile. Not many on the left would think of Ken Clark as evil, quite a few on the right would put someone who appeared on Press TV as a pundit in that category.
0 -
I don't see it as an example of prejudice. Just a poor choice of target. Had she said the same using the KKK I wouldn't have found anything wrong with it.ydoethur said:
That's hilarious. I think I'm going to print that out and use it when teaching about prejudice!CarlottaVance said:You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide0 -
Only if you ignore the last sentence...Roger said:
I don't see it as an example of prejudice. Just a poor choice of target. Had she said the same using the KKK I wouldn't have found anything wrong with it.ydoethur said:
That's hilarious. I think I'm going to print that out and use it when teaching about prejudice!CarlottaVance said:You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide
0 -
No, it's an example of prejudice. She is prejudging people in a particular category based on her private views rather than based on the evidence, which as she implicitly admits she hasn't bothered to get. It's the beautiful irony of that sentence that appeals to me. She definitely has skill with words.Roger said:
I don't see it as an example of prejudice. Just a poor choice of target. Had she said the same using the KKK I wouldn't have found anything wrong with it.ydoethur said:
That's hilarious. I think I'm going to print that out and use it when teaching about prejudice!CarlottaVance said:You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide
Of course, sometimes these categories are fair enough. It seems eminently reasonable to assume any member of the KKK is racist. Or that any member of MENSA is intelligent. Because those are specific requirements of the organisation. But it isn't a requirement of the Tories that you must be prejudiced. Indeed, in my experience they're much more open to new views and ideas than their Labour equivalents.
As an aside, somebody made a comment about the ire directed against Corbyn, including from me of course, as an example of prejudice. But the problem with Corbyn is there is ample evidence from way back that whatever his personal charm he is a really dodgy character. Nobody forced him to meet IRA members and then lie about it. Nobody forced him to be a patron of a quasi-Nazi organisation (Deir Yassin Remembered) for eight years and then lie about that too. Nobody forced him to be a friend of Len McCluskey. Criticism of Corbyn for these actions is not prejudice against his views - it's a fair response to what he has done in the past.0 -
Not sure whether to agree with you or not, Mr Pit. Who are "we" for you? You may be right, or you may have got it the wrong way round.Sandpit said:
That’s the difference between conservatives and liberals. We disagree with them and think they’re misguided, they think we are malevolent and evil people.CarlottaVance said:You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide0 -
"All redheads should be gassed to death". "A bit prejudiced, surely?" "No, just a poor choice of target. Had I said the same using rats you wouldn't have found anything wrong with it."Roger said:
I don't see it as an example of prejudice. Just a poor choice of target. Had she said the same using the KKK I wouldn't have found anything wrong with it.ydoethur said:
That's hilarious. I think I'm going to print that out and use it when teaching about prejudice!CarlottaVance said:You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide0 -
I was expecting Trump pardons much later in his presidency; perhaps the End Times are here early. Also, the NY Times points out that pardons for contempt of court may be unconstitutional, and certainly open a whole can of worms: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/joe-arpaio-trump-pardon.html?mcubz=10
-
Other than your own prejudice, why ?daodao said:
Trump was right to ban transgender individuals from the armed forces. The military should also be exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination against pederasts/homosexuals and other sexual deviants. There are probably other professions that should be exempt from such non-discrimination laws as well.Roger said:
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender military ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/
0 -
er - you do realise that she didn't actually say that?. Its a satirical article.ydoethur said:
No, it's an example of prejudice. She is prejudging people in a particular category based on her private views rather than based on the evidence, which as she implicitly admits she hasn't bothered to get. It's the beautiful irony of that sentence that appeals to me. She definitely has skill with words.Roger said:
I don't see it as an example of prejudice. Just a poor choice of target. Had she said the same using the KKK I wouldn't have found anything wrong with it.ydoethur said:
That's hilarious. I think I'm going to print that out and use it when teaching about prejudice!CarlottaVance said:You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide
Of course, sometimes these categories are fair enough. It seems eminently reasonable to assume any member of the KKK is racist. Or that any member of MENSA is intelligent. Because those are specific requirements of the organisation. But it isn't a requirement of the Tories that you must be prejudiced. Indeed, in my experience they're much more open to new views and ideas than their Labour equivalents.
As an aside, somebody made a comment about the ire directed against Corbyn, including from me of course, as an example of prejudice. But the problem with Corbyn is there is ample evidence from way back that whatever his personal charm he is a really dodgy character. Nobody forced him to meet IRA members and then lie about it. Nobody forced him to be a patron of a quasi-Nazi organisation (Deir Yassin Remembered) for eight years and then lie about that too. Nobody forced him to be a friend of Len McCluskey. Criticism of Corbyn for these actions is not prejudice against his views - it's a fair response to what he has done in the past.0 -
https://youtu.be/kg6CTFwOalcIshmael_Z said:
"All redheads should be gassed to death". "A bit prejudiced, surely?" "No, just a poor choice of target. Had I said the same using rats you wouldn't have found anything wrong with it."Roger said:
I don't see it as an example of prejudice. Just a poor choice of target. Had she said the same using the KKK I wouldn't have found anything wrong with it.ydoethur said:
That's hilarious. I think I'm going to print that out and use it when teaching about prejudice!CarlottaVance said:You can’t be friends with a Tory if you truly believe in the fight against prejudice. All Tories are prejudiced, every single one. You can just tell.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/08/26/do-meet-tory-corbynista-guide0 -
The risk with the gerrymandering is that to maximise the gain you need to give your own side modest but pretty safe majorities whilst packing your opposition with huge majorities in a minimal number of seats.
If we do get a real anti GOP wave, the losses in gerrymandered states could be significant to catastrophic.0 -
No I didn't actually. That's an example of prejudice on my part, having read some of her other stuff where she said some pretty similar things, including saying that all Tories were in her view murderers.nielh said:er - you do realise that she didn't actually say that?. Its a satirical article.
I don't know, hoist on my own petard
Here she is, however, in her own words, which is why I took the above quote at face value
My very very initial reflections are that there are two basic types of Tory. You’ve got the ones – like Boris Johnson – who are so blinded by their own privilege and have never experienced hardship, that they genuinely seem unable to see what it’s like in our communities.
If they see someone in tears from the sheer weight of everything that’s being piled on top of them their reaction is, ‘oh you’re being very dramatic’.
The other type is completely ideologically driven. They seem genuinely to believe capitalism is the best way to improve society and it blinds them to the evidence under their nose.
I have met a couple of Tories who were genuinely really anxious for me to see that they weren’t horrible people and really believed putting everything into private enterprise will achieve better results.
Whatever type they are, I have absolutely no intention of being friends with any of them. I have friends I choose to spend time with. I go to parliament to be a mouthpiece for my constituents and class – I’m not interested in chatting on.0 -
I was thinking of professions connected with the law or where physical contact (in some cases intimate) is part of the job.Nigelb said:
Other than your own prejudice, why ?daodao said:
Trump was right to ban transgender individuals from the armed forces. The military should also be exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination against pederasts/homosexuals and other sexual deviants. There are probably other professions that should be exempt from such non-discrimination laws as well.Roger said:
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender military ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/0 -
I really don't think so - the presidential power of pardon is absolute, according to the constitution.Ishmael_Z said:I was expecting Trump pardons much later in his presidency; perhaps the End Times are here early. Also, the NY Times points out that pardons for contempt of court may be unconstitutional, and certainly open a whole can of worms: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/joe-arpaio-trump-pardon.html?mcubz=1
To pardon someone found guilty by a federal judge of criminal contempt is undoubtedly an egregious attack on the judiciary, and an assault on constitutional government, but it is not in itself unconstitutional. Trump is using the constitution against itself.
It is, also, not just a message to the racists, but to his other base in the police. Trump has the instincts of a fascist, and it is easy to dismiss him as the elderly buffon he is - but he is also dangerous.
0 -
Sounds like a difficult balancing act. However, I would have thought the bigger risk is you end up with areas that are quite poorly laid out geographically making street campaigning difficult.Monksfield said:The risk with the gerrymandering is that to maximise the gain you need to give your own side modest but pretty safe majorities whilst packing your opposition with huge majorities in a minimal number of seats.
If we do get a real anti GOP wave, the losses in gerrymandered states could be significant to catastrophic.
Of course, it also makes the Governor Gerrys of this world look stupid and corrupt. But that's possibly not a significant problem for Trump at this moment, as it's rather hard to imagine he could look stupider than he already does.0 -
That doesn't answer the question, which was why, not where.daodao said:
I was thinking of professions connected with the law or where physical contact (in some cases intimate) is part of the job.Nigelb said:
Other than your own prejudice, why ?daodao said:
Trump was right to ban transgender individuals from the armed forces. The military should also be exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination against pederasts/homosexuals and other sexual deviants. There are probably other professions that should be exempt from such non-discrimination laws as well.Roger said:
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender military ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/
0 -
I think you might need to explain that to the sheriff...ydoethur said:
Under American law, if you accept a pardon you admit guilt. Unlike British or French law, where a pardon can be used to set someone free where the government are convinced an error has been made.Scott_P said:
I don't know if this is accurate, but could be interestingAlistair said:I am still genuinely surprised he pardoned the sheriff.
Says a lot about my naivety I supppose
https://twitter.com/goldengateblond/status/901303518794874880
I can't confirm part two. However, the fifth amendment is designed to stop people incriminating themselves. Logically, if they have already admitted guilt by accepting a pardon, and no longer have to fear prosecution, that clause would no longer apply.
Therefore, if questioned about the guilt of others complicit in any such admitted crimes, refusing to answer might be considered obstruction of justice.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSheriffJoe/status/901249811743035393
0 -
- Gorka resigns
- Arpaio pardoned
- Trans military ban
- Harvey now Cat4
- NK launches missiles
- Trump goes on vacation0 -
Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.0 -
Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".0 -
In what way is it misleading? Since Trump's base is Republicans their view on the ban is relevant.Roger said:
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender militsry ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/0 -
"Trump goes on vacation"... it's probably for the best.619 said:
- Gorka resigns
- Arpaio pardoned
- Trans military ban
- Harvey now Cat4
- NK launches missiles
- Trump goes on vacation
0 -
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a link, but she basically used it to morally condemn the tories because of all the suffering they have created. She also used it to moan about the difficulty she had with the customs of parliament and how it was all biased against women and working class people. It caused a bit of a stir and she has become a corbynista hero on facebook.ydoethur said:
No I didn't actually. That's an example of prejudice on my part, having read some of her other stuff where she said some pretty similar things, including saying that all Tories were in her view murderers.nielh said:er - you do realise that she didn't actually say that?. Its a satirical article.
I don't know, hoist on my own petard
Here she is, however, in her own words, which is why I took the above quote at face value
My very very initial reflections are that there are two basic types of Tory. You’ve got the ones – like Boris Johnson – who are so blinded by their own privilege and have never experienced hardship, that they genuinely seem unable to see what it’s like in our communities.
If they see someone in tears from the sheer weight of everything that’s being piled on top of them their reaction is, ‘oh you’re being very dramatic’.
The other type is completely ideologically driven. They seem genuinely to believe capitalism is the best way to improve society and it blinds them to the evidence under their nose.
I have met a couple of Tories who were genuinely really anxious for me to see that they weren’t horrible people and really believed putting everything into private enterprise will achieve better results.
Whatever type they are, I have absolutely no intention of being friends with any of them. I have friends I choose to spend time with. I go to parliament to be a mouthpiece for my constituents and class – I’m not interested in chatting on.
She is an example of the poor quality of politicians that for whatever reason our system is turning out. God help us if Laura Pidcock is going to solve the vast, complex problems that are facing us.
Brexit. Terrorism. The deficit. Russia. Trump. Public spending. Robotic warfare. AI.
God help us all.
0 -
I do hope for his sake that his lawyer does. Otherwise he might get nabbed on a separate contempt of court charge.Nigelb said:
I think you might need to explain that to the sheriff...ydoethur said:
Under American law, if you accept a pardon you admit guilt. Unlike British or French law, where a pardon can be used to set someone free where the government are convinced an error has been made.Scott_P said:
I don't know if this is accurate, but could be interestingAlistair said:I am still genuinely surprised he pardoned the sheriff.
Says a lot about my naivety I supppose
https://twitter.com/goldengateblond/status/901303518794874880
I can't confirm part two. However, the fifth amendment is designed to stop people incriminating themselves. Logically, if they have already admitted guilt by accepting a pardon, and no longer have to fear prosecution, that clause would no longer apply.
Therefore, if questioned about the guilt of others complicit in any such admitted crimes, refusing to answer might be considered obstruction of justice.
https://mobile.twitter.com/RealSheriffJoe/status/901249811743035393
Gerald Ford used to carry a copy of the relevant legal ruling everywhere he went, so whenever asked him whether he thought Nixon was innocent over Watergate, he could demonstrate that in fact the pardon proved he was guilty!0 -
I think Mr Parris has gone off democracy:
Here’s how the Tories should choose leaders
The final decision must be restored to MPs because the current nonsensical system gives too much power to activists
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ce102b4a-89c0-11e7-9f10-c918952dd8f2
0 -
How envious will certain UK pols be, racist bigots forgiven with a John Hancock, no specious bullshit about diversity training or anti racism classes required.Alistair said:
I am still genuinely surprised he pardoned the sheriff.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/ashleyfeinberg/status/901249232031686657daodao said:The disappointing thing about the Trump presidency is its dysfunctionality, not his policies or views.
Says a lot about my naivety I supppose0 -
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?DavidL said:Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".0 -
An attack on the Judiciary then. Sound familliar?Nigelb said:
I really don't think so - the presidential power of pardon is absolute, according to the constitution.Ishmael_Z said:I was expecting Trump pardons much later in his presidency; perhaps the End Times are here early. Also, the NY Times points out that pardons for contempt of court may be unconstitutional, and certainly open a whole can of worms: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/opinion/joe-arpaio-trump-pardon.html?mcubz=1
To pardon someone found guilty by a federal judge of criminal contempt is undoubtedly an egregious attack on the judiciary, and an assault on constitutional government, but it is not in itself unconstitutional. Trump is using the constitution against itself.
It is, also, not just a message to the racists, but to his other base in the police. Trump has the instincts of a fascist, and it is easy to dismiss him as the elderly buffon he is - but he is also dangerous.0 -
Miss Vance, well, if the people insist on getting votes wrong then it's only fair to stop them voting
There are genuine arguments for this or that voting system. Any leader must have the support of both MPs and the wider party. MPs do whittle it down to two under the current system, which is more than a little influence.0 -
The problems are caused by fanatics who believe that only they are correct and only they should be allowed to transmit their views. And those who disagree are people to be hated.
We have very few on here, fortunately, but they exist.
Tories are misguided, Corbynites are misguided, LDs are now misguided because of Europe, and of course, Leavers are misguided, but that doesn't stop them being nice people. And even worse, some of my friends are misguided too. If only people would stop arguing and agree that I'm always right
It's a lesson I learned when I outgrew my teens. Burnham wearing a t-shirt saying I've never kissed a Tory is probably a sign he's not yet grown up.
0 -
https://youtu.be/dUk8E2U4pgcnielh said:
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a linkydoethur said:
No I didn't actually. That's an example of prejudice on my part, having read some of her other stuff where she said some pretty similar things, including saying that all Tories were in her view murderers.nielh said:er - you do realise that she didn't actually say that?. Its a satirical article.
I don't know, hoist on my own petard
Here she is, however, in her own words, which is why I took the above quote at face value
My very very initial reflections are that there are two basic types of Tory. You’ve got the ones – like Boris Johnson – who are so blinded by their own privilege and have never experienced hardship, that they genuinely seem unable to see what it’s like in our communities.
If they see someone in tears from the sheer weight of everything that’s being piled on top of them their reaction is, ‘oh you’re being very dramatic’.
The other type is completely ideologically driven. They seem genuinely to believe capitalism is the best way to improve society and it blinds them to the evidence under their nose.
I have met a couple of Tories who were genuinely really anxious for me to see that they weren’t horrible people and really believed putting everything into private enterprise will achieve better results.
Whatever type they are, I have absolutely no intention of being friends with any of them. I have friends I choose to spend time with. I go to parliament to be a mouthpiece for my constituents and class – I’m not interested in chatting on.0 -
I definitely think David is setting the bar too high here. We are talking about politicians after all in a system where being grotesque seems a necessary precondition to being noticed.Benpointer said:
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?DavidL said:Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".0 -
He went off democracy before the Clacton by-election.CarlottaVance said:I think Mr Parris has gone off democracy:
Here’s how the Tories should choose leaders
The final decision must be restored to MPs because the current nonsensical system gives too much power to activists
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ce102b4a-89c0-11e7-9f10-c918952dd8f20 -
The problem is, the Democrats chose the only candidate who could lose to Trump.Benpointer said:
Since the GOP managed with a candidate who was neither, maybe just competent or inoffensive would do it?DavidL said:Christ, competent and inoffensive? You don't ask for much do you?
As the Spartans would say, "if".0 -
Thing is, that Clinton as President appears to have been meant to bring through the next generation of promising young Democrats via her cabinet, so they could push up some talent. This is a significant consideration as they don't have many governorships and their age profile in the senate is quite high.Benpointer said:Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.
Now she's lost, there's no platform for these people to strut their stuff and build up some momentum. By contrast, it's the Republicans that have locked out almost every significant post in US politics apart from 16 governorships, one of whom is an independent. And of those governors a number are too old (Jerry Brown) too conservative to appeal to the base (John Bel Edwards) or too liberal to appeal to the swing voters (Cuomo).
So they have pretty significant problems in finding a candidate. My guess would be that the primary shortlist will include Cuomo, Kaine, Edwards and Warren. It is also just possible Evan Bayh might make a comeback given the paucity of the field. But to pick a winner, and see that winner defeating the Republican candidate whom I must confess I am assuming will not be Trump (who I think will be the first incumbent Republican to be refused renomination by his party since Grant in 1876) is a much longer stretch.
However, if Obama could pop up from nowhere...0 -
Mr F,
"The problem is, the Democrats chose the only candidate who could lose to Trump."
That was always my view. As they like family connections, isn't there a Kennedy lurking around for next time?
0 -
F1: practice in 20 minutes.
Vandoorne's grid penalty has risen from 40 to 65. There are 20 cars on the grid.0 -
It is MPs who elected Theresa May, who promptly lost the party's majority in a badly-fought and quite unnecessary election, whose purpose is still unclear. The cliche is that Conservative MPs are the most sophisticated electorate in the world but it can be argued they get it wrong every time, even when electing Margaret Thatcher whose campaign said she could not win (and some believe Labour under Jeremy Corbyn benefited from the same phenomenon in this summer's general election). John Major too crept up on the rails.CarlottaVance said:I think Mr Parris has gone off democracy:
Here’s how the Tories should choose leaders
The final decision must be restored to MPs because the current nonsensical system gives too much power to activists
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ce102b4a-89c0-11e7-9f10-c918952dd8f2
If we accept Parris's thesis, there might be a case for reversing the procedure so that the members produce a shortlist and MPs choose between the final two or three. What does Parris suggest?0 -
Because normal people shouldn't be put in a situation where they fear someone in a position of authority could molest them without effective redress.Nigelb said:
That doesn't answer the question, which was why, not where.daodao said:
I was thinking of professions connected with the law or where physical contact (in some cases intimate) is part of the job.Nigelb said:
Other than your own prejudice, why ?daodao said:
Trump was right to ban transgender individuals from the armed forces. The military should also be exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination against pederasts/homosexuals and other sexual deviants. There are probably other professions that should be exempt from such non-discrimination laws as well.Roger said:
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender military ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/0 -
Surely the whole point of being a Tory is to sip expensive drinks in posh clubs and country houses, twirling your moustache as you think of new ways to make the poor suffer.CarlottaVance said:
https://youtu.be/dUk8E2U4pgcnielh said:
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a linkydoethur said:
No I didn't actually. That's an example of prejudice on my part, having read some of her other stuff where she said some pretty similar things, including saying that all Tories were in her view murderers.nielh said:er - you do realise that she didn't actually say that?. Its a satirical article.
I don't know, hoist on my own petard
Here she is, however, in her own words, which is why I took the above quote at face value
My very very initial reflections are that there are two basic types of Tory. You’ve got the ones – like Boris Johnson – who are so blinded by their own privilege and have never experienced hardship, that they genuinely seem unable to see what it’s like in our communities.
If they see someone in tears from the sheer weight of everything that’s being piled on top of them their reaction is, ‘oh you’re being very dramatic’.
The other type is completely ideologically driven. They seem genuinely to believe capitalism is the best way to improve society and it blinds them to the evidence under their nose.
I have met a couple of Tories who were genuinely really anxious for me to see that they weren’t horrible people and really believed putting everything into private enterprise will achieve better results.
Whatever type they are, I have absolutely no intention of being friends with any of them. I have friends I choose to spend time with. I go to parliament to be a mouthpiece for my constituents and class – I’m not interested in chatting on.0 -
Caroline?CD13 said:Mr F,
"The problem is, the Democrats chose the only candidate who could lose to Trump."
That was always my view. As they like family connections, isn't there a Kennedy lurking around for next time?0 -
So you think homosexuals and transexuals will always molest people?daodao said:
Because normal people shouldn't be put in a situation where they fear someone in a position of authority could molest them without effective redress.Nigelb said:
That doesn't answer the question, which was why, not where.daodao said:
I was thinking of professions connected with the law or where physical contact (in some cases intimate) is part of the job.Nigelb said:
Other than your own prejudice, why ?daodao said:
Trump was right to ban transgender individuals from the armed forces. The military should also be exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination against pederasts/homosexuals and other sexual deviants. There are probably other professions that should be exempt from such non-discrimination laws as well.Roger said:
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender military ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/0 -
"they" being Americans rather than just Democrats, presumably, since the name Bush keeps recurring on the GOP side.CD13 said:Mr F,
"The problem is, the Democrats chose the only candidate who could lose to Trump."
That was always my view. As they like family connections, isn't there a Kennedy lurking around for next time?0 -
Interesting comment. The field of Democrats does look thin, at least from the traditional sources. The opportunity must be there for articulate congressmen or women, probably especially women, to seize the stage but they need to find a national platform to do so. Winning the House and control of the committees would definitely make that easier.ydoethur said:
Thing is, that Clinton as President appears to have been meant to bring through the next generation of promising young Democrats via her cabinet, so they could push up some talent. This is a significant consideration as they don't have many governorships and their age profile in the senate is quite high.Benpointer said:Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.
Now she's lost, there's no platform for these people to strut their stuff and build up some momentum. By contrast, it's the Republicans that have locked out almost every significant post in US politics apart from 16 governorships, one of whom is an independent. And of those governors a number are too old (Jerry Brown) too conservative to appeal to the base (John Bel Edwards) or too liberal to appeal to the swing voters (Cuomo).
So they have pretty significant problems in finding a candidate. My guess would be that the primary shortlist will include Cuomo, Kaine, Edwards and Warren. It is also just possible Evan Bayh might make a comeback given the paucity of the field. But to pick a winner, and see that winner defeating the Republican candidate whom I must confess I am assuming will not be Trump (who I think will be the first incumbent Republican to be refused renomination by his party since Grant in 1876) is a much longer stretch.
However, if Obama could pop up from nowhere...0 -
Mr JohnL,
"the name Bush keeps recurring on the GOP side."
Ah, those little tinkers. Just like North Korea, isn't it?0 -
And the BBQs, don't forget the BBQs.Sean_F said:
Surely the whole point of being a Tory is to sip expensive drinks in posh clubs and country houses, twirling your moustache as you think of new ways to make the poor suffer.CarlottaVance said:
https://youtu.be/dUk8E2U4pgcnielh said:
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a linkydoethur said:
No I didn't actually. That's an example of prejudice on my part, having read some of her other stuff where she said some pretty similar things, including saying that all Tories were in her view murderers.nielh said:er - you do realise that she didn't actually say that?. Its a satirical article.
I don't know, hoist on my own petard
Here she is, however, in her own words, which is why I took the above quote at face value
My very very initial reflections are that there are two basic types of Tory. You’ve got the ones – like Boris Johnson – who are so blinded by their own privilege and have never experienced hardship, that they genuinely seem unable to see what it’s like in our communities.
If they see someone in tears from the sheer weight of everything that’s being piled on top of them their reaction is, ‘oh you’re being very dramatic’.
The other type is completely ideologically driven. They seem genuinely to believe capitalism is the best way to improve society and it blinds them to the evidence under their nose.
I have met a couple of Tories who were genuinely really anxious for me to see that they weren’t horrible people and really believed putting everything into private enterprise will achieve better results.
Whatever type they are, I have absolutely no intention of being friends with any of them. I have friends I choose to spend time with. I go to parliament to be a mouthpiece for my constituents and class – I’m not interested in chatting on.0 -
Thank you, and thank you @CarlottaVance for the speech.nielh said:
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a link, but she basically used it to morally condemn the tories because of all the suffering they have created. She also used it to moan about the difficulty she had with the customs of parliament and how it was all biased against women and working class people. It caused a bit of a stir and she has become a corbynista hero on facebook.
She is an example of the poor quality of politicians that for whatever reason our system is turning out. God help us if Laura Pidcock is going to solve the vast, complex problems that are facing us.
Brexit. Terrorism. The deficit. Russia. Trump. Public spending. Robotic warfare. AI.
God help us all.
That really was awful. It was riddled with prejudice, for a start. 'I find it intimidating and I believe this is deliberate.' 'I would like them to visit my constituency.' 'Everyone in the south thinks we're savages.'
I also can't make out what the hell she was actually meant to be talking about. Was she talking about class solidarity, austerity, or random historical facts? Does she really think the Durham Miners' Gala is one of the world's great cultural items? Leaving aside the fact it's political rather than cultural, while a significant event I don't think it compares with the New Orleans Mardi Gras or the Oktoberfest.
I agree entirely with your conclusion. She is simply not up to it. I wouldn't say Neil Carmichael was a good MP, and he's no loss to the Commons, but he's a thousand times better than that.
If Labour do go for mass deselection and put in numpties like that in place of Cooper and even Chris Leslie, we're completely stuffed.0 -
-
The really worrying and depressing thing is that probably thought as she wrote it that it was powerful stuff, putting it to the man. Quite pitiful.ydoethur said:
Thank you, and thank you @CarlottaVance for the speech.nielh said:
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a link, but she basically used it to morally condemn the tories because of all the suffering they have created. She also used it to moan about the difficulty she had with the customs of parliament and how it was all biased against women and working class people. It caused a bit of a stir and she has become a corbynista hero on facebook.
She is an example of the poor quality of politicians that for whatever reason our system is turning out. God help us if Laura Pidcock is going to solve the vast, complex problems that are facing us.
Brexit. Terrorism. The deficit. Russia. Trump. Public spending. Robotic warfare. AI.
God help us all.
That really was awful. It was riddled with prejudice, for a start. 'I find it intimidating and I believe this is deliberate.' 'I would like them to visit my constituency.' 'Everyone in the south thinks we're savages.'
I also can't make out what the hell she was actually meant to be talking about. Was she talking about class solidarity, austerity, or random historical facts? Does she really think the Durham Miners' Gala is one of the world's great cultural items? Leaving aside the fact it's political rather than cultural, while a significant event I don't think it compares with the New Orleans Mardi Gras or the Oktoberfest.
I agree entirely with your conclusion. She is simply not up to it. I wouldn't say Neil Carmichael was a good MP, and he's no loss to the Commons, but he's a thousand times better than that.
If Labour do go for mass deselection and put in numpties like that in place of Cooper and even Chris Leslie, we're completely stuffed.0 -
With the joyous prospect of the name Trump recurring.DecrepitJohnL said:
"they" being Americans rather than just Democrats, presumably, since the name Bush keeps recurring on the GOP side.CD13 said:Mr F,
"The problem is, the Democrats chose the only candidate who could lose to Trump."
That was always my view. As they like family connections, isn't there a Kennedy lurking around for next time?0 -
You mean, like heterosexual men harassing heterosexual women?daodao said:
Because normal people shouldn't be put in a situation where they fear someone in a position of authority could molest them without effective redress.Nigelb said:
That doesn't answer the question, which was why, not where.daodao said:
I was thinking of professions connected with the law or where physical contact (in some cases intimate) is part of the job.Nigelb said:
Other than your own prejudice, why ?daodao said:
Trump was right to ban transgender individuals from the armed forces. The military should also be exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination against pederasts/homosexuals and other sexual deviants. There are probably other professions that should be exempt from such non-discrimination laws as well.Roger said:
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender military ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/
Or indeed vice versa.
Never happens!0 -
Is Trump actually ineffective? Even if he passes no landmark legislation, he might move even more on executive orders. The transgender ban; nomination of a new supreme court judge; he's scrapped TPP and might yet pull out of NAFTA, and so on.Benpointer said:Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.
It might be that Trump achieves more than we notice because we judge him against his own, often contradictory, moon-on-a-stick promises.0 -
Consett closed in 1980 and had been losing money for some time....In 1980-1981, British Steel lost a staggering £1 billion on turnover of £3 billion, earning itself a place in the Guinness Book of Records* so 'blaming Thatcher and the Tories' is simplistic drivel.DavidL said:
The really worrying and depressing thing is that probably thought as she wrote it that it was powerful stuff, putting it to the man. Quite pitiful.ydoethur said:
Thank you, and thank you @CarlottaVance for the speech.nielh said:
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a link, but she basically used it to morally condemn the tories because of all the suffering they have created. She also used it to moan about the difficulty she had with the customs of parliament and how it was all biased against women and working class people. It caused a bit of a stir and she has become a corbynista hero on facebook.
She is an example of the poor quality of politicians that for whatever reason our system is turning out. God help us if Laura Pidcock is going to solve the vast, complex problems that are facing us.
Brexit. Terrorism. The deficit. Russia. Trump. Public spending. Robotic warfare. AI.
God help us all.
That really was awful. It was riddled with prejudice, for a start. 'I find it intimidating and I believe this is deliberate.' 'I would like them to visit my constituency.' 'Everyone in the south thinks we're savages.'
I also can't make out what the hell she was actually meant to be talking about. Was she talking about class solidarity, austerity, or random historical facts? Does she really think the Durham Miners' Gala is one of the world's great cultural items? Leaving aside the fact it's political rather than cultural, while a significant event I don't think it compares with the New Orleans Mardi Gras or the Oktoberfest.
I agree entirely with your conclusion. She is simply not up to it. I wouldn't say Neil Carmichael was a good MP, and he's no loss to the Commons, but he's a thousand times better than that.
If Labour do go for mass deselection and put in numpties like that in place of Cooper and even Chris Leslie, we're completely stuffed.
*http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3509/the_truth_about_thatcher_and_the_steel_industry0 -
True, but stuff like the trangender ban will be reversed i assume by the next democrat presidentDecrepitJohnL said:
Is Trump actually ineffective? Even if he passes no landmark legislation, he might move even more on executive orders. The transgender ban; nomination of a new supreme court judge; he's scrapped TPP and might yet pull out of NAFTA, and so on.Benpointer said:Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.
It might be that Trump achieves more than we notice because we judge him against his own, often contradictory, moon-on-a-stick promises.0 -
The worst orator in the history of the House of Commons was allegedly the 2nd Marquess of Londonderry,* Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House from 1812-22, who famously referred to 'men turning their backs upon themselves' and opposed parliamentary reform as 'the constitutional principle is wound up in the bowels of the monarchical principle.' George Jennings said of him that he 'left the wondering audience at a loss to conjecture how anyone could ever exist, endowed with humbler pretensions to the name of orator.'DavidL said:
The really worrying and depressing thing is that probably thought as she wrote it that it was powerful stuff, putting it to the man. Quite pitiful.ydoethur said:
Thank you, and thank you @CarlottaVance for the speech.nielh said:
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a link, but she basically used it to morally condemn the tories because of all the suffering they have created. She also used it to moan about the difficulty she had with the customs of parliament and how it was all biased against women and working class people. It caused a bit of a stir and she has become a corbynista hero on facebook.
She is an example of the poor quality of politicians that for whatever reason our system is turning out. God help us if Laura Pidcock is going to solve the vast, complex problems that are facing us.
Brexit. Terrorism. The deficit. Russia. Trump. Public spending. Robotic warfare. AI.
God help us all.
That really was awful. It was riddled with prejudice, for a start. 'I find it intimidating and I believe this is deliberate.' 'I would like them to visit my constituency.' 'Everyone in the south thinks we're savages.'
I also can't make out what the hell she was actually meant to be talking about. Was she talking about class solidarity, austerity, or random historical facts? Does she really think the Durham Miners' Gala is one of the world's great cultural items? Leaving aside the fact it's political rather than cultural, while a significant event I don't think it compares with the New Orleans Mardi Gras or the Oktoberfest.
I agree entirely with your conclusion. She is simply not up to it. I wouldn't say Neil Carmichael was a good MP, and he's no loss to the Commons, but he's a thousand times better than that.
If Labour do go for mass deselection and put in numpties like that in place of Cooper and even Chris Leslie, we're completely stuffed.
However, if Pidcock keeps this up I think his crown is under threat.
*Better known as Viscount Castlereagh.0 -
So for you it is, literally, homophobia.daodao said:
Because normal people shouldn't be put in a situation where they fear someone in a position of authority could molest them without effective redress.Nigelb said:
That doesn't answer the question, which was why, not where.daodao said:
I was thinking of professions connected with the law or where physical contact (in some cases intimate) is part of the job.Nigelb said:
Other than your own prejudice, why ?daodao said:
Trump was right to ban transgender individuals from the armed forces. The military should also be exempt from laws that prohibit discrimination against pederasts/homosexuals and other sexual deviants. There are probably other professions that should be exempt from such non-discrimination laws as well.Roger said:
That's splitting hairs to the point of trying to mislead. 68% oppose the ban 27% are in favour. What 619 said was just about spot on.CarlottaVance said:
While most people don't support it, most Republicans do:619 said:
Most people thinks he is a hateful prick over the transgender military ban.
http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/
You have my genuine sympathy for your condition.0 -
BBQs are for the masses unless you get your buttler to do the cooking.DavidL said:
And the BBQs, don't forget the BBQs.Sean_F said:
Surely the whole point of being a Tory is to sip expensive drinks in posh clubs and country houses, twirling your moustache as you think of new ways to make the poor suffer.CarlottaVance said:
https://youtu.be/dUk8E2U4pgcnielh said:
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a linkydoethur said:
No I didn't actually. That's an example of prejudice on my part, having read some of her other stuff where she said some pretty similar things, including saying that all Tories were in her view murderers.nielh said:er - you do realise that she didn't actually say that?. Its a satirical article.
I don't know, hoist on my own petard
Here she is, however, in her own words, which is why I took the above quote at face value
My very very initial reflections are that there are two basic types of Tory. You’ve got the ones – like Boris Johnson – who are so blinded by their own privilege and have never experienced hardship, that they genuinely seem unable to see what it’s like in our communities.
If they see someone in tears from the sheer weight of everything that’s being piled on top of them their reaction is, ‘oh you’re being very dramatic’.
The other type is completely ideologically driven. They seem genuinely to believe capitalism is the best way to improve society and it blinds them to the evidence under their nose.
I have met a couple of Tories who were genuinely really anxious for me to see that they weren’t horrible people and really believed putting everything into private enterprise will achieve better results.
Whatever type they are, I have absolutely no intention of being friends with any of them. I have friends I choose to spend time with. I go to parliament to be a mouthpiece for my constituents and class – I’m not interested in chatting on.0 -
The irony that doesn't seem to have occurred to her is if it closed due to years of neglect that would make it Labour's fault, given they were in power for all but 3 of the previous thirteen years since nationalisation prior to its closure.CarlottaVance said:
Consett closed in 1980 and had been losing money for some time....In 1980-1981, British Steel lost a staggering £1 billion on turnover of £3 billion, earning itself a place in the Guinness Book of Records* so 'blaming Thatcher and the Tories' is simplistic drivel.DavidL said:
The really worrying and depressing thing is that probably thought as she wrote it that it was powerful stuff, putting it to the man. Quite pitiful.ydoethur said:
Thank you, and thank you @CarlottaVance for the speech.nielh said:
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a link, but she basically used it to morally condemn the tories because of all the suffering they have created. She also used it to moan about the difficulty she had with the customs of parliament and how it was all biased against women and working class people. It caused a bit of a stir and she has become a corbynista hero on facebook.
She is an example of the poor quality of politicians that for whatever reason our system is turning out. God help us if Laura Pidcock is going to solve the vast, complex problems that are facing us.
Brexit. Terrorism. The deficit. Russia. Trump. Public spending. Robotic warfare. AI.
God help us all.
That really was awful. It was riddled with prejudice, for a start. 'I find it intimidating and I believe this is deliberate.' 'I would like them to visit my constituency.' 'Everyone in the south thinks we're savages.'
I also can't make out what the hell she was actually meant to be talking about. Was she talking about class solidarity, austerity, or random historical facts? Does she really think the Durham Miners' Gala is one of the world's great cultural items? Leaving aside the fact it's political rather than cultural, while a significant event I don't think it compares with the New Orleans Mardi Gras or the Oktoberfest.
I agree entirely with your conclusion. She is simply not up to it. I wouldn't say Neil Carmichael was a good MP, and he's no loss to the Commons, but he's a thousand times better than that.
If Labour do go for mass deselection and put in numpties like that in place of Cooper and even Chris Leslie, we're completely stuffed.
*http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3509/the_truth_about_thatcher_and_the_steel_industry
She might have had a stronger case on the nappy factory, which closed due to unfavourable economic conditions in 1991. But the further irony is that was promoted by the Thatcher government to replace the lost jobs of steelworkers...0 -
You get your butler to pick the wine: your cook does the BBQ.nichomar said:
BBQs are for the masses unless you get your buttler to do the cooking.DavidL said:
And the BBQs, don't forget the BBQs.Sean_F said:
Surely the whole point of being a Tory is to sip expensive drinks in posh clubs and country houses, twirling your moustache as you think of new ways to make the poor suffer.CarlottaVance said:
https://youtu.be/dUk8E2U4pgcnielh said:
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a linkydoethur said:
No I didn't actually. That's an example of prejudice on my part, having read some of her other stuff where she said some pretty similar things, including saying that all Tories were in her view murderers.nielh said:er - you do realise that she didn't actually say that?. Its a satirical article.
I don't know, hoist on my own petard
Here she is, however, in her own words, which is why I took the above quote at face value
My very very initial reflections are that there are two basic types of Tory. You’ve got the ones – like Boris Johnson – who are so blinded by their own privilege and have never experienced hardship, that they genuinely seem unable to see what it’s like in our communities.
If they see someone in tears from the sheer weight of everything that’s being piled on top of them their reaction is, ‘oh you’re being very dramatic’.
The other type is completely ideologically driven. They seem genuinely to believe capitalism is the best way to improve society and it blinds them to the evidence under their nose.
I have met a couple of Tories who were genuinely really anxious for me to see that they weren’t horrible people and really believed putting everything into private enterprise will achieve better results.
Whatever type they are, I have absolutely no intention of being friends with any of them. I have friends I choose to spend time with. I go to parliament to be a mouthpiece for my constituents and class – I’m not interested in chatting on.
0 -
Unless the US dissolves into a fascist state under his leadership (which seems rather unlikely), the most consequential legacy of Trump's presidency is likely to be his judicial appointments.DecrepitJohnL said:
Is Trump actually ineffective? Even if he passes no landmark legislation, he might move even more on executive orders. The transgender ban; nomination of a new supreme court judge; he's scrapped TPP and might yet pull out of NAFTA, and so on.Benpointer said:Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.
It might be that Trump achieves more than we notice because we judge him against his own, often contradictory, moon-on-a-stick promises.
Aside from the Supreme Court, he has appointed judges to the federal bench at a far faster rate than Obama, and his appointments will colour US law for a generation or more. Should he get a couple more Supreme Court appointments, which is entirely possible, he will completely alter the political balance of the court, again likely for a generation.0 -
There needs to be one first. As we discussed above, it isn't exactly a field of promising candidates.619 said:
True, but stuff like the trangender ban will be reversed i assume by the next democrat presidentDecrepitJohnL said:
Is Trump actually ineffective? Even if he passes no landmark legislation, he might move even more on executive orders. The transgender ban; nomination of a new supreme court judge; he's scrapped TPP and might yet pull out of NAFTA, and so on.Benpointer said:Great thread header from David - clear, well-reasoned and succinct. Would hold it's ground well in any broadsheet.
The Dems just have to suck it up for the next 3 years and console themselves that Trump is looking like being one of the least effective presidents ever. Better that from their perspective than Trump handing over to Pence before 2020.
It's also important that at least one credible Dem POTUS candidate emerges by 2019/20. I'm slightly worried about whether they have such a candidate in the wings, but early days yet.
It might be that Trump achieves more than we notice because we judge him against his own, often contradictory, moon-on-a-stick promises.
Remember, while received wisdom suggests Trump would be beaten by a monkey on a stick on these numbers (a) we (almost) all thought that about Remain, Clinton, May etc and we were all wrong and (b) he may not be the candidate.
So it may take a long time to undo anything he does now.0 -
I have to say I disagree with this article. There is virtually zero chance of the GOP holding the House. Indeed the figure quoted of just a 7% Democratic lead is well out of date, the latest PPP figures give a Democratic lead of double that at 49% to 35%, a 14% lead, which would be the biggest lead for any party in any House of Representatives election for decades.
Warren, in my view the likely 2020 Democratic nominee just ahead of Sanders, by contrast leads Trump by just 5% in a hypothetical 2020 race, less than half the margin the Democrats lead by for the mid terms. So in my view it is far more likely the Democrats win the House next year and maybe even get close in the Senate but Trump is re elected than the reverse. History reinforces that, it is very common for presidents to be unpopular in their first 2 terms, their party to lose the midterms and pivot to the centre to win re election, it is almost unheard of for a President's party to win the midterms and for that President to be re elected
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2017/08/trump-holds-steady-after-charlottesville-supporters-think-whites-christians-face-discrimination.html#more0 -
So Consett closed 8 years before she was even born then. That's how to hold a grudge.CarlottaVance said:
Consett closed in 1980 and had been losing money for some time....In 1980-1981, British Steel lost a staggering £1 billion on turnover of £3 billion, earning itself a place in the Guinness Book of Records* so 'blaming Thatcher and the Tories' is simplistic drivel.DavidL said:
The really worrying and depressing thing is that probably thought as she wrote it that it was powerful stuff, putting it to the man. Quite pitiful.ydoethur said:
Thank you, and thank you @CarlottaVance for the speech.nielh said:
I read the same article. Did you also see her maiden speech in Parliament? Can't find a link, but she basically used it to morally condemn the tories because of all the suffering they have created. She also used it to moan about the difficulty she had with the customs of parliament and how it was all biased against women and working class people. It caused a bit of a stir and she has become a corbynista hero on facebook.
She is an example of the poor quality of politicians that for whatever reason our system is turning out. God help us if Laura Pidcock is going to solve the vast, complex problems that are facing us.
Brexit. Terrorism. The deficit. Russia. Trump. Public spending. Robotic warfare. AI.
God help us all.
That really was awful. It was riddled with prejudice, for a start. 'I find it intimidating and I believe this is deliberate.' 'I would like them to visit my constituency.' 'Everyone in the south thinks we're savages.'
I also can't make out what the hell she was actually meant to be talking about. Was she talking about class solidarity, austerity, or random historical facts? Does she really think the Durham Miners' Gala is one of the world's great cultural items? Leaving aside the fact it's political rather than cultural, while a significant event I don't think it compares with the New Orleans Mardi Gras or the Oktoberfest.
I agree entirely with your conclusion. She is simply not up to it. I wouldn't say Neil Carmichael was a good MP, and he's no loss to the Commons, but he's a thousand times better than that.
If Labour do go for mass deselection and put in numpties like that in place of Cooper and even Chris Leslie, we're completely stuffed.
*http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3509/the_truth_about_thatcher_and_the_steel_industry0
