Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg launches his latest ad attacking Trump during the Pr

SystemSystem Posts: 12,646
edited January 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg launches his latest ad attacking Trump during the President’s favourite TV show

Inevitably this led to a Twitter explosion from Trump who has now dubbed the multi-billionaire as “Mini Mike Bloomberg”. According to Politico this is part of a deliberate strategy by Bloomberg who is benefiting in the polls as a result

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • gettingbettergettingbetter Posts: 601
    well done
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    He is, in a word, trolling Trump. Which with someone as unbalanced as Trump is arguably an irresponsible thing to do.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,856
    Mini Mike is hardly one of Trump's zingers.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    gettingbetter said:

    well done

    bleu
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,186
    edited January 2020
    I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

    This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

    And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

    I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

    Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

    To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

    But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    Out of topic.

    I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

    https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,237
    rcs1000 said:

    I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

    This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

    And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

    I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

    Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

    To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

    But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)

    A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

    As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,856
    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Anabobazina said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
    It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,793
    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    More than voted Brexit Party or Green at the last general election
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,793
    edited January 2020
    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    3% of women think it is acceptable to have sex on a first date, 9% of men at the other extreme
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,435
    Honestly sex before marriage should be the law.

    Can you imagine marrying someone then finding out they are crap in the sack, that's very good grounds for divorce.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,793
    Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,435
    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    Except I am fairly certain many Christians, including the ones I know would never call a child born out of wedlock a bastard as you do.

    They have much better manners and class than you.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,237
    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    Yeah I would think that 1 out of 20 or 25 people is close to the definition of exceptional.
  • kicorsekicorse Posts: 437
    Anabobazina said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
    In fairness, you don't have any moral high ground here:
    Anabobazina said:

    kinabalu said:


    I think it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage.

    Just in case.

    Correct. The theistic pressure to avoid sex before marriage has undoubtably ruined several marriages. More evidence that religion wrecks human lives!
    I'm fine with people having consensual sex whenever they want, and I'm fine with people getting married whenever they want. Other people are welcome to reach different conclusions, but when someone on one extreme ridicules someone on the other extreme, I'm inclined to call out the hypocrisy!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,435
    On topic I wonder if Bloomberg's role in this election will be the role of fluffer/heel winding up Trump and forcing him into doing/saying stupid stuff which plays into the hands of the Dem nominee.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,759
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

    This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

    And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

    I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

    Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

    To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

    But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)

    A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

    As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
    Sanders+Bloomberg as Treasury Sec might be quite a good combination, reassuring folk worried by the socialism. Sanders accelerating away in NH according to this:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    speedy2 said:

    Out of topic.

    I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

    https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184

    Apparently it’s so bad few have made it to the end.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,961
    Which do we think there is more of on any given day - sex without marriage or marriage without sex?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,793
    https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1220415200383381506?s=20
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    Exceptionally silly.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    Except I am fairly certain many Christians, including the ones I know would never call a child born out of wedlock a bastard as you do.

    They have much better manners and class than you.
    I would never discriminate against or look down on such a child.Drawing attention to the legal position is a separate issue.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,435
    Nigelb said:

    speedy2 said:

    Out of topic.

    I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

    https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184

    Apparently it’s so bad few have made it to the end.
    Hell of a comedown for Robert Downey Jr after Endgame.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited January 2020
    justin124 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
    It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.
    Why the fascination with what other adults consensually do with their and each others' genitals?

    I note btw that 4% was the number of respondents who said Yes to "have you ever been decapitated?" in a much cited American survey.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,793
    edited January 2020
    NickPalmer said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

    This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

    And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

    I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

    Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

    To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

    But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)

    A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

    As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
    Sanders+Bloomberg as Treasury Sec might be quite a good combination, reassuring folk worried by the socialism. Sanders accelerating away in NH according to this:

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html
    Bloomberg would not accept it, as he would have to implement policies he disagreed with, like hammering Wall Street with tax and cancelling student debt and universal healthcare
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,435
    IshmaelZ said:

    justin124 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
    It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.
    Why the fascination with what other adults consensually do with their and each others' genitals?

    I note btw that 4% was the number of respondents who said Yes to "have you ever been decapitated?" in a much cited American survey.
    Justin reminds me of one those Televangelists that rail against homosexuality but then gets caught well you know...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    edited January 2020
    justin124 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
    It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.
    Why ?
    Seems a most unChristian attitude,
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,186
    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote

    That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

    That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,119
    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,119
    edited January 2020
    IshmaelZ said:

    justin124 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
    It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.
    Why the fascination with what other adults consensually do with their and each others' genitals?

    I note btw that 4% was the number of respondents who said Yes to "have you ever been decapitated?" in a much cited American survey.
    Although you must admit, it’s more fun talking about fucking extramaritally than fucking Brexit.
  • SablonSablon Posts: 2
    I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Nigelb said:

    justin124 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
    It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.
    Why ?
    Seems a most unChristian attitude,
    Because by their conduct they have rejected the Church teachings on the subject.There would be the possibility of repentance - but how often does that happen in a formal setting?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Nigelb said:

    speedy2 said:

    Out of topic.

    I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

    https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184

    Apparently it’s so bad few have made it to the end.
    Hell of a comedown for Robert Downey Jr after Endgame.
    It’s not as though he hasn’t had his ups and down before.

    This was probably the best review: “ transfixing at times, if only because it’s such a disaster...”
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,793
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote

    That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

    That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)
    Maybe later on but Sanders could have built up enough momentum to win by then.

    Sanders is over 10% ahead in New Hampshire in a new poll today

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220365392994062337?s=20
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,119
    edited January 2020
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

    Other things that were mainstream:
    Global cooling
    Communism
    The Beatles
    The hippie movement
    Black and white TV
    The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

    Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.
    Indeed - but the point is that such views are hardly Victorian - as some come close to implying. By 1970 we had been through the 'swinging 60s', the Wilson Government and reforms from Roy Jenkins , Women's Lib, the contraceptive pill et al. To a large extent , the sexual revolution had already taken place.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,119
    More pressure on the government to go ahead with HS2:

    https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/hs2-what-lost-boris-johnson-17616741
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,186
    edited January 2020
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote

    That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

    That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)
    Maybe later on but Sanders could have built up enough momentum to win by then.

    Sanders is over 10% ahead in New Hampshire in a new poll today

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220365392994062337?s=20
    That's an excellent poll for him, although it's worth remembering that just two days ago Suffolk (an A-rated pollster) had him on just 16% in New Hampshire.

    I struggle with the volatility of some of these polls. So, in the last ten days, we've had Biden on 26% in first place in New Hampshire, with Buttigieg in fourth on just 7%. And we've had Buttigieg in second on 17%, with Biden on just 14%. Sanders range hasn't been much less 29% to 16%.

    I don't believe that underlying support swings around that much, so someone's likely to end up with egg on their face.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

    Other things that were mainstream:
    Global cooling
    Communism
    The Beatles
    The hippie movement
    Black and white TV
    The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

    Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
    Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

    Society has, thankfully, moved on.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,186
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote

    That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

    That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)
    Maybe later on but Sanders could have built up enough momentum to win by then.

    Sanders is over 10% ahead in New Hampshire in a new poll today

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220365392994062337?s=20
    Re momentum.

    I think it's worth remembering that the last insurgent left wing candidate was Obama.

    And while he was insurgent and left wing, he was all establishment enough to get the opening speech at the Democratic National Convention and to headline John Kerry's Presidential nomination. In other words, he might have been insurgent relative to Ms H Clinton, but he was still very much an establishment Democrat.

    If Sanders does win Iowa and New Hampshire, it's equally likely it forces a rapid consolidation of the establishment candidates: probably to just Biden, but maybe to Klobuchar or Buttigieg or Bloomberg.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,118
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

    Other things that were mainstream:
    Global cooling
    Communism
    The Beatles
    The hippie movement
    Black and white TV
    The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

    Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
    Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

    Society has, thankfully, moved on.
    Glad that global cooling/warming is considered a social issue, rather than a scientific one. ;)
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    edited January 2020
    justin124 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
    It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.
    How would you have any idea if you were sexually compatible were you unable to have sex before marriage?

    Did you extend these restrictions to gay people prior to gay marriage being legal? You would have rendered them involuntarily celibate!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,186
    Sablon said:

    I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.

    Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.

    He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.

    The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

    This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

    And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

    I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

    Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

    To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

    But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)

    A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

    As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
    I would like ot confirm I am not Topping's friend.

    However my Girl Liz is gonna take this.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    kicorse said:

    Anabobazina said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
    In fairness, you don't have any moral high ground here:
    Anabobazina said:

    kinabalu said:


    I think it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage.

    Just in case.

    Correct. The theistic pressure to avoid sex before marriage has undoubtably ruined several marriages. More evidence that religion wrecks human lives!
    I'm fine with people having consensual sex whenever they want, and I'm fine with people getting married whenever they want. Other people are welcome to reach different conclusions, but when someone on one extreme ridicules someone on the other extreme, I'm inclined to call out the hypocrisy!
    ? I’m on the extreme on this issue, how exactly?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    tlg86 said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

    Other things that were mainstream:
    Global cooling
    Communism
    The Beatles
    The hippie movement
    Black and white TV
    The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

    Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
    Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

    Society has, thankfully, moved on.
    Glad that global cooling/warming is considered a social issue, rather than a scientific one. ;)
    A societal issue.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote

    That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

    That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)
    Maybe later on but Sanders could have built up enough momentum to win by then.

    Sanders is over 10% ahead in New Hampshire in a new poll today

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220365392994062337?s=20
    Re momentum.

    I think it's worth remembering that the last insurgent left wing candidate was Obama.

    And while he was insurgent and left wing, he was all establishment enough to get the opening speech at the Democratic National Convention and to headline John Kerry's Presidential nomination. In other words, he might have been insurgent relative to Ms H Clinton, but he was still very much an establishment Democrat.

    If Sanders does win Iowa and New Hampshire, it's equally likely it forces a rapid consolidation of the establishment candidates: probably to just Biden, but maybe to Klobuchar or Buttigieg or Bloomberg.
    Of course - and depends on who comes second/third, and how close they are.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote

    That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

    That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)
    Maybe later on but Sanders could have built up enough momentum to win by then.

    Sanders is over 10% ahead in New Hampshire in a new poll today

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220365392994062337?s=20
    That's an excellent poll for him, although it's worth remembering that just two days ago Suffolk (an A-rated pollster) had him on just 16% in New Hampshire.

    I struggle with the volatility of some of these polls. So, in the last ten days, we've had Biden on 26% in first place in New Hampshire, with Buttigieg in fourth on just 7%. And we've had Buttigieg in second on 17%, with Biden on just 14%. Sanders range hasn't been much less 29% to 16%.

    I don't believe that underlying support swings around that much, so someone's likely to end up with egg on their face.
    Primary polling is simply vastly more volatile than Presidential polling.

    In 2016 the Iowa Republican polls within 10 days of the caucus gave ranges

    Trump 20-39 (Actual 24.3)
    Cruz 19-34 (Actual 27.6)
    Rubio 11-22 (Actual 23.1)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.
    Indeed - but the point is that such views are hardly Victorian - as some come close to implying. By 1970 we had been through the 'swinging 60s', the Wilson Government and reforms from Roy Jenkins , Women's Lib, the contraceptive pill et al. To a large extent , the sexual revolution had already taken place.
    Not if you talked to my parents back then, it hadn’t.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,186
    Alistair said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

    This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

    And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

    I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

    Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

    To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

    But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)

    A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

    As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
    I would like ot confirm I am not Topping's friend.

    However my Girl Liz is gonna take this.
    So long as none of Clinton, Yang and Bloomberg grab the nomination, I'm a happy man.

    Warren is in a statistical tie with Biden, Buttigieg and Sanders in Iowa. She has an excellent campaign infrastructure there.

    It is far from impossible that she wins it. And even if she doesn't win, she may leapfrog Sanders and become the first choice of the left of the party.

    My view - and it's a minority one - is that Warren would find it easier to win the nomination than Sanders. Firstly, all Sanders votes go to her if he's knocked out, which is not the case the other way around. Secondly, I think a substantial minority of Klobuchar and even Buttigieg voters prefer her to Biden or Sanders. I therefore think that she might well benefit from a narrowing of the field

    But, and it's a big but, she has to perform in Iowa. If she's fourth, then it's pretty much all over for her.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,793
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote

    That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

    That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)
    Maybe later on but Sanders could have built up enough momentum to win by then.

    Sanders is over 10% ahead in New Hampshire in a new poll today

    https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220365392994062337?s=20
    Re momentum.

    I think it's worth remembering that the last insurgent left wing candidate was Obama.

    And while he was insurgent and left wing, he was all establishment enough to get the opening speech at the Democratic National Convention and to headline John Kerry's Presidential nomination. In other words, he might have been insurgent relative to Ms H Clinton, but he was still very much an establishment Democrat.

    If Sanders does win Iowa and New Hampshire, it's equally likely it forces a rapid consolidation of the establishment candidates: probably to just Biden, but maybe to Klobuchar or Buttigieg or Bloomberg.
    Most likely it rapidly narrows to Biden and Sanders by Super Tuesday
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,793
    rcs1000 said:

    Sablon said:

    I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.

    Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.

    He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.

    The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.
    I think Biden still tends to do best v Trump in most polls but Bloomberg is not far behind
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,808
    edited January 2020
    As we are talking about extra-marital sex, here is a minor but I think revealing anecdote about changing mores.

    In about '99, I went to see my great aunt a few years before she died. She told me that, back in the early 70s, she had been shocked when my then-courting father and mother had asked to borrow her flat while she was on holiday. Of course as a child of a more recent vintage, I was shocked that she had been shocked.

    Nowadays, of course, it's surprising if young couples DON'T take advantage of empty properties owned by relatives to have some privacy. House prices have soared and pointless moral shackles have fallen away.

    Anyway, my great aunt can't have been too revolted as she lent them the flat in the end.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,118
    Anyone else triple captain Mane? :angry:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    justin124 said:

    Nigelb said:

    justin124 said:

    Anabobazina said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
    It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.
    Why ?
    Seems a most unChristian attitude,
    Because by their conduct they have rejected the Church teachings on the subject.There would be the possibility of repentance - but how often does that happen in a formal setting?
    I said unChristian, not un-churchlike.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,237
    Alistair said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

    This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

    And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

    I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

    Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

    To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

    But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)

    A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

    As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
    I would like ot confirm I am not Topping's friend.

    However my Girl Liz is gonna take this.
    But....I thought you were my friend...

    *sob*
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,638
    edited January 2020
    speedy2 said:

    Out of topic.

    I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

    https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184

    I don't see the problem. Iron Man plays a Victorian gentleman with a Welsh[1] accent who fists a dragon to get the bagpipes out of the dragon's arse. The dragon has the voice of Miss Jones from Rising Damp. What's wrong with that? An entirely unexceptional plot if you ask mOMIGOD DOMNEY FISTED A DRAGON! WHAT IN THE NAME OF THANOS WAS HE ON THIS WEEK? BLACK BEETLE ICHOR???

    [1] Yes, really. Really. Pause. Really. (sobs briefly)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    TOPPING said:

    Alistair said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

    This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

    And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

    I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

    Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

    To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

    But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)

    A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

    As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
    I would like ot confirm I am not Topping's friend.

    However my Girl Liz is gonna take this.
    But....I thought you were my friend...

    *sob*
    I think he mean he’s not your particular friend...

    Otherwise, we are all friends of Topping. Except Byronic ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,306
    viewcode said:

    speedy2 said:

    Out of topic.

    I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

    https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184

    I don't see the problem. Iron Man plays a Victorian gentleman with a Welsh[1] accent who fists a dragon to get the bagpipes out of the dragon's arse. The dragon has the voice of Miss Jones from Rising Damp. What's wrong with that? An entirely unexceptional plot if you ask mOMIGOD DOMNEY FISTED A DRAGON! WHAT IN THE NAME OF THANOS WAS HE ON THIS WEEK? BLACK BEETLE ICHOR???

    [1] Yes, really. Really. Pause. Really. (sobs briefly)
    Well you've sold me on the movie.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    kle4 said:

    viewcode said:

    speedy2 said:

    Out of topic.

    I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

    https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184

    I don't see the problem. Iron Man plays a Victorian gentleman with a Welsh[1] accent who fists a dragon to get the bagpipes out of the dragon's arse. The dragon has the voice of Miss Jones from Rising Damp. What's wrong with that? An entirely unexceptional plot if you ask mOMIGOD DOMNEY FISTED A DRAGON! WHAT IN THE NAME OF THANOS WAS HE ON THIS WEEK? BLACK BEETLE ICHOR???

    [1] Yes, really. Really. Pause. Really. (sobs briefly)
    Well you've sold me on the movie.
    I think it’s what you have to go through to get there, though....
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,556
    edited January 2020
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    3% of women think it is acceptable to have sex on a first date, 9% of men at the other extreme
    60 odd years ago the figure for women was much lower . Sadly!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,237
    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Alistair said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

    This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

    And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

    I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

    Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

    To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

    But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)

    A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

    As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
    I would like ot confirm I am not Topping's friend.

    However my Girl Liz is gonna take this.
    But....I thought you were my friend...

    *sob*
    I think he mean he’s not your particular friend...

    Otherwise, we are all friends of Topping. Except Byronic ?
    Is that like being a friend of Dorothy?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 32,455
    Fishing said:

    As we are talking about extra-marital sex, here is a minor but I think revealing anecdote about changing mores.

    In about '99, I went to see my great aunt a few years before she died. She told me that, back in the early 70s, she had been shocked when my then-courting father and mother had asked to borrow her flat while she was on holiday. Of course as a child of a more recent vintage, I was shocked that she had been shocked.

    Nowadays, of course, it's surprising if young couples DON'T take advantage of empty properties owned by relatives to have some privacy. House prices have soared and pointless moral shackles have fallen away.

    Anyway, my great aunt can't have been too revolted as she lent them the flat in the end.

    Extra-marital sex, generational differences and politics. For many older people it was true that President Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman. Sex could lead to pregnancy. What Bill and Monica did with the cigar was heavy petting, not sex.
  • AndreaParma_82AndreaParma_82 Posts: 4,714
    edited January 2020
    Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

    Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
    Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
    Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
    Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
    Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
    Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
    Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
    Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
    Enfield Southgate: Starmer
    Ilford North: Starmer
    Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    3% of women think it is acceptable to have sex on a first date, 9% of men at the other extreme
    Does “at the other extreme” mean ‘not acceptable not to have sex on a first date’ ?
    It otherwise seems a redundant phrase.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    TOPPING said:

    Alistair said:

    TOPPING said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

    This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

    And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

    I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

    Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

    To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

    But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)

    A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

    As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
    I would like ot confirm I am not Topping's friend.

    However my Girl Liz is gonna take this.
    But....I thought you were my friend...

    *sob*
    I think he mean he’s not your particular friend...

    Otherwise, we are all friends of Topping. Except Byronic ?
    Is that like being a friend of Dorothy?
    Given the average PB poster, it seems unlikely.
    Analogous, perhaps ?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,325
    I was surprised how many limericks were about the sex lives of vicars, vicar's daughters, choirboys, bishops and camels.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,215
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

    Other things that were mainstream:
    Global cooling
    Communism
    The Beatles
    The hippie movement
    Black and white TV
    The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

    Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
    Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

    Society has, thankfully, moved on.
    I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,119
    DecrepiterJohnL said:

    Fishing said:

    As we are talking about extra-marital sex, here is a minor but I think revealing anecdote about changing mores.

    In about '99, I went to see my great aunt a few years before she died. She told me that, back in the early 70s, she had been shocked when my then-courting father and mother had asked to borrow her flat while she was on holiday. Of course as a child of a more recent vintage, I was shocked that she had been shocked.

    Nowadays, of course, it's surprising if young couples DON'T take advantage of empty properties owned by relatives to have some privacy. House prices have soared and pointless moral shackles have fallen away.

    Anyway, my great aunt can't have been too revolted as she lent them the flat in the end.

    Extra-marital sex, generational differences and politics. For many older people it was true that President Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman. Sex could lead to pregnancy. What Bill and Monica did with the cigar was heavy petting, not sex.
    They were just Havana good time.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,119
    edited January 2020
    AndreaParma_82 said:

    Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

    Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
    Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
    Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
    Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
    Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
    Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
    Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
    Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
    Enfield Southgate: Starmer
    Ilford North: Starmer
    Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner

    The Deputy Leader race is starting to look less and less like a race.
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,123
    ydoethur said:

    AndreaParma_82 said:

    Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

    Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
    Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
    Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
    Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
    Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
    Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
    Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
    Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
    Enfield Southgate: Starmer
    Ilford North: Starmer
    Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner

    The Deputy Leader race is starting to look less and less like a race.
    Come on Nandy

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,215
    rcs1000 said:

    Sablon said:

    I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.

    Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.

    He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.

    The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.
    And that is why he would win. He would get a disproportionate number of the Independents, peel off republicans and the Dems just want rid of Trump. Not even close.

    But the Dems want to indulge themselves. Just as Labour did.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

    Other things that were mainstream:
    Global cooling
    Communism
    The Beatles
    The hippie movement
    Black and white TV
    The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

    Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
    Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

    Society has, thankfully, moved on.
    I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
    Yes, I can remember thinking what is now so much more succinctly expressed as WTF when I first saw it.
    A great deal of 70s TV was just ... embarrassingly awful (even without the benefit of hindsight).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,215
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

    Other things that were mainstream:
    Global cooling
    Communism
    The Beatles
    The hippie movement
    Black and white TV
    The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

    Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
    Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

    Society has, thankfully, moved on.
    I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
    Yes, I can remember thinking what is now so much more succinctly expressed as WTF when I first saw it.
    A great deal of 70s TV was just ... embarrassingly awful (even without the benefit of hindsight).
    I wasn't allowed to watch Till Death us do part. I don't regret this. For all the brilliance of Leonard Rossiter some parts of Rising Damp were just painful, even at the time. A different country indeed.
  • AramintaMoonbeamQCAramintaMoonbeamQC Posts: 3,905
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

    Other things that were mainstream:
    Global cooling
    Communism
    The Beatles
    The hippie movement
    Black and white TV
    The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

    Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
    Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

    Society has, thankfully, moved on.
    I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
    Are you watching 'Ed Balls in Euroland'? He is covering the Dutch tradition of blacking up as a character called Black Peter.

    It is a bit awkward, to say the least.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,793
    AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

    Other things that were mainstream:
    Global cooling
    Communism
    The Beatles
    The hippie movement
    Black and white TV
    The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

    Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
    Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

    Society has, thankfully, moved on.
    I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
    Are you watching 'Ed Balls in Euroland'? He is covering the Dutch tradition of blacking up as a character called Black Peter.

    It is a bit awkward, to say the least.
    Yes, watching it now, eerily fascinating
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Nigelb said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.
    Indeed - but the point is that such views are hardly Victorian - as some come close to implying. By 1970 we had been through the 'swinging 60s', the Wilson Government and reforms from Roy Jenkins , Women's Lib, the contraceptive pill et al. To a large extent , the sexual revolution had already taken place.
    Not if you talked to my parents back then, it hadn’t.
    In what way would they have suggested it had not happened? Were they older people who disapproved of changing moral standards?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,215
    AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

    Other things that were mainstream:
    Global cooling
    Communism
    The Beatles
    The hippie movement
    Black and white TV
    The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

    Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
    Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

    Society has, thankfully, moved on.
    I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
    Are you watching 'Ed Balls in Euroland'? He is covering the Dutch tradition of blacking up as a character called Black Peter.

    It is a bit awkward, to say the least.
    No, not seen that. I like Ed Balls. I will have a look.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,793
    edited January 2020
    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    3% of women think it is acceptable to have sex on a first date, 9% of men at the other extreme
    60 odd years ago the figure for women was much lower . Sadly!
    You can't get much lower than 3%, showing that while women are more open to pre marital sex than 50 years ago, they are still not going to do it straight away with every man they meet
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,793
    DavidL said:

    AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

    Other things that were mainstream:
    Global cooling
    Communism
    The Beatles
    The hippie movement
    Black and white TV
    The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

    Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
    Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

    Society has, thankfully, moved on.
    I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
    Are you watching 'Ed Balls in Euroland'? He is covering the Dutch tradition of blacking up as a character called Black Peter.

    It is a bit awkward, to say the least.
    No, not seen that. I like Ed Balls. I will have a look.
    It is on BBC2
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,630
    AndreaParma_82 said:

    Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

    Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
    Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
    Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
    Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
    Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
    Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
    Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
    Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
    Enfield Southgate: Starmer
    Ilford North: Starmer
    Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner

    Is there a site which shows what nominations each candidate has got - ideally versus the threshold to be in the members' ballot?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sablon said:

    I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.

    Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.

    He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.

    The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.
    And that is why he would win. He would get a disproportionate number of the Independents, peel off republicans and the Dems just want rid of Trump. Not even close.

    But the Dems want to indulge themselves. Just as Labour did.
    Bloomberg is not a Democrat, though. Even less so than Sanders.

    So it’s really Mike who’s indulging himself, even more so than Sanders.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,325
    Ed Bulls.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,630
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sablon said:

    I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.

    Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.

    He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.

    The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.
    And that is why he would win. He would get a disproportionate number of the Independents, peel off republicans and the Dems just want rid of Trump. Not even close.

    But the Dems want to indulge themselves. Just as Labour did.
    You're suggesting that the Dems should pick a multi-billionaire Republican as their candidate in order to guarantee defeating Trump?

    Seems a bit self-defeating to me.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,532
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Sablon said:

    I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.

    Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.

    He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.

    The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.
    And that is why he would win. He would get a disproportionate number of the Independents, peel off republicans and the Dems just want rid of Trump. Not even close.

    But the Dems want to indulge themselves. Just as Labour did.
    Bloomberg is not a Democrat, though. Even less so than Sanders.

    So it’s really Mike who’s indulging himself, even more so than Sanders.
    I believe Bloomberg has also massively invested in a social media team.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    HYUFD said:

    OldKingCole said:

    HYUFD said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    3% of women think it is acceptable to have sex on a first date, 9% of men at the other extreme
    60 odd years ago the figure for women was much lower . Sadly!
    You can't get much lower than 3%, showing that while women are more open to pre marital sex than 50 years ago, they are still not going to do it straight away with every man they meet
    Classic HYUFD to need a poll to recognise that !
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,961
    edited January 2020
    DavidL said:

    I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.

    Nice one. Ahead of your time. Bet you got lots of "superwoke prick" insults too.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    justin124 said:

    Nigelb said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.
    Indeed - but the point is that such views are hardly Victorian - as some come close to implying. By 1970 we had been through the 'swinging 60s', the Wilson Government and reforms from Roy Jenkins , Women's Lib, the contraceptive pill et al. To a large extent , the sexual revolution had already taken place.
    Not if you talked to my parents back then, it hadn’t.
    In what way would they have suggested it had not happened? Were they older people who disapproved of changing moral standards?
    One’s parents generally are older people...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,532
    Benpointer said:

    AndreaParma_82 said:

    Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

    Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
    Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
    Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
    Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
    Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
    Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
    Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
    Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
    Enfield Southgate: Starmer
    Ilford North: Starmer
    Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner

    Is there a site which shows what nominations each candidate has got - ideally versus the threshold to be in the members' ballot?
    RBL nothing?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,532
    rottenborough said:

    Benpointer said:

    AndreaParma_82 said:

    Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

    Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
    Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
    Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
    Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
    Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
    Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
    Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
    Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
    Enfield Southgate: Starmer
    Ilford North: Starmer
    Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner

    Is there a site which shows what nominations each candidate has got - ideally versus the threshold to be in the members' ballot?
    RBL nothing?
    https://twitter.com/CLPNominations/status/1220459219943657473
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,532
    ydoethur said:

    AndreaParma_82 said:

    Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

    Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
    Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
    Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
    Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
    Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
    Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
    Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
    Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
    Enfield Southgate: Starmer
    Ilford North: Starmer
    Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner

    The Deputy Leader race is starting to look less and less like a race.
    As I posted a week or two ago, she will win a landslide.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    Nigelb said:

    justin124 said:

    Nigelb said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.
    Indeed - but the point is that such views are hardly Victorian - as some come close to implying. By 1970 we had been through the 'swinging 60s', the Wilson Government and reforms from Roy Jenkins , Women's Lib, the contraceptive pill et al. To a large extent , the sexual revolution had already taken place.
    Not if you talked to my parents back then, it hadn’t.
    In what way would they have suggested it had not happened? Were they older people who disapproved of changing moral standards?
    One’s parents generally are older people...
    Is that so? It may have made a difference were they 55 rather than 40ish.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,721
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    justin124 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    justin124 said:

    'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

    I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

    I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
    While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
    Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
    Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

    Other things that were mainstream:
    Global cooling
    Communism
    The Beatles
    The hippie movement
    Black and white TV
    The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

    Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
    Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

    Society has, thankfully, moved on.
    I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
    You should have held out for Benny Hill.....
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,532
    Is Rayner lying in the bath tonight wondering whether she should have run for the Big One?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 80,611
    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.

    Nice one. Ahead of your time. Bet you got lots "superwoke prick" insults too.
    LOL. It was really not like that, though.

    ‘Racist’ and ‘misogynist’ weren’t even in the vocabulary of children in the 60s/early70s - it was more thinking things inexplicable/embarrassing/wrong.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,793
    rottenborough said:

    Is Rayner lying in the bath tonight wondering whether she should have run for the Big One?

    No, she is ideally suited to do the Prescott role to Starmer's attempt to do Blair
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025