politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden raises doubts about whether hell run for White House
Comments
-
our Mayor is Andy Street he beat your favourite candidate Sion SimonTheScreamingEagles said:
You keep on electing Jack Dromey and Liam Byrne as your MPs.Alanbrooke said:
Manchester voted to give Andy Burnham a position of responsibility
I rest my case.0 -
@DavidL please don't curse Jos Buttler.0
-
Did the S Korean commentator go all “Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt, Johan Sebastian Bach, Die Meistersinger von Nurnburg, your boys...” etc etc ?TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
That bloke in the car ad with his England WC Winners 2018 tat is going to be insufferable.....0
-
The US Supreme Court has, in the ruling on the Janus v. AFSCME, that mandatory fees to trade unions in the public secture (closed shops) as unconstitutional.
The ruling could and probably will have a big effect on the size and power of the US Union movement, and therefor could decrees the funding and organizing strength that it gives almost exclusively to the democratic party.
Looking at what has happened in the State of Wisconsin, when a similer law was changed in 2011, only some members left in the first year, but over 5 years 55% of members left, and the unions dropped there membership price to avoid more losses.
What impact will it have?
probably not much on the presidential race, I think that is dominated by TV debates and funding comes from so many different places that the union money only has a small impact. but on lower down the ballot races, e.g. congress or state house, this could make a difference in a number of seats, probably not by November of this year but in 2020, and 2022, 2024. this could be big, and worth factoring in to betting or predictions.
Caveats:
This only applys to government workers not the privet secture, (US privet secture unionization rate is only 3.5%)
This will, no doubt, be appealed, and every effort to overturn or delay will be made.
0 -
You don’t really get to appeal SC rulings.BigRich said:The US Supreme Court has, in the ruling on the Janus v. AFSCME, that mandatory fees to trade unions in the public secture (closed shops) as unconstitutional.
The ruling could and probably will have a big effect on the size and power of the US Union movement, and therefor could decrees the funding and organizing strength that it gives almost exclusively to the democratic party.
Looking at what has happened in the State of Wisconsin, when a similer law was changed in 2011, only some members left in the first year, but over 5 years 55% of members left, and the unions dropped there membership price to avoid more losses.
What impact will it have?
probably not much on the presidential race, I think that is dominated by TV debates and funding comes from so many different places that the union money only has a small impact. but on lower down the ballot races, e.g. congress or state house, this could make a difference in a number of seats, probably not by November of this year but in 2020, and 2022, 2024. this could be big, and worth factoring in to betting or predictions.
Caveats:
This only applys to government workers not the privet secture, (US privet secture unionization rate is only 3.5%)
This will, no doubt, be appealed, and every effort to overturn or delay will be made.
And a change in the Court’s makeup that might lead to this being overturned is a decade off.0 -
0
-
And moving to the cheaper Home Counties like Essex and Kent reinforcing my original pointanother_richard said:
But home ownership in outer London has been falling rapidly which must mean that the young middle classes are being squeezed out.HYUFD said:
London suburbia is demographically closer to the Home Counties than Inner London admittedly, homes are significantly cheaper though wages are lower. The property owning London lower middle class and skilled working class is concentrated in the London suburbs.another_richard said:
So who used to buy all those houses in London suburbia ?HYUFD said:
Isn't it always the case that young people move to London in their twenties and rent and have fun (at the most buying a flat) then in their 30s once they start a family use their London wage to buy a larger family home in the Home Counties and commute in to work?another_richard said:A few talking points in this:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jun/27/londons-property-prices-leads-to-exodus-of-early-30s
' London’s expensive property prices are leading to an exodus of people in their early 30s from the capital, according to a report showing the economy of Britain’s biggest city increasingly dominated by low-skill jobs.
A report from the Resolution Foundation thinktank said the blow to living standards caused by high housing costs meant more people were leaving London than arriving from the rest of the UK.
While London’s overall population has grown by 1.6 million since the only region of the UK where the typical household had no net property wealth. '
' Job growth has largely been in low-paying, low-productivity sectors, such as hospitality (up 35%) and administrative services (up 29%). Even where employment had increased in higher-paying, high-productivity sectors, such as ICT and professional services, those sectors had seen a significant slump in productivity (down 5% and 2.5% respectively.)
As a result, London’s productivity had actually fallen over the last decade by 1%, compared to an increase of 1.5% across the UK as a whole. '
' People assume London’s economy has been running away from the rest of the UK since the financial crisis. But London’s economic growth is purely down tivity, with troubling consequences for pay and living standards. '
The London suburbs also had a far bigger Leave vote in 2016 and a bigger Tory vote in 2017 than Inner London0 -
Moved here ca. 5 years ago and, while pleasantly surprised by the place, the improvement has been immense. Would recommend.AlastairMeeks said:
Birmingham is definitely back on the up. Five years ago it seemed to be in a long term spiral of decline.Alanbrooke said:
chortleTheScreamingEagles said:
I work in Manchester (and occasionally live there) ergo is the second city of the UK after Sheffield.DavidL said:
I think Manchester proper is about half the size but the whole surrounding area has a larger population, whatever that proves.TheScreamingEagles said:
More people think Manchester is UK's second city than BirminghamDavidL said:
Second City?TheScreamingEagles said:
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/more-people-think-manchester-uks-12433529
I think between George Osborne's Northern Powerhouse and the IRA helping to launch a massive regeneration project Manchester has supplanted Birmingham.
I think City's Etihand Campus helps too.
Brum is currently a sea of cranes
Mankies need to get out more0 -
America really is going backwards.williamglenn said:Trump gets to appoint another judge.
https://twitter.com/shearm/status/10120332973697064970 -
Which means that London suburbia is no longer inhabited by home owning middle classes as it once was.HYUFD said:
And moving to the cheaper Home Counties like Essex and Kent reinforcing my original pointanother_richard said:
But home ownership in outer London has been falling rapidly which must mean that the young middle classes are being squeezed out.HYUFD said:
London suburbia is demographically closer to the Home Counties than Inner London admittedly, homes are significantly cheaper though wages are lower. The property owning London lower middle class and skilled working class is concentrated in the London suburbs.another_richard said:
So who used to buy all those houses in London suburbia ?HYUFD said:
Isn't it always the case that young people move to London in their twenties and rent and have fun (at the most buying a flat) then in their 30s once they start a family use their London wage to buy a larger family home in the Home Counties and commute in to work?another_richard said:A few talking points in this:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jun/27/londons-property-prices-leads-to-exodus-of-early-30s
' London’s expensive property prices are leading to an exodus of people in their early 30s from the capital, according to a report showing the economy of Britain’s biggest city increasingly dominated by low-skill jobs.
A report from the Resolution Foundation thinktank said the blow to living standards caused by high housing costs meant more people were leaving London than arriving from the rest of the UK.
While London’s overall population has grown by 1.6 million since the only region of the UK where the typical household had no net property wealth. '
' Job growth has largely been in low-paying, low-productivity sectors, such as hospitality (up 35%) and administrative services (up 29%). Even where employment had increased in higher-paying, high-productivity sectors, such as ICT and professional services, those sectors had seen a significant slump in productivity (down 5% and 2.5% respectively.)
As a result, London’s productivity had actually fallen over the last decade by 1%, compared to an increase of 1.5% across the UK as a whole. '
' People assume London’s economy has been running away from the rest of the UK since the financial crisis. But London’s economic growth is purely down tivity, with troubling consequences for pay and living standards. '
The London suburbs also had a far bigger Leave vote in 2016 and a bigger Tory vote in 2017 than Inner London
Which was what the report was saying.0 -
If you are relying on the conventional wisdom that England is always too short in the market then you may be out of date. Tissue Price will know more than me, but I think these days the football markets are shaped by some big players with even bigger computers.AlastairMeeks said:England now down to 9.6 last matched on Betfair for the tournament. I'm still humming and hawing over the optimal time to lay them. My guess is that they will beat a Belgian team that is resting key players, so after that?
0 -
Is he offering odds on that ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because I've got some money saying it wont be.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.0 -
Someone in the replies said this is fearmongering lol:TheScreamingEagles said:
https://twitter.com/schnapp4liberty/status/1012034756148711426?s=21
0 -
Read an article recently about the likelihood of civil war in America. Don’t see the political differences in that country being reconciled.
Those Republicans are hardcore on abortion, they were properly upset on twitter when Ireland (who they’ve mythologised as some ultra conservative country in 2018, lol) voted to repeal the 8th amendment. I can easily see Toobin’s statement coming true. Roe v Wade is gone.another_richard said:
Is he offering odds on that ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because I've got some money saying it wont be.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.0 -
Not sure Morgan and root should be in the T20 team.0
-
I'll offer you a bet, with proceeds to PB, that abortion isn't illegal in 20 US states by the end of 2019.The_Apocalypse said:
Someone in the replies said this is fearmongering lol:TheScreamingEagles said:
https://twitter.com/schnapp4liberty/status/1012034756148711426?s=210 -
Another victory for the argies might kill off maradona.Foxy said:
They have the Frogs on Saturday, I think that will send them home.FrancisUrquhart said:
Argentina are still in.....MarqueeMark said:So who are we going to lose to on penalties now?
0 -
I don’t bet (never have and I won’t start now).another_richard said:
I'll offer you a bet, with proceeds to PB, that abortion isn't illegal in 20 US states by the end of 2019.The_Apocalypse said:
Someone in the replies said this is fearmongering lol:TheScreamingEagles said:
https://twitter.com/schnapp4liberty/status/1012034756148711426?s=210 -
https://twitter.com/katemaltby/status/1012036069548855296?s=21
Since yesterday, Dems on twitter have not been happy with Kennedy, it must be said. He’s sided with the Conservative justices in the 5-4 decisions 18 Times this term. I also saw this article just now: https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1012036376576118784?s=210 -
As an American it would be illegal for him to bet.another_richard said:
Is he offering odds on that ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because I've got some money saying it wont be.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
I'd expect the Casey to be overturned by the end of Trump's first term0 -
Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
Seems a bit of an over reaction just cos some young oink didn’t call him mr president.The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
So they'll be taught how to surrender from a young age?The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
Ça Va Manu !FrancisUrquhart said:
Seems a bit of an over reaction just cos some young oink didn’t call him mr president.The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
I thought that particular incident made Macron look a bit silly.FrancisUrquhart said:
Seems a bit of an over reaction just cos some young oink didn’t call him mr president.The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
Ginger nut in too late really in the T20.0
-
Disastrous last over from England, might lose them the match.0
-
Well, *you* try winning a battle with an iced cherry bun on your head.TheScreamingEagles said:
So they'll be taught how to surrender from a young age?The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
If bairstow had got in 3 overs earlier England might have got 250.0
-
What's with the Cherry Bakewells?The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
For some reason I had forgotten that was one of his plans. Depending on the specifics, it's an idea that seems like it could be good.The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
The 'swig' vote?The_Apocalypse said:
America really is going backwards.williamglenn said:Trump gets to appoint another judge.
https://twitter.com/shearm/status/1012033297369706497
Is that Jack Daniels?0 -
I see a US Supreme Court judge is retiring (I seem to recall he had announced he would this year). It feels so strange that there are presumably ones trying their damnedest not to die at the 'wrong' time so the wrong party gets to pick who the replacement is. And what pressure there must be on others not to retire at the wrong time!0
-
Conservative Home's June Tory membership survey sent out today has head to head match ups in the next Tory leader poll between Boris, Hunt, Gove and Javid. Should be interesting when the results come out in the next few days.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/06/should-williamson-get-the-defence-spending-rise-he-wants-plus-introducing-next-tory-leader-run-offs-our-monthly-survey-is-out.html
0 -
It made him seem prickly or arrogant, but in all fairness I'd think you have to be pretty arrogant to set up your own political movement, defeat the established parties, and then a majority in the parliament.The_Apocalypse said:
I thought that particular incident made Macron look a bit silly.FrancisUrquhart said:
Seems a bit of an over reaction just cos some young oink didn’t call him mr president.The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.The_Apocalypse said:https://twitter.com/katemaltby/status/1012036069548855296?s=21
Since yesterday, Dems on twitter have not been happy with Kennedy, it must be said. He’s sided with the Conservative justices in the 5-4 decisions 18 Times this term. 10 -
Indeed, Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Kennedykle4 said:
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.The_Apocalypse said:https://twitter.com/katemaltby/status/1012036069548855296?s=21
Since yesterday, Dems on twitter have not been happy with Kennedy, it must be said. He’s sided with the Conservative justices in the 5-4 decisions 18 Times this term. 10 -
Willey has a new ball, apparently.0
-
-
He has been viewed as a moderate though, not as right wing Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. That’s why his vote is seen as a swing one. Maltby herself is a Conservative (albeit a moderate one). A moderate British Tory would probably be seen as a leftie by American Republicans.kle4 said:
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.The_Apocalypse said:https://twitter.com/katemaltby/status/1012036069548855296?s=21
Since yesterday, Dems on twitter have not been happy with Kennedy, it must be said. He’s sided with the Conservative justices in the 5-4 decisions 18 Times this term. 10 -
?
Given the incredible and repeatedly ruled illegal efforts that states have taken to make abortion a practical impossibility I'd say 20 states making it flat out illegal would be an under count.another_richard said:
Is he offering odds on that ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because I've got some money saying it wont be.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.0 -
And Dan is caught Short by Plunkett's Ally...
Hmmm. That might need more work.0 -
The American people elect the President and the Senate so they do get a say.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Americans need to learn how to respect each other's opinions again, as they did until about 20 years ago.The_Apocalypse said:Read an article recently about the likelihood of civil war in America. Don’t see the political differences in that country being reconciled.
Those Republicans are hardcore on abortion, they were properly upset on twitter when Ireland (who they’ve mythologised as some ultra conservative country in 2018, lol) voted to repeal the 8th amendment. I can easily see Toobin’s statement coming true. Roe v Wade is gone.another_richard said:
Is he offering odds on that ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because I've got some money saying it wont be.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.0 -
Who are Brazil likely to get in the last 16. Their defence doesn't look great.0
-
Sandra Day O'Connor publicly exclaimed her disappointment and frustration that she wouldn't be able to take retirement when she thought Gore had won the 2000 election.kle4 said:I see a US Supreme Court judge is retiring (I seem to recall he had announced he would this year). It feels so strange that there are presumably ones trying their damnedest not to die at the 'wrong' time so the wrong party gets to pick who the replacement is. And what pressure there must be on others not to retire at the wrong time!
She, of course, then got to rule that he hadn't.0 -
Well indeed, although one suspects Senator McDonnell is more likely to agree with that now than what he meant with that tweet at the time.Pulpstar said:
The American people elect the President and the Senate so they do get a say.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
MexicoPulpstar said:Who are Brazil likely to get in the last 16. Their defence doesn't look great.
0 -
That he is moderate on some things, and thus a swing vote, does not make anger at him for swinging the other way justified. If he was named by a famously mythologised Republican President better to be grateful for the times he broke ranks than angry at the times he didn't.The_Apocalypse said:
He has been viewed as a moderate though, not as right wing Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. That’s why his vote is seen as a swing one. Maltby herself is a Conservative (albeit a moderate one). A moderate British Tory would probably be seen as a leftie by American Republicans.kle4 said:
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.The_Apocalypse said:https://twitter.com/katemaltby/status/1012036069548855296?s=21
Since yesterday, Dems on twitter have not been happy with Kennedy, it must be said. He’s sided with the Conservative justices in the 5-4 decisions 18 Times this term. 1
I would agree with you about Tories and americans. It's not unique of course, and I somethings think online lefties and righties get a bit overly supportive or angry at supposed foreign counterparts (or opponents), as what makes a Liberal party in one country may not match up with a Liberal party in another, and so on and so forth. It'd be very silly for a Conservative supporter here to automatically assume they would fit with the Republicans, or that a Labour party person would find common cause with everything with the Democrats. They might, it would depend on the individual, but the 'big tents' of the parties have not always aligned perfectly.0 -
Biscuits d'Empire?SandyRentool said:
What's with the Cherry Bakewells?The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
What’s the punishment for not doing it ?kle4 said:
For some reason I had forgotten that was one of his plans. Depending on the specifics, it's an idea that seems like it could be good.The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
Chris Jordan has gone for 28 off 2, otherwise pretty tight so far.
Does anyone know what happens if you mix greek yoghurt with salt?0 -
Being forced to sit through speeches by Francois Hollande for two months?TGOHF said:
What’s the punishment for not doing it ?kle4 said:
For some reason I had forgotten that was one of his plans. Depending on the specifics, it's an idea that seems like it could be good.The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
One of the specifics that does indeed need answering. The write up talks of being able to opt out of bits of it in exchange for volunteer work, but what if you refuse that as well? Other places have national service, I assume the EU and ECHR are ok with it in principle.TGOHF said:
What’s the punishment for not doing it ?kle4 said:
For some reason I had forgotten that was one of his plans. Depending on the specifics, it's an idea that seems like it could be good.The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=21
According to the BBC the idea has 60% approval (although young people are less keen)0 -
Serbia don't give a shit about losing 2-00
-
Have to do a 200,000 word dissertation on French military victories.TGOHF said:
What’s the punishment for not doing it ?kle4 said:
For some reason I had forgotten that was one of his plans. Depending on the specifics, it's an idea that seems like it could be good.The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him. Gorsuch is a massive Conservative, that doesn’t stop Dems saying ‘f**k Neil Gorsuch’ nearly every time one of his opinions comes down. American Conservatives get angry with the liberal justices when they give opinions that they don’t like as well. Given the enormity of the decisions he’s sided with the Conservative justices on this term, I totally understand why Dems are angry with him on the travel ban and the gerrymandering cases. I would consider myself well to Left of the Dems on most issues: so I’m not assuming I would fit in with them. I would have voted for Clinton had I been American though in 2016, even if she’s to the right of me on a number of issues.kle4 said:
That he is moderate on some things, and thus a swing vote, does not make anger at him for swinging the other way justified. If he was named by a famously mythologised Republican President better to be grateful for the times he broke ranks than angry at the times he didn't.The_Apocalypse said:
He has been viewed as a moderate though, not as right wing Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. That’s why his vote is seen as a swing one. Maltby herself is a Conservative (albeit a moderate one). A moderate British Tory would probably be seen as a leftie by American Republicans.kle4 said:
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.The_Apocalypse said:https://twitter.com/katemaltby/status/1012036069548855296?s=21
Since yesterday, Dems on twitter have not been happy with Kennedy, it must be said. He’s sided with the Conservative justices in the 5-4 decisions 18 Times this term. 1
I would agree with you about Tories and americans. It's not unique of course, and I somethings think online lefties and righties get a bit overly supportive or angry at supposed foreign counterparts (or opponents), as what makes a Liberal party in one country may not match up with a Liberal party in another, and so on and so forth. It'd be very silly for a Conservative supporter here to automatically assume they would fit with the Republicans, or that a Labour party person would find common cause with everything with the Democrats. They might, it would depend on the individual, but the 'big tents' of the parties have not always aligned perfectly.0 -
Those opinions have consequences for people’s lives though, which is precisely why politics is so divisive there (and to a lesser degree, here as well). Especially since it’s on hot button cultural issues.AndyJS said:
Americans need to learn how to respect each other's opinions again, as they did until about 20 years ago.The_Apocalypse said:Read an article recently about the likelihood of civil war in America. Don’t see the political differences in that country being reconciled.
Those Republicans are hardcore on abortion, they were properly upset on twitter when Ireland (who they’ve mythologised as some ultra conservative country in 2018, lol) voted to repeal the 8th amendment. I can easily see Toobin’s statement coming true. Roe v Wade is gone.another_richard said:
Is he offering odds on that ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because I've got some money saying it wont be.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.0 -
0
-
Brazil are so dull to watch these days.Alistair said:Serbia don't give a shit about losing 2-0
0 -
If we thought Germany were crap in the football, Australia are even worse in the cricket.0
-
Middle class Parisians busting themselves on assault courses while illegal immigrants smoke dope and burn cars. Winning combination,kle4 said:
One of the specifics that does indeed need answering. The write up talks of being able to opt out of bits of it in exchange for volunteer work, but what if you refuse that as well? Other places have national service, I assume the EU and ECHR are ok with it in principle.TGOHF said:
What’s the punishment for not doing it ?kle4 said:
For some reason I had forgotten that was one of his plans. Depending on the specifics, it's an idea that seems like it could be good.The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=21
According to the BBC the idea has 60% approval (although young people are less keen)0 -
Holder Vs Shelby County is one the all time worst Supreme Court decisions from a judicial reasoning point of view.
Kennedy's concurrence on it will be how he is remembered.0 -
The IFS have been consistently wrong about just about everything Brexit related for many years now.williamglenn said:Brexit dividend.
https://twitter.com/groomb/status/1012048887572520962?s=210 -
Talking of national service, apparently Tottenham’s South Korean player has to go and do his in the next year or two. The only way out was winning the World Cup (not happening now) leaving last chance by winning the Asian championships.0
-
Except they frequently don't have consequences for opponents lives. Opponents of e.g. gay rights may feel their beliefs are infringed if others are treated equally but their lives are no different.The_Apocalypse said:
Those opinions have consequences for people’s lives though, which is precisely why politics is so divisive there (and to a lesser degree, here as well). Especially since it’s on hot button cultural issues.AndyJS said:
Americans need to learn how to respect each other's opinions again, as they did until about 20 years ago.The_Apocalypse said:Read an article recently about the likelihood of civil war in America. Don’t see the political differences in that country being reconciled.
Those Republicans are hardcore on abortion, they were properly upset on twitter when Ireland (who they’ve mythologised as some ultra conservative country in 2018, lol) voted to repeal the 8th amendment. I can easily see Toobin’s statement coming true. Roe v Wade is gone.another_richard said:
Is he offering odds on that ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because I've got some money saying it wont be.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
If people could accept others think, believe and act differently to them and that's ok then the cultural issues would be a lot easier to sort out.0 -
Germany had and Switzer;and has jail as the only option if you refuse both, thoiugh a very mild open prison - I had a colleague who slept at the prison but continued in his daytime job in the pharma industry: these detention sentences exist so that people don't necessarily lose their jobs over relatively minor offences. The pretty socially enlightened management of Novartis felt it was none of their business what he did outside working hours, including serving a detention sentence.kle4 said:
One of the specifics that does indeed need answering. The write up talks of being able to opt out of bits of it in exchange for volunteer work, but what if you refuse that as well? Other places have national service, I assume the EU and ECHR are ok with it in principle.TGOHF said:
What’s the punishment for not doing it ?kle4 said:
For some reason I had forgotten that was one of his plans. Depending on the specifics, it's an idea that seems like it could be good.The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=21
According to the BBC the idea has 60% approval (although young people are less keen)0 -
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.The_Apocalypse said:
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.kle4 said:
That he is moderate on some things, and thus a swing vote, does not make anger at him for swinging the other way justified. If he was named by a famously mythologised Republican President better to be grateful for the times he broke ranks than angry at the times he didn't.The_Apocalypse said:
He has been viewed as a moderate though, not as right wing Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. That’s why his vote is seen as a swing one. Maltby herself is a Conservative (albeit a moderate one). A moderate British Tory would probably be seen as a leftie by American Republicans.kle4 said:
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.The_Apocalypse said:https://twitter.com/katemaltby/status/1012036069548855296?s=21
Since yesterday, Dems on twitter have not been happy with Kennedy, it must be said. He’s sided with the Conservative justices in the 5-4 decisions 18 Times this term. 1
I would agree with you aalways aligned perfectly.
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american people).
Yes, of course all opinions are 'justified', my language was poor on that, but what it is not, in the terms it is described there, is reasonable, as far as I can see it. The anger seems to be specifically that he is not breaking ranks more often, rather than the mere fact that he is a conservative justice.
And if they are so angry about someone who did side with the liberal justices on some very major cases, they may find they will get new conservative justices who never make that same mistake. How often was he the swing vote? Would they have preferred if he remained ideologically consistent (at least as far as the overly simplistic liberal vs conservative mindset)? I bet not.0 -
England surely can’t balls up the cricket....surely.....0
-
I wonder how he wants to be remembered. I've seem him referred to as the father of constitutional gay rights, which one would assume is how he'd prefer to be remembered, but perhaps he would welcome a more complex view in that both sides will condemn and praise various cases he was key to.Alistair said:Holder Vs Shelby County is one the all time worst Supreme Court decisions from a judicial reasoning point of view.
Kennedy's concurrence on it will be how he is remembered.0 -
Seeing all these smug entities proved wrong will be a fantastic brexit dividend,williamglenn said:Brexit dividend.
https://twitter.com/groomb/status/1012048887572520962?s=210 -
That's very positive of them.NickPalmer said:
Germany had and Switzer;and has jail as the only option if you refuse both, thoiugh a very mild open prison - I had a colleague who slept at the prison but continued in his daytime job in the pharma industry: these detention sentences exist so that people don't necessarily lose their jobs over relatively minor offences. The pretty socially enlightened management of Novartis felt it was none of their business what he did outside working hours, including serving a detention sentence.kle4 said:
One of the specifics that does indeed need answering. The write up talks of being able to opt out of bits of it in exchange for volunteer work, but what if you refuse that as well? Other places have national service, I assume the EU and ECHR are ok with it in principle.TGOHF said:
What’s the punishment for not doing it ?kle4 said:
For some reason I had forgotten that was one of his plans. Depending on the specifics, it's an idea that seems like it could be good.The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=21
According to the BBC the idea has 60% approval (although young people are less keen)0 -
Lol remainers chatting more shite as always.williamglenn said:Brexit dividend.
https://twitter.com/groomb/status/1012048887572520962?s=210 -
Moeen back in Ashes form...FrancisUrquhart said:England surely can’t balls up the cricket....surely.....
0 -
Dem Senators are lining up with a no confirmation before 2019 message.
Which they have fuck all power to do so we'll see what happens.0 -
Good job we have rashid....TGOHF said:
Moeen back in Ashes form...FrancisUrquhart said:England surely can’t balls up the cricket....surely.....
0 -
Re Maltby, from what she said it’s ‘how dare he side with conservative justices’ on the issue of the travel ban, not how dare he side with the Conservative justices on any decision ever. I don’t see how it’s hyprocritical for Dems to be unhappy with him when he sided with conservative justices though - Republicans have been unhappy when Kennedy has sided with liberals. They were also unhappy with Roberts siding with liberals on the occasions he has. If you think about the perspective of both, I can understand both Dems and Republicans reactions. You’re never going to unhappy when a decision doesn’t go your way.kle4 said:
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.The_Apocalypse said:
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.kle4 said:
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american people).
Yes, of course all opinions are 'justified', my language was poor on that, but what it is not, in the terms it is described there, is reasonable, as far as I can see it. The anger seems to be specifically that he is not breaking ranks more often, rather than the mere fact that he is a conservative justice.
And if they are so angry about someone who did side with the liberal justices on some very major cases, they may find they will get new conservative justices who never make that same mistake. How often was he the swing vote? Would they have preferred if he remained ideologically consistent (at least as far as the overly simplistic liberal vs conservative mindset)? I bet not.
Dems know that they’re going to get a massively conservative justice that’s not going to stop them (nor should it) for being not too happy at Kennedy’s opinions on various cases this term. They shouldn’t not be angry on his decision re gerrymandering just because he say, sided with the liberal justices on gay marriage.0 -
Kennedy was always a conservative, save that he voted with the liberals on gay rights issues (and indeed, wrote their opinions).The_Apocalypse said:
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him. Gorsuch is a massive Conservative, that doesn’t stop Dems saying ‘f**k Neil Gorsuch’ nearly every time one of his opinions comes down. American Conservatives get angry with the liberal justices when they give opinions that they don’t like as well. Given the enormity of the decisions he’s sided with the Conservative justices on this term, I totally understand why Dems are angry with him on the travel ban and the gerrymandering cases. I would consider myself well to Left of the Dems on most issues: so I’m not assuming I would fit in with them. I would have voted for Clinton had I been American though in 2016, even if she’s to the right of me on a number of issues.kle4 said:
That he is moderate on some things, and thus a swing vote, does not make anger at him for swinging the other way justified. If he was named by a famously mythologised Republican President better to be grateful for the times he broke ranks than angry at the times he didn't.The_Apocalypse said:
He has been viewed as a moderate though, not as right wing Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas and Roberts. That’s why his vote is seen as a swing one. Maltby herself is a Conservative (albeit a moderate one). A moderate British Tory would probably be seen as a leftie by American Republicans.kle4 said:
I thought he was a Conservative justice (albeit one who was more a swing vote on specific issues such as gay rights), a bit rich to be mad at him for siding with them.The_Apocalypse said:https://twitter.com/katemaltby/status/1012036069548855296?s=21
Since yesterday, Dems on twitter have not been happy with Kennedy, it must be said. He’s sided with the Conservative justices in the 5-4 decisions 18 Times this term. 1
I would agree with you about Tories and americans. It's not unique of course, and I somethings think online lefties and righties get a bit overly supportive or angry at supposed foreign counterparts (or opponents), as what makes a Liberal party in one country may not match up with a Liberal party in another, and so on and so forth. It'd be very silly for a Conservative supporter here to automatically assume they would fit with the Republicans, or that a Labour party person would find common cause with everything with the Democrats. They might, it would depend on the individual, but the 'big tents' of the parties have not always aligned perfectly.
But, the new Justice will be a hardline conservative.0 -
Of course political decisions have consequences for people’s lives, if they didn’t they would be pointless. If say, gay marriage was no longer legal it would affect people’s lives.Philip_Thompson said:
Except they frequently don't have consequences for opponents lives. Opponents of e.g. gay rights may feel their beliefs are infringed if others are treated equally but their lives are no different.The_Apocalypse said:
Those opinions have consequences for people’s lives though, which is precisely why politics is so divisive there (and to a lesser degree, here as well). Especially since it’s on hot button cultural issues.AndyJS said:
Americans need to learn how to respect each other's opinions again, as they did until about 20 years ago.The_Apocalypse said:Read an article recently about the likelihood of civil war in America. Don’t see the political differences in that country being reconciled.
Those Republicans are hardcore on abortion, they were properly upset on twitter when Ireland (who they’ve mythologised as some ultra conservative country in 2018, lol) voted to repeal the 8th amendment. I can easily see Toobin’s statement coming true. Roe v Wade is gone.another_richard said:
Is he offering odds on that ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because I've got some money saying it wont be.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
If people could accept others think, believe and act differently to them and that's ok then the cultural issues would be a lot easier to sort out.0 -
It certainly wouldn't, generally. My issue was with the reasoning behind the anger being 'He’s sided with the Conservative justices in the 5-4 decisions 18 Times this term'. If they are angry at conservative justices being conservative it should be constant, but that statement suggests to me disappointment in him specifically for being conservative (when that is apparently what he was) too much. I regard it as mildly hypocritical because it makes it look like they are holding him to a different standard to the others when he sides with the conservatives, when they should expect that, and be pleasantly surprised when he doesn't. Or didn't rather.The_Apocalypse said:
I don’t see how it’s hyprocritical for Dems to be unhappy with him when he sided with conservative justices thoughkle4 said:
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.The_Apocalypse said:
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.kle4 said:
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american people).
Yes, of course all opinions are 'justified', my language was poor on that, but what it is not, in the terms it is described there, is reasonable, as far as I can see it. The anger seems to be specifically that he is not breaking ranks more often, rather than the mere fact that he is a conservative justice.
And if they are so angry about someone who did side with the liberal justices on some very major cases, they may find they will get new conservative justices who never make that same mistake. How often was he the swing vote? Would they have preferred if he remained ideologically consistent (at least as far as the overly simplistic liberal vs conservative mindset)? I bet not.
0 -
Could easily knock that out covering their victory in the 100 year war I'd have thoughtTheScreamingEagles said:
Have to do a 200,000 word dissertation on French military victories.TGOHF said:
What’s the punishment for not doing it ?kle4 said:
For some reason I had forgotten that was one of his plans. Depending on the specifics, it's an idea that seems like it could be good.The_Apocalypse said:Meanwhile in Macron’s France....
https://twitter.com/bbcnews/status/1012037662805504000?s=210 -
Okay then.Alistair said:?
Given the incredible and repeatedly ruled illegal efforts that states have taken to make abortion a practical impossibility I'd say 20 states making it flat out illegal would be an under count.another_richard said:
Is he offering odds on that ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because I've got some money saying it wont be.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
How about £50 bet with loser donating to PB ?
If 20+ US states have banned abortion by the end of 2019 I'll pay.
If under 20 US states have baned abortion by the end of 2019 you pay.0 -
They are angry he sided them with them on pretty much all the 5-4 decisions (IIRC), because they wanted him to side with them on specific cases (esp gerrymandering and the travel ban). This is apparently the most times he sided with conservatives on 5-4 decisions since 2005. I think they do hold him to a different standard because they’ve seen him as moderates because of his rulings on abortion/reproductive issues, gay marriage et al.kle4 said:
It certainly wouldn't, generally. My issue was with the reasoning behind the anger being 'He’s sided with the Conservative justices in the 5-4 decisions 18 Times this term'. If they are angry at conservative justices being conservative it should be constant, but that statement suggests to me disappointment in him specifically for being conservative (when that is apparently what he was) too much. I regard it as mildly hypocritical because it makes it look like they are holding him to a different standard to the others when he sides with the conservatives, when they should expect that, and be pleasantly surprised when he doesn't. Or didn't rather.The_Apocalypse said:
I don’t see how it’s hyprocritical for Dems to be unhappy with him when he sided with conservative justices thoughkle4 said:
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.The_Apocalypse said:
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.kle4 said:
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american bet not.
0 -
Today's Tesco Strawberry score is once again a boring eight:
Angus
Perthshire
Fife
Staffordshire
Cambridgeshire
Herefordshire
West Sussex
Kent
0 -
Isn’t it Dublin?TheScreamingEagles said:
More people think Manchester is UK's second city than BirminghamDavidL said:
Second City?TheScreamingEagles said:
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/more-people-think-manchester-uks-124335290 -
However, Kennedy at least gave the Dems (and Kate Maltby) some of the things they like, rather than none of them.The_Apocalypse said:
Re Maltby, from what she said it’s ‘how dare he side with conservative justices’ on the issue of the travel ban, not how dare he side with the Conservative justices on any decision ever. I don’t see how it’s hyprocritical for Dems to be unhappy with him when he sided with conservative justices though - Republicans hakle4 said:
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.The_Apocalypse said:
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.kle4 said:
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american people).
Yes, of course all opinions are 'justified', my language was poor on that, but what it is not, in the terms it is described there, is reasonable, as far as I can see it. The anger seems to be specifically that he is not breaking ranks more often, rather than the mere fact that he is a conservative justice.
And if they are so angry about someone who did side with the liberal justices on some very major cases, they may find they will get new conservative justices who never make that same mistake. How often was he the swing vote? Would they have preferred if he remained ideologically consistent (at least as far as the overly simplistic liberal vs conservative mindset)? I bet not.
Dems know that they’re going to get a massively conservative justice that’s not going to stop them (nor should it) for being not too happy at Kennedy’s opinions on various cases this term. They shouldn’t not be angry on his decision re gerrymandering just because he say, sided with the liberal justices on gay marriage.0 -
Time frame too tight for me given that the Dems are actually showing a spine on this and may drag it out. I had assumed they would roll over.another_richard said:
Okay then.Alistair said:?
Given the incredible and repeatedly ruled illegal efforts that states have taken to make abortion a practical impossibility I'd say 20 states making it flat out illegal would be an under count.another_richard said:
Is he offering odds on that ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because I've got some money saying it wont be.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
How about £50 bet with loser donating to PB ?
If 20+ US states have banned abortion by the end of 2019 I'll pay.
If under 20 US states have baned abortion by the end of 2019 you pay.
In paractical terms a lot of states might not actually ban abortion, they'll just pile on all the bullshit that had been previously ruled illegal and de facto ban abortion.
I don't think either of us wants to have to do a state by state search of functioning abortion facilities to see which way the bet falls.0 -
Dublin is part of a more powerful union these days, Charles.Charles said:
Isn’t it Dublin?TheScreamingEagles said:
More people think Manchester is UK's second city than BirminghamDavidL said:
Second City?TheScreamingEagles said:
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/more-people-think-manchester-uks-124335290 -
That’s why they are literally in despair about his retirement even though they are angry with him.Sean_F said:
However, Kennedy at least gave the Dems (and Kate Maltby) some of the things they like, rather than none of them.The_Apocalypse said:
Re Maltby, from what she said it’s ‘how dare he side with conservative justices’ on the issue of the travel ban, not how dare he side with the Conservative justices on any decision ever. I don’t see how it’s hyprocritical for Dems to be unhappy with him when he sided with conservative justices though - Republicans hakle4 said:
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.The_Apocalypse said:
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.kle4 said:
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american people).
Yes, of course all opinions are 'justified', my language was poor on that, but what it is not, in the terms it is described there, is reasonable, as far as I can see it. The anger seems to be specifically that he is not breaking ranks more often, rather than the mere fact that he is a conservative justice.
And if they are so angry about someone who did side with the liberal justices on some very major cases, they may find they will get new conservative justices who never make that same mistake. How often was he the swing vote? Would they have preferred if he remained ideologically consistent (at least as far as the overly simplistic liberal vs conservative mindset)? I bet not.
Dems know that they’re going to get a massively conservative justice that’s not going to stop them (nor should it) for being not too happy at Kennedy’s opinions on various cases this term. They shouldn’t not be angry on his decision re gerrymandering just because he say, sided with the liberal justices on gay marriage.0 -
At the risk of sounding uniformed, and only an occasional reader of political betting, what exactly is the 'Tesco Strawberry score'? I have an image of somebody driving madly to every county in the UK to find Tesco's that have sold out of strawberry! but i am guessing that's not it?another_richard said:Today's Tesco Strawberry score is once again a boring eight:
Angus
Perthshire
Fife
Staffordshire
Cambridgeshire
Herefordshire
West Sussex
Kent0 -
Kennedy is a very old man. He is surely entitled to retire.The_Apocalypse said:
That’s why they are literally in despair about his retirement even though they are angry with him.Sean_F said:
However, Kennedy at least gave the Dems (and Kate Maltby) some of the things they like, rather than none of them.The_Apocalypse said:
Re Maltby, from what she said it’s ‘how dare he side with conservative justices’ on the issue of the travel ban, not how dare he side with the Conservative justices on any decision ever. I don’t see how it’s hyprocritical for Dems to be unhappy with him when he sided with conservative justices though - Republicans hakle4 said:
Yes, but the implication was 'how dare' he side with the Conservative justices, as a moderate, when the other side presumably go 'how dare' he side with the moderates when he is a Conservative. Dems not being happy with him for siding with the conservatives strikes me as close to hypocritical, unless they love it when liberals side with the conservatives.The_Apocalypse said:
If they feel his vote was wrong, they are perfectly justified to be angry with him.kle4 said:
There is a difference, to my mind, to being angry at conservative justices generally - of course they disagree with the conservative justices fundamentally - and expressing anger at a specific conservative for daring to side with the conservatives; the suggestion is he has let them down somehow (their side that is, not merely the american people).
Yes, of course all opi
And if they are so angry about someone who did side with the liberal justices on some very major cases, they may find they will get new conservative justices who never make that same mistake. How often was he the swing vote? Would they have preferred if he remained ideologically consistent (at least as far as the overly simplistic liberal vs conservative mindset)? I bet not.
Dems know that they’re going to get a massively conservative justice that’s not going to stop them (nor should it) for being not too happy at Kennedy’s opinions on various cases this term. They shouldn’t not be angry on his decision re gerrymandering just because he say, sided with the liberal justices on gay marriage.0 -
Its the location of origin of British strawberries in a Tesco I visit.BigRich said:
At the risk of sounding uniformed, and only an occasional reader of political betting, what exactly is the 'Tesco Strawberry score'? I have an image of somebody driving madly to every county in the UK to find Tesco's that have sold out of strawberry! but i am guessing that's not it?another_richard said:Today's Tesco Strawberry score is once again a boring eight:
Angus
Perthshire
Fife
Staffordshire
Cambridgeshire
Herefordshire
West Sussex
Kent
Its purpose is to give an indication of how likely or not we are to have 'crops rotting in the fields because there are no workers to pick them'.
0 -
-
They have consequences for some people's lives, not some other people's lives.The_Apocalypse said:
Of course political decisions have consequences for people’s lives, if they didn’t they would be pointless. If say, gay marriage was no longer legal it would affect people’s lives.Philip_Thompson said:
Except they frequently don't have consequences for opponents lives. Opponents of e.g. gay rights may feel their beliefs are infringed if others are treated equally but their lives are no different.The_Apocalypse said:
Those opinions have consequences for people’s lives though, which is precisely why politics is so divisive there (and to a lesser degree, here as well). Especially since it’s on hot button cultural issues.AndyJS said:
Americans need to learn how to respect each other's opinions again, as they did until about 20 years ago.The_Apocalypse said:Read an article recently about the likelihood of civil war in America. Don’t see the political differences in that country being reconciled.
Those Republicans are hardcore on abortion, they were properly upset on twitter when Ireland (who they’ve mythologised as some ultra conservative country in 2018, lol) voted to repeal the 8th amendment. I can easily see Toobin’s statement coming true. Roe v Wade is gone.another_richard said:
Is he offering odds on that ?TheScreamingEagles said:
Because I've got some money saying it wont be.
Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
If people could accept others think, believe and act differently to them and that's ok then the cultural issues would be a lot easier to sort out.
If gay marriage was no longer legal it would affect gays. It wouldn't affect the lives of opponents of gay marriage though.
The problem is people wanting to affect other people's lives, not people wanting change for their own.0 -
Very inadvertently funny pub quiz answer this evening from a member of the team...
Q: Which British boxer twice fought Muhammad Ali in 1963 and 1966?
A: "That was Henry Kelly wasn't it?"
The idea of the presenter of going for gold in the ring with Ali has had me laughing all evening!0