If those figures are close Trumps done, that on day split looks wrong to me though. I'd have expected Trump higher
If early votes are going 61:36 in Biden's favour, and indies are favouring Biden 48:39, and we're already up to 70.9% of the 2016 turnout, and some early votes haven't been received/processed, it's hard to see where Trump gets enough tomorrow to make up the deficit.
Ryanair still operating flights in November even though passengers are not allowed to travel. Just so that they don't have to refund their tickets.
Not that I have much sympathy for anyone who has booked a flight in the past 6 months, mind.
Why not?
Putting aside the recklessness of international travel, people knew that the travel rules could change at the drop of a hat. So they can't really complain when exactly that happens.
Lots of people have very good reasons to travel. I haven’t done so myself because I’m not in that position.
You strike me as having absolutely no empathy with those who aren’t in your privileged position of being able to cocoon themselves inside for months on end while lecturing others on their “selfishness”.
I have no empathy for those who think they have a God-given right to spend a fortnight in Benidorm, Covid or no Covid.
Now, he has called Nevada for Biden at 49-45 with 6% DK / Others. Not sure I agree with him on the 6% DKs but, if he is right, that's a swing of <1% to Biden from 2016.
So, first of all, at least there (and we can argue if NV is typical), it's not much of a swing.
The more interesting part may be in what the Rurals are doing.
When Ralston started his blog, his view was that the Democrats would want to have a firewall in the high-80000s in Clark to feel confident about victory. His rationale now was that lead would mean something like a 54K statewide going into Election Day.
The Dems have that 89K firewall from Clark but it has only translated into a 47K state firewall. Why? Because the rural areas have come out a lot more strongly for Trump than anticipated. Trump's advantage in 2016 in rural areas was 58K. Ralston thinks it could get to 80K and possibly more.
Is it enough to win NV? Probably not (but depends on independents) but what it might suggest is that poorer whites are coming out in greater numbers than anticipated. And there is nothing particularly special about NV that suggests its more rural elements are unique. That might be relevant for other states.
The other question is whether this is being picked up in the polls. If the polling is based off 2016 turnout, the answer is probably not which raises the question (again) of whether white non-college voters are being undercounted. Which would throw the polling into doubt.</p>
We French share the shock and sorrow of the Austrian people struck this evening by an attack in the heart of their capital, Vienna. After France, it is a friendly country that is attacked. This is our Europe. Our enemies must know who they are dealing with. We will not give up.
That last phrase means “We will not give up anything”. He’s referring to his earlier speech about not giving up Western freedoms.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
Of course don't do it, even if just out of politeness. Everyone should have respect for people's sensibilities.
But that misses the point completely. The point is that the freedom of a free society includes the freedom not to be polite or respectful.
Yet we know in the developing world they will take a different view, especially when many of them are deeply religious and that includes some of the migrant population within France
Yes - not everyone in the world believes in a free society.
Well either Trump is going to get pounded like a dockside hooker tomorrow or the polling industry needs to close down.
Apart from Trafalgar, you mean?
Well, mr bowtie will be made for life...
To be fair there are a couple of other pollsters who are favouring a Trump win, Rasmussen and one or two others I've never heard of, but for sure if the improbably happens then Cahaly;s face will be all over US media for weeks. Also as I recall, Robert chatted to him a week or two back? Perhaps we can ask him to do another win or lose?
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
You can however, have de facto blasphemy laws, like the one that the Scottish government is about to implement. You establish the right not to be offended, so as to clamp down on those who are deemed to have given offence.
Sadly, a belief in the right not to be offended is something that's really crept in on both the right and the left.
Can you believe that some people actually think there should be government restrictions on what headdresses people are allowed to wear?
Not really but you know perfectly well that the niqab is used as a tool of female repression. That does make it a very difficult issue.
And are you are that there are women who choose to wear the niqab or other such covering? It may be used by men to oppress some women, but a woman wearing it is not necessarily an oppressed person.
It is like the syllogolistic argument:
- Socrates is a man - Socrates is dead - Therefore all men are dead....
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
"Free speech is the bedrock on which all our other freedoms rest, yet it is currently in greater peril than at any time since the Second World War."
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
Ryanair still operating flights in November even though passengers are not allowed to travel. Just so that they don't have to refund their tickets.
Not that I have much sympathy for anyone who has booked a flight in the past 6 months, mind.
Why not?
Putting aside the recklessness of international travel, people knew that the travel rules could change at the drop of a hat. So they can't really complain when exactly that happens.
Lots of people have very good reasons to travel. I haven’t done so myself because I’m not in that position.
You strike me as having absolutely no empathy with those who aren’t in your privileged position of being able to cocoon themselves inside for months on end while lecturing others on their “selfishness”.
I have no empathy for those who think they have a God-given right to spend a fortnight in Benidorm, Covid or no Covid.
It's not just holidays though. Many of my colleagues have family in other countries, and often elderly parents to visit, or even spouses and children. A flying ban is a major reduction in their way of life.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
Look at the Scottish Hate Crime Bill which is a blasphemy law in all but name.
Look at the theatres and writers and artists who have been threatened for daring to criticise particular religions or who have decided not to touch on “sensitive” subjects because of the threat of violence. Self-censorship because of fear is an existential threat to what makes Western freedom and civilisation worthwhile. It is not the number of deaths which count, awful as they are. It is what fear of this makes us do and the rationalisations we use to justify this which will slowly kill our civilisation.
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
You can however, have de facto blasphemy laws, like the one that the Scottish government is about to implement. You establish the right not to be offended, so as to clamp down on those who are deemed to have given offence.
Sadly, a belief in the right not to be offended is something that's really crept in on both the right and the left.
Can you believe that some people actually think there should be government restrictions on what headdresses people are allowed to wear?
Not really but you know perfectly well that the niqab is used as a tool of female repression. That does make it a very difficult issue.
And are you are that there are women who choose to wear the niqab or other such covering? It may be used by men to oppress some women, but a woman wearing it is not necessarily an oppressed person.
It is like the syllogolistic argument:
- Socrates is a man - Socrates is dead - Therefore all men are dead....
Fallacy of the undistributed middle. Lot of it about this evening.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
"Free speech is the bedrock on which all our other freedoms rest, yet it is currently in greater peril than at any time since the Second World War."
Perhaps I’ve missed it. But the British government has been very quiet on this. Has it come out in support for and solidarity with the French government?
They know precisely who they are dealing with, that's why it's happening.
And yet deaths from terrorism in Europe are still at a fraction of the level of the 1970s.
The idea that there is any existential threat from Islamic terrorism is as absurd as thinking that the German people had anything to fear from the Jews.
The existential threat is to our freedom, not our countries. Freedom of speech. Freedom to joke about religion. Freedom to blaspheme. Freedom to criticize faith. Freedom to enjoy the hard won victories of the Enlightenment
A few nutters with AKs can kill a few dozen people. At best a few trained pilots in planes can bring down a few towers.
That will not destroy the west. No, they destroy the west by destroying western liberty. And that is very do-able
Yet we have in fact seen blasphemy laws abolished or weakened in Ireland, the UK and Spain in the last decade.
So they seem to be achieving the exact opposite of their aims.
Look at the Scottish Hate Crime Bill which is a blasphemy law in all but name.
Look at the theatres and writers and artists who have been threatened for daring to criticise particular religions or who have decided not to touch on “sensitive” subjects because of the threat of violence. Self-censorship because of fear is an existential threat to what makes Western freedom and civilisation worthwhile. It is not the number of deaths which count, awful as they are. It is what fear of this makes us do and the rationalisations we use to justify this which will slowly kill our civilisation.
The problem is that he does not stick to an idea. His signature on any topic is incoherence. He is pro-individual liberty and pro-public health. He likes low taxes and a big state. He wants to boost business, while refusing to listen to it. He does not want a culture war, but he doesn’t stop his government from fighting one. He wants to be the hero and expects everyone else to do the work.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
The problem is that he does not stick to an idea. His signature on any topic is incoherence. He is pro-individual liberty and pro-public health. He likes low taxes and a big state. He wants to boost business, while refusing to listen to it. He does not want a culture war, but he doesn’t stop his government from fighting one. He wants to be the hero and expects everyone else to do the work.
Now, he has called Nevada for Biden at 49-45 with 6% DK / Others. Not sure I agree with him on the 6% DKs but, if he is right, that's a swing of <1% to Biden from 2016.
So, first of all, at least there (and we can argue if NV is typical), it's not much of a swing.
The more interesting part may be in what the Rurals are doing.
When Ralston started his blog, his view was that the Democrats would want to have a firewall in the high-80000s in Clark to feel confident about victory. His rationale now was that lead would mean something like a 54K statewide going into Election Day.
The Dems have that 89K firewall from Clark but it has only translated into a 47K state firewall. Why? Because the rural areas have come out a lot more strongly for Trump than anticipated. Trump's advantage in 2016 in rural areas was 58K. Ralston thinks it could get to 80K and possibly more.
Is it enough to win NV? Probably not (but depends on independents) but what it might suggest is that poorer whites are coming out in greater numbers than anticipated. And there is nothing particularly special about NV that suggests its more rural elements are unique. That might be relevant for other states.
The other question is whether this is being picked up in the polls. If the polling is based off 2016 turnout, the answer is probably not which raises the question (again) of whether white non-college voters are being undercounted. Which would throw the polling into doubt.</p>
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
"Not being a sensible idea" is not the same as "not legal"
I do wonder how on earth the american comedic media will respond if Trump does win. As much as I dislike Trump, it was almost embarrassing how some of them reacted in their shock last time, and of course some have been obsessively hating Trump for 4 years, and if he were to still succeed?
A lot of it has become really unfunny. John Oliver's show is literally Orange Man Bad for 75% of it these days.
But the Orange Man is Bad.
He is, but its like telling the same joke over and over again. We know the punchline already, and it so it isn't funny.
It's like BBC "comedy" shows over here on Brexit and the Daily Mail.
Ah now. John Oliver, who used be brilliant with Andy Zaltzmann in the Department, has long stopped even trying to be funny. BBC shows aren't comparable. I'll concede that, say, the News Quiz contains plenty of lazy Brexit jokes, but it also recognizes a responsibility to be creative and to pick a variety of targets (including on the left). Whether it's funny or not, that's a matter of taste.
Now, he has called Nevada for Biden at 49-45 with 6% DK / Others. Not sure I agree with him on the 6% DKs but, if he is right, that's a swing of <1% to Biden from 2016.
So, first of all, at least there (and we can argue if NV is typical), it's not much of a swing.
The more interesting part may be in what the Rurals are doing.
When Ralston started his blog, his view was that the Democrats would want to have a firewall in the high-80000s in Clark to feel confident about victory. His rationale now was that lead would mean something like a 54K statewide going into Election Day.
The Dems have that 89K firewall from Clark but it has only translated into a 47K state firewall. Why? Because the rural areas have come out a lot more strongly for Trump than anticipated. Trump's advantage in 2016 in rural areas was 58K. Ralston thinks it could get to 80K and possibly more.
Is it enough to win NV? Probably not (but depends on independents) but what it might suggest is that poorer whites are coming out in greater numbers than anticipated. And there is nothing particularly special about NV that suggests its more rural elements are unique. That might be relevant for other states.
The other question is whether this is being picked up in the polls. If the polling is based off 2016 turnout, the answer is probably not which raises the question (again) of whether white non-college voters are being undercounted. Which would throw the polling into doubt.</p>
Not being funny but are really trying to tell us that from wherever it is you are in the UK you have a better insight into how Nevada is going than Jon Ralston?
I suggest that the salient point to focus on is that based on early voting patterns, Ralston is calling Nevada for Biden by an estimated margin of 4%, compared to Clinton's 2.4% margin in 2016. That's a 0.9% tighter margin than 538's average of a 4.9% Biden lead based on Nevada opinion polls.
Biden will be content with a result of that sort if replicated in other states - Trump needs the polls to be out by a lot more than that in his favour to avoid losing the key states to Biden.
“The Muslim world has not spoken up for them, a striking contrast to how it behaves when some perceived offence against Muslim sensibilities occurs in Western countries. Indeed, when the UN raised the issue, some leading Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt) spoke up for China. Where is the Muslim ummah when you need it most?
Perhaps there is some truth in the “terrorism” charge the Chinese level at the Uighur, though no evidence of this has been provided. More likely, the Chinese have cynically used fear of Islamic terrorism as a justification, knowing that this fear is shared (not without some reason) by many countries and that this may inhibit condemnation, let alone action.
Chinese markets, money, business and trade matter to the West, far more than the fate of a people whose name is hard to spell. Unlike the Soviet Union, which had few economic goodies to offer the West, China’s economy matters.”
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
Indeed. @Casino_Royale was saying much the same about the mockery of Magma Carter guy, in the last thread.
But there’s a distinction between a reluctance to be offensive, and accepting the curtailing of freedom of speech.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
Indeed. @Casino_Royale was saying much the same about the mockery of Magma Carter guy, in the last thread.
But there’s a distinction between a reluctance to be offensive, and accepting the curtailing of freedom of speech.
People are getting themselves in a real lava about it.
First and only prediction. The polling is all over the place and the EV data isn't that helpful because we don't know to what extent Ds are voting earlier than Rs.
I think Trump does better in the fracking stares and holds TX, PA, along with FL (Cubans), and NC, OH, IA.
Biden, then, makes gains in the rust belt and the sun belt, winning MI, WI, MN, NV, AZ and crucially ME2, so it's a tie.
Trump stays in the White House in this situation, because each state gets to vote once more only and more smaller states have gone red.
Riots and SCOTUS warfare ensues and we all recognise that my prediction (66/1 at coral, not a tip) was so good because it was in hindsight so obvious. What other possible ending could 2020 have for us?
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Gay marriage is offensive to a lot of traditional Christians, but we don't use that as a reason to stop it happening.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
Of course don't do it, even if just out of politeness. Everyone should have respect for people's sensibilities.
But that misses the point completely. The point is that the freedom of a free society includes the freedom not to be polite or respectful.
Politeness and respect demanded under threat of violence is worthless. Politeness is something which is freely given. Not demanded. Respect is earned. Not demanded as of right.
If somebody expects me to be polite because otherwise they will kill or attack me then I will, on principle, refuse to be polite. Just as I would refuse to be polite to anyone threatening me. You cannot behave like an impolite oaf yourself but expect politeness or respect in return. And that is what these Islamists and demonstrators are: impolite oafs - to put it at its mildest.
If those early vote/on the day vote split is true *in Texas*, then Trump cannot win the state.
Trump would need a turnout of roughly 13.5m on the day, for a total turnout of 23.2m in order to take the lead. There's only 16.9m registered voters in Texas.
Not sure how you get to that, Gallowgate. If the Dems have a lead of 10% over 10m votes, that's a lead of 1m. If 6m turn out on the day (unlikely, granted) and Trump has a 25% lead on the day, that's an on the day margin of 1.5m and Trump takes TX with 500k votes to spare.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
I'm not a fan of mocking cartoons which have no intelligence or humour to them, and many exist, and people protesting the very idea of that happening will only see the number of those with no intelligence or humour increase, as people do it out of bloody mindedness.
I just don't see where this 'but it is not sensible' idea gets us. Maybe it isn't, but it's pretty irrelevant as to whether people should feel unafraid to do it if they want, and that it upsets people is no reason whatsoever to suggest they should not.
You wouldn't 'necessarily ban' them, but what does that matter when in effect you're suggesting if people get upset we probably shouldn't do it and so might as well unofficially ban it? That encourages people who are upset to cause a bigger fuss to get what they want.
Caving in to people being upset is not the way to ensure people respect one another. It might even make heroes out of arseholes who act just to offend.
A politician in Pakistan allegedly calls for the use of nukes on France........
Can anyone explain the outrage against France compared to the silence towards China?
Money is the easy answer, but I suspect it's more about (1) history; and (2) the fact that China is only systematically persecuting Muslims, and possibly enacting a genocide against them, rather than making highly publicised tubthumping speeches.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
Ironic that the Daily Mail are saying Steve Bell should be arrested for an offensive cartoon.
2020 has been a strange old year, but I never expected anything as outlandishly strange as a Steve Bell cartoon that made me laugh.
One of my favourite Bell cartoons was far more tasteless than a head on a platter which I thought had all the elements of a fine political cartoon. it was the day after Princess Di was killed in Paris. It showed a funeral cortege with the caption " If You're gonna miss her hoot your horn"!
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
So proving violence and the threat thereof works....
Not sure how you get to that, Gallowgate. If the Dems have a lead of 10% over 10m votes, that's a lead of 1m. If 6m turn out on the day (unlikely, granted) and Trump has a 25% lead on the day, that's an on the day margin of 1.5m and Trump takes TX with 500k votes to spare.
The total turnout in 2016 was 8.5 million. Do you really think its going to get to 16?
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
Ironic that the Daily Mail are saying Steve Bell should be arrested for an offensive cartoon.
2020 has been a strange old year, but I never expected anything as outlandishly strange as a Steve Bell cartoon that made me laugh.
One of my favourite Bell cartoons was far more tasteless than a head on a platter which I thought had all the elements of a fine political cartoon. it was the day after Princess Di was killed in Paris. It showed a funeral cortege with the caption " If You're gonna miss her hoot your horn"!
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The fires were not started by the cartoonists or the French. They were started by those who refused to understand that they were not living in a Muslim country, they were not being forced to buy the magazine and, like every other religion which has been insulted or mocked or satirised in Europe, they had the option of simply shrugging their shoulders, ignoring what was said and carrying on with their lives. If they are such babies that they cannot understand that, then they need to learn that and Macron is absolutely right to teach that lesson to those living in Europe and to those attacking France and French citizens.
Not sure how you get to that, Gallowgate. If the Dems have a lead of 10% over 10m votes, that's a lead of 1m. If 6m turn out on the day (unlikely, granted) and Trump has a 25% lead on the day, that's an on the day margin of 1.5m and Trump takes TX with 500k votes to spare.
The total turnout in 2016 was 8.5 million. Do you really think its going to get to 16?
No, but I am just showing his numbers to be wrong. Basically, if the numbers cited are correct, Trump needs 4m+ to turn up on the day to win.
Now, he has called Nevada for Biden at 49-45 with 6% DK / Others. Not sure I agree with him on the 6% DKs but, if he is right, that's a swing of <1% to Biden from 2016.
So, first of all, at least there (and we can argue if NV is typical), it's not much of a swing.
The more interesting part may be in what the Rurals are doing.
When Ralston started his blog, his view was that the Democrats would want to have a firewall in the high-80000s in Clark to feel confident about victory. His rationale now was that lead would mean something like a 54K statewide going into Election Day.
The Dems have that 89K firewall from Clark but it has only translated into a 47K state firewall. Why? Because the rural areas have come out a lot more strongly for Trump than anticipated. Trump's advantage in 2016 in rural areas was 58K. Ralston thinks it could get to 80K and possibly more.
Is it enough to win NV? Probably not (but depends on independents) but what it might suggest is that poorer whites are coming out in greater numbers than anticipated. And there is nothing particularly special about NV that suggests its more rural elements are unique. That might be relevant for other states.
The other question is whether this is being picked up in the polls. If the polling is based off 2016 turnout, the answer is probably not which raises the question (again) of whether white non-college voters are being undercounted. Which would throw the polling into doubt.</p>
Not being funny but are really trying to tell us that from wherever it is you are in the UK you have a better insight into how Nevada is going than Jon Ralston?
I suggest that the salient point to focus on is that based on early voting patterns, Ralston is calling Nevada for Biden by an estimated margin of 4%, compared to Clinton's 2.4% margin in 2016. That's a 0.9% tighter margin than 538's average of a 4.9% Biden lead based on Nevada opinion polls.
Biden will be content with a result of that sort if replicated in other states - Trump needs the polls to be out by a lot more than that in his favour to avoid losing the key states to Biden.
It’s more than that Phil. Ralston pretty much admits he significantly underestimated the rural turnout for Trump. Sure Clark comes to the rescue for Biden in NV but, in other states, white non college voters may be turning out in greater numbers than expected and not all states have the same urban concentration as NV does with Clark / Las Vegas
First and only prediction. The polling is all over the place and the EV data isn't that helpful because we don't know to what extent Ds are voting earlier than Rs.
I think Trump does better in the fracking stares and holds TX, PA, along with FL (Cubans), and NC, OH, IA.
Biden, then, makes gains in the rust belt and the sun belt, winning MI, WI, MN, NV, AZ and crucially ME2, so it's a tie.
Trump stays in the White House in this situation, because each state gets to vote once more only and more smaller states have gone red.
Riots and SCOTUS warfare ensues and we all recognise that my prediction (66/1 at coral, not a tip) was so good because it was in hindsight so obvious. What other possible ending could 2020 have for us?
Sleep tight.
You need to have the Dems gaining a seat in Arizona under that scenario so as make sure that there's a deadlock there. (The Dems would then have as many majority delegtions as the Republicans, ensuring deadlock.) If you could tie the Senate too, that would make things very interesting.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
Indeed. @Casino_Royale was saying much the same about the mockery of Magma Carter guy, in the last thread.
But there’s a distinction between a reluctance to be offensive, and accepting the curtailing of freedom of speech.
But @Casino_Royale was not suggesting (and would not suggest) attacking the person doing the mockery or killing him. Whereas all too many Muslims do think violence the right response to mockery. And with such a view there can - and must be - no compromise. Macron is absolutely right on this.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
Indeed. @Casino_Royale was saying much the same about the mockery of Magma Carter guy, in the last thread.
But there’s a distinction between a reluctance to be offensive, and accepting the curtailing of freedom of speech.
People are getting themselves in a real lava about it.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
Indeed. @Casino_Royale was saying much the same about the mockery of Magma Carter guy, in the last thread.
But there’s a distinction between a reluctance to be offensive, and accepting the curtailing of freedom of speech.
But @Casino_Royale was not suggesting (and would not suggest) attacking the person doing the mockery or killing him. Whereas all too many Muslims do think violence the right response to mockery. And with such a view there can - and must be - no compromise. Macron is absolutely right on this.
Salman Rushdie found out about this over 30 years ago...
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The fires were not started by the cartoonists or the French. They were started by those who refused to understand that they were not living in a Muslim country, they were not being forced to buy the magazine and, like every other religion which has been insulted or mocked or satirised in Europe, they had the option of simply shrugging their shoulders, ignoring what was said and carrying on with their lives. If they are such babies that they cannot understand that, then they need to learn that and Macron is absolutely right to teach that lesson to those living in Europe and to those attacking France and French citizens.
Have to hold my hand up as a coward, I was going to link to the Charlie Hebdo Erdogan cover the other day, and thought it wasn’t worth the ridiculously small risk
Not sure how you get to that, Gallowgate. If the Dems have a lead of 10% over 10m votes, that's a lead of 1m. If 6m turn out on the day (unlikely, granted) and Trump has a 25% lead on the day, that's an on the day margin of 1.5m and Trump takes TX with 500k votes to spare.
The total turnout in 2016 was 8.5 million. Do you really think its going to get to 16?
No, but I am just showing his numbers to be wrong. Basically, if the numbers cited are correct, Trump needs 4m+ to turn up on the day to win.
Bear in mind some of the biggest increases in TX have come in the Trump supporting counties. Some of the heavily Democrat counties on the border (Hidalgo, El Paso) look as though there have not been the same trends.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
I’m not a great fan of priests being slaughtered while saying Mass or women being murdered while quietly praying in a church. But neither I nor the churches nor the religions which have been so appallingly desecrated react by threatening their attackers - let alone the attacker’s co-religionists - in such a way.
If we wanted to we could say that this is the most appalling provocation but we don’t because we are civilised. Well, we have a right to expect that the Muslim world should behave in an equally civilised way. And to call it out when it doesn’t. The silence of much of the Muslim world over the Uighurs shows what utter hypocrites they are - caring more about drawings of a dead man than about real atrocities being committed on fellow Muslims. Well if they can be silent about the Uighurs they can be silent about French cartoonists.
Well FWIW this is my prediction, narrow misses for Biden in the Sunbelt, Trump wins Florida by 1% and Texas by 3%. All comes down to postal votes in Pennsylvania. Obviously I could be quite a way off with this! Can't see IA, TX, OH going blue; Trump wins thanks to large "shy Trump" vote, plus any post-election legal manoeuvres will I think be more likely to benefit the GOP. Of Sunbelt, maybe Arizona is best chance of a flip for Biden?
Anyway good luck to everyone betting and looking forward to the Zoom chat!
Caution is all very well, but in 2016 the final 538 projection of Clinton's vote was 48.5%, and it turned out to be 48.2%.
Currently the 538 projection of Biden's vote is 53.3%. Really, could Trump win if Biden had a popular vote above 50%? Let alone 51%? Or 52%? Or 53%?
No
In the immortal words of Rogerdamus. 😉
Thanks for confirming that.
Now is it safe to move on to discussing which countries may offer Trump asylum next year?
He will hunker down in Florida, with a great sulk of Heath like proportions, a brooding toad on the face of the Republicans.
At this stage it’s an if. But -
If he has done an Al Capone on taxes, to stay in the US means jail? The only option is live abroad and await a pardon? There couldn’t be a compromise deal for retrospective payment, if intent to defraud was proven?
He could try pardoning himself and get his Supreme Court to sign off on it. Or put Pence in for the last couple of weeks and have him issue the pardon. No guarantees either way though.
Can he be pardoned from a hypothetical as yet unproven felony? I think more likely he will see himself in Florida, losing in court, realising he will need to take a vacation out the country. But he knows all this this very evening, as well as judging at what point he is considered a flight risk so needs to flit out before that moment.
Here's the Ford pardon of Nixon:
By the President of the United States of America a Proclamation
Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974.
Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.
It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.
GERALD R. FORD
"As a result of certain acts or omissions", I love it.
Even so, great argument that 'tranquility' is lost by putting the man on trial, and actually punishing him for crimes would be 'degredation'. Might as well just accept the premise Presidents cannot commit crimes, if it is to be argued punishing them shouldn't happen even if they do commit crimes.
“ "As a result of certain acts or omissions"”
That would certainly cover Trumps dalliances with porn stars/everyone invited into Moscow hotel rooms etc
Shows Post Trump betting landscape can offer us whole coterie of Trump bets.
Bailiwicks he can’t enter into, like can he enter Trump Tower ever again? Can the tower and other assets be seized for unpaid bills and taxes?
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
Indeed. @Casino_Royale was saying much the same about the mockery of Magma Carter guy, in the last thread.
But there’s a distinction between a reluctance to be offensive, and accepting the curtailing of freedom of speech.
But @Casino_Royale was not suggesting (and would not suggest) attacking the person doing the mockery or killing him. Whereas all too many Muslims do think violence the right response to mockery. And with such a view there can - and must be - no compromise. Macron is absolutely right on this.
Well Macron has said the right things, but is he going to back it up with any action?
I don't think tolerant Western liberals are capable of doing anything to combat this.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The fires were not started by the cartoonists or the French. They were started by those who refused to understand that they were not living in a Muslim country, they were not being forced to buy the magazine and, like every other religion which has been insulted or mocked or satirised in Europe, they had the option of simply shrugging their shoulders, ignoring what was said and carrying on with their lives. If they are such babies that they cannot understand that, then they need to learn that and Macron is absolutely right to teach that lesson to those living in Europe and to those attacking France and French citizens.
Have to hold my hand up as a coward, I was going to link to the Charlie Hebdo Erdogan cover the other day, and thought it wasn’t worth the ridiculously small risk
You won't be alone, even more anonymous people will be fearful. And it's where our political leaders, much maligned by us not without reason, can actually, well, lead for us by not being so fearful. If they have the character to do it.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
Indeed. @Casino_Royale was saying much the same about the mockery of Magma Carter guy, in the last thread.
But there’s a distinction between a reluctance to be offensive, and accepting the curtailing of freedom of speech.
But @Casino_Royale was not suggesting (and would not suggest) attacking the person doing the mockery or killing him. Whereas all too many Muslims do think violence the right response to mockery. And with such a view there can - and must be - no compromise. Macron is absolutely right on this.
Well Macron has said the right things, but is he going to back it up with any action?
I don't think tolerant Western liberals are capable of doing anything to combat this.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
Indeed. @Casino_Royale was saying much the same about the mockery of Magma Carter guy, in the last thread.
But there’s a distinction between a reluctance to be offensive, and accepting the curtailing of freedom of speech.
But @Casino_Royale was not suggesting (and would not suggest) attacking the person doing the mockery or killing him. Whereas all too many Muslims do think violence the right response to mockery. And with such a view there can - and must be - no compromise. Macron is absolutely right on this.
Well Macron has said the right things, but is he going to back it up with any action?
I don't think tolerant Western liberals are capable of doing anything to combat this.
France has started taking action - closing down certain mosques associated with terrorists, for instance.
Now, he has called Nevada for Biden at 49-45 with 6% DK / Others. Not sure I agree with him on the 6% DKs but, if he is right, that's a swing of <1% to Biden from 2016.
So, first of all, at least there (and we can argue if NV is typical), it's not much of a swing.
The more interesting part may be in what the Rurals are doing.
When Ralston started his blog, his view was that the Democrats would want to have a firewall in the high-80000s in Clark to feel confident about victory. His rationale now was that lead would mean something like a 54K statewide going into Election Day.
The Dems have that 89K firewall from Clark but it has only translated into a 47K state firewall. Why? Because the rural areas have come out a lot more strongly for Trump than anticipated. Trump's advantage in 2016 in rural areas was 58K. Ralston thinks it could get to 80K and possibly more.
Is it enough to win NV? Probably not (but depends on independents) but what it might suggest is that poorer whites are coming out in greater numbers than anticipated. And there is nothing particularly special about NV that suggests its more rural elements are unique. That might be relevant for other states.
The other question is whether this is being picked up in the polls. If the polling is based off 2016 turnout, the answer is probably not which raises the question (again) of whether white non-college voters are being undercounted. Which would throw the polling into doubt.</p>
Not being funny but are really trying to tell us that from wherever it is you are in the UK you have a better insight into how Nevada is going than Jon Ralston?
I suggest that the salient point to focus on is that based on early voting patterns, Ralston is calling Nevada for Biden by an estimated margin of 4%, compared to Clinton's 2.4% margin in 2016. That's a 0.9% tighter margin than 538's average of a 4.9% Biden lead based on Nevada opinion polls.
Biden will be content with a result of that sort if replicated in other states - Trump needs the polls to be out by a lot more than that in his favour to avoid losing the key states to Biden.
It’s more than that Phil. Ralston pretty much admits he significantly underestimated the rural turnout for Trump. Sure Clark comes to the rescue for Biden in NV but, in other states, white non college voters may be turning out in greater numbers than expected and not all states have the same urban concentration as NV does with Clark / Las Vegas
I see, so you're claiming that a (predicted) outcome that would be only a small variation from the polls in one state will (if confirmed) provide grounds for expecting a larger polling error in other states. You're welcome but I'm not buying it.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
I’m not a great fan of priests being slaughtered while saying Mass or women being murdered while quietly praying in a church. But neither I nor the churches nor the religions which have been so appallingly desecrated react by threatening their attackers - let alone the attacker’s co-religionists - in such a way.
If we wanted to we could say that this is the most appalling provocation but we don’t because we are civilised. Well, we have a right to expect that the Muslim world should behave in an equally civilised way. And to call it out when it doesn’t. The silence of much of the Muslim world over the Uighurs shows what utter hypocrites they are - caring more about drawings of a dead man than about real atrocities being committed on fellow Muslims. Well if they can be silent about the Uighurs they can be silent about French cartoonists.
The French do not have a standing army of 100 million just over the border with Pakistan and the Chinese do not seem too bothered by international opinion.
Trump now threatening the governor of Pennsylvania. Almost inciting violence , given what happened to Gretchen Whitmer the governor of Michigan his comments are despicable . I’ve never loathed a politician as much as I do Trump , an utter stain on humanity .
Well FWIW this is my prediction, narrow misses for Biden in the Sunbelt, Trump wins Florida by 1% and Texas by 3%. All comes down to postal votes in Pennsylvania. Obviously I could be quite a way off with this! Can't see IA, TX, OH going blue; Trump wins thanks to large "shy Trump" vote, plus any post-election legal manoeuvres will I think be more likely to benefit the GOP. Of Sunbelt, maybe Arizona is best chance of a flip for Biden?
Anyway good luck to everyone betting and looking forward to the Zoom chat!
Interesting. I think that's the same as the one I posted!
The difference is that DC knows what he is talking about so that gives my projection some credibility! 😊
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The fires were not started by the cartoonists or the French. They were started by those who refused to understand that they were not living in a Muslim country, they were not being forced to buy the magazine and, like every other religion which has been insulted or mocked or satirised in Europe, they had the option of simply shrugging their shoulders, ignoring what was said and carrying on with their lives. If they are such babies that they cannot understand that, then they need to learn that and Macron is absolutely right to teach that lesson to those living in Europe and to those attacking France and French citizens.
Have to hold my hand up as a coward, I was going to link to the Charlie Hebdo Erdogan cover the other day, and thought it wasn’t worth the ridiculously small risk
Might be worth noting what Erdogan said in a recent speech:
“If you continue acting in this way, nowhere in the world can any European, any Western, safely, peacefully set foot on the streets. If you open this dangerous path, you will suffer the most.”
That is an appalling threat from the head of a country which is in NATO and which we are pledged to defend.
Erdogan deserves all the contemptuous mockery possible, frankly.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
Indeed. @Casino_Royale was saying much the same about the mockery of Magma Carter guy, in the last thread.
But there’s a distinction between a reluctance to be offensive, and accepting the curtailing of freedom of speech.
But @Casino_Royale was not suggesting (and would not suggest) attacking the person doing the mockery or killing him. Whereas all too many Muslims do think violence the right response to mockery. And with such a view there can - and must be - no compromise. Macron is absolutely right on this.
Well Macron has said the right things, but is he going to back it up with any action?
I don't think tolerant Western liberals are capable of doing anything to combat this.
France has started taking action - closing down certain mosques associated with terrorists, for instance.
It's interesting to see how many states Obama carried, as it felt like it must have been many more at the time, but from the looks of it you have to go back quite a ways for someone to have won fewer.
Also didn't realise just how close Reagan came to winning every state, or how big a win Nixon had.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
Indeed. @Casino_Royale was saying much the same about the mockery of Magma Carter guy, in the last thread.
But there’s a distinction between a reluctance to be offensive, and accepting the curtailing of freedom of speech.
But @Casino_Royale was not suggesting (and would not suggest) attacking the person doing the mockery or killing him. Whereas all too many Muslims do think violence the right response to mockery. And with such a view there can - and must be - no compromise. Macron is absolutely right on this.
Well Macron has said the right things, but is he going to back it up with any action?
I don't think tolerant Western liberals are capable of doing anything to combat this.
France has started taking action - closing down certain mosques associated with terrorists, for instance.
That's a decent start, but being a pessimist I just think the problems will just migrate to other mosques instead. Since they are not monitored, we won't know about any terror related activity until it happens.
There must be many in the community that know about the plans for the attacks before they happen, but they choose not to inform the authorities.
Trump now threatening the governor of Pennsylvania. Almost inciting violence , given what happened to Gretchen Whitmer the governor of Michigan his comments are despicable . I’ve never loathed a politician as much as I do Trump , an utter stain on humanity .
Hopefully it's a stain which can be washed out. Though 4 more years to grind in may make that hard.
What’s even more disgusting is the total silence from the GOP whilst Trump debases the constitution, invites violence against his opponents and has destroyed the US reputation across the world . They’re all a bunch of spineless enablers with zero principles and a complete lack of morality .
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
I’m not a great fan of priests being slaughtered while saying Mass or women being murdered while quietly praying in a church. But neither I nor the churches nor the religions which have been so appallingly desecrated react by threatening their attackers - let alone the attacker’s co-religionists - in such a way.
If we wanted to we could say that this is the most appalling provocation but we don’t because we are civilised. Well, we have a right to expect that the Muslim world should behave in an equally civilised way. And to call it out when it doesn’t. The silence of much of the Muslim world over the Uighurs shows what utter hypocrites they are - caring more about drawings of a dead man than about real atrocities being committed on fellow Muslims. Well if they can be silent about the Uighurs they can be silent about French cartoonists.
The French do not have a standing army of 100 million just over the border with Pakistan and the Chinese do not seem too bothered by international opinion.
Realpolitik.
So let’s have less of the allegedly principled outraged injury to feelings shtick.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The fires were not started by the cartoonists or the French. They were started by those who refused to understand that they were not living in a Muslim country, they were not being forced to buy the magazine and, like every other religion which has been insulted or mocked or satirised in Europe, they had the option of simply shrugging their shoulders, ignoring what was said and carrying on with their lives. If they are such babies that they cannot understand that, then they need to learn that and Macron is absolutely right to teach that lesson to those living in Europe and to those attacking France and French citizens.
Have to hold my hand up as a coward, I was going to link to the Charlie Hebdo Erdogan cover the other day, and thought it wasn’t worth the ridiculously small risk
Might be worth noting what Erdogan said in a recent speech:
“If you continue acting in this way, nowhere in the world can any European, any Western, safely, peacefully set foot on the streets. If you open this dangerous path, you will suffer the most.”
That is an appalling threat from the head of a country which is in NATO and which we are pledged to defend.
Erdogan deserves all the contemptuous mockery possible, frankly.
Well FWIW this is my prediction, narrow misses for Biden in the Sunbelt, Trump wins Florida by 1% and Texas by 3%. All comes down to postal votes in Pennsylvania. Obviously I could be quite a way off with this! Can't see IA, TX, OH going blue; Trump wins thanks to large "shy Trump" vote, plus any post-election legal manoeuvres will I think be more likely to benefit the GOP. Of Sunbelt, maybe Arizona is best chance of a flip for Biden?
Anyway good luck to everyone betting and looking forward to the Zoom chat!
That's far from impossible...
But it also requires Biden to have extraordinarily inefficient votes.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
I’m not a great fan of priests being slaughtered while saying Mass or women being murdered while quietly praying in a church. But neither I nor the churches nor the religions which have been so appallingly desecrated react by threatening their attackers - let alone the attacker’s co-religionists - in such a way.
If we wanted to we could say that this is the most appalling provocation but we don’t because we are civilised. Well, we have a right to expect that the Muslim world should behave in an equally civilised way. And to call it out when it doesn’t. The silence of much of the Muslim world over the Uighurs shows what utter hypocrites they are - caring more about drawings of a dead man than about real atrocities being committed on fellow Muslims. Well if they can be silent about the Uighurs they can be silent about French cartoonists.
You can say what you would want in an ideal world maybe, in the real world we know that cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammed are like throwing petrol on the flames of hostility to the West in the Islamic world.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
I’m not a great fan of priests being slaughtered while saying Mass or women being murdered while quietly praying in a church. But neither I nor the churches nor the religions which have been so appallingly desecrated react by threatening their attackers - let alone the attacker’s co-religionists - in such a way.
If we wanted to we could say that this is the most appalling provocation but we don’t because we are civilised. Well, we have a right to expect that the Muslim world should behave in an equally civilised way. And to call it out when it doesn’t. The silence of much of the Muslim world over the Uighurs shows what utter hypocrites they are - caring more about drawings of a dead man than about real atrocities being committed on fellow Muslims. Well if they can be silent about the Uighurs they can be silent about French cartoonists.
The French do not have a standing army of 100 million just over the border with Pakistan and the Chinese do not seem too bothered by international opinion.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
I’m not a great fan of priests being slaughtered while saying Mass or women being murdered while quietly praying in a church. But neither I nor the churches nor the religions which have been so appallingly desecrated react by threatening their attackers - let alone the attacker’s co-religionists - in such a way.
If we wanted to we could say that this is the most appalling provocation but we don’t because we are civilised. Well, we have a right to expect that the Muslim world should behave in an equally civilised way. And to call it out when it doesn’t. The silence of much of the Muslim world over the Uighurs shows what utter hypocrites they are - caring more about drawings of a dead man than about real atrocities being committed on fellow Muslims. Well if they can be silent about the Uighurs they can be silent about French cartoonists.
You can say what you would want in an ideal world maybe, in the real world we know that cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammed are like throwing petrol on the flames of hostility to the West in the Islamic world.
Macron is right. Enemies of western liberal democracy are our enemies.
Macron would get my vote, if I were French.
He's showing exactly the sort of steel I wish all Western leaders would.
He is standing up against extremism and for free speech yes but I think Trudeau also had a point there is no point using free speech as an excuse to act irresponsibly, we know the reaction publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed will have in the Muslim world as those mass anti France demos in Bangladesh show, so why do it just to get that reaction?
I think it's very offensive to Muslims who view God as too great to be drawn and the prophet as sacred. Plus, I think many anti-religious types are rude pompous and unfunny liberals who just mock other people's sincerely held beliefs but couldn't tell a good joke in a hundred years.
But, that's not the point. Once people start getting killed for saying something extremely offensive then you have to defend them and the right to do so, or admit you can be censored by violence.
Maybe but that does not change the fact we know cartoons like this will increase the risk of terrorism, you can condemn terrorism and those who resort to violence but it will lead to that reaction and further anti West feeling in the Muslim world and it is easier not to start fires in the first place rather than constantly having to put them out
The man who wants to send the tanks in to Scotland advocates caving in to the demands of terrorists.
There are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide, only 1.6 million Scots voted Yes to independence in 2014 in a once in a generation referendum.
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
Ah, so because its harder to stand up to the numbers who want to ban it, we should give in and have unofficial bans?
I would not necessarily ban it but I am generally not a great fan of cartoons mocking Jesus for the sake of it either, for Muslims they just take it even more seriously, provocation for the sake of provocation just because you can is not a sensible idea
I’m not a great fan of priests being slaughtered while saying Mass or women being murdered while quietly praying in a church. But neither I nor the churches nor the religions which have been so appallingly desecrated react by threatening their attackers - let alone the attacker’s co-religionists - in such a way.
If we wanted to we could say that this is the most appalling provocation but we don’t because we are civilised. Well, we have a right to expect that the Muslim world should behave in an equally civilised way. And to call it out when it doesn’t. The silence of much of the Muslim world over the Uighurs shows what utter hypocrites they are - caring more about drawings of a dead man than about real atrocities being committed on fellow Muslims. Well if they can be silent about the Uighurs they can be silent about French cartoonists.
The French do not have a standing army of 100 million just over the border with Pakistan and the Chinese do not seem too bothered by international opinion.
Comments
Thanks once again for your penetrating insight.
It is like the syllogolistic argument:
- Socrates is a man
- Socrates is dead
- Therefore all men are dead....
https://freespeechunion.org/
That's madness. The concern was awful and offensive but that should not be a matter for the law.
Not to mention business travel.
Look at the theatres and writers and artists who have been threatened for daring to criticise particular religions or who have decided not to touch on “sensitive” subjects because of the threat of violence. Self-censorship because of fear is an existential threat to what makes Western freedom and civilisation worthwhile. It is not the number of deaths which count, awful as they are. It is what fear of this makes us do and the rationalisations we use to justify this which will slowly kill our civilisation.
FT on BoJo, they will back Labour in 2024 IMHO
It is not just terrorists wanted to ban the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed as the mass demonstrations across the Muslim world when they are published show
https://twitter.com/sebastiankurz/status/1323388439849521152?s=21
A fairly easy win for Biden.
Biden will be content with a result of that sort if replicated in other states - Trump needs the polls to be out by a lot more than that in his favour to avoid losing the key states to Biden.
“The Muslim world has not spoken up for them, a striking contrast to how it behaves when some perceived offence against Muslim sensibilities occurs in Western countries. Indeed, when the UN raised the issue, some leading Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt) spoke up for China. Where is the Muslim ummah when you need it most?
Perhaps there is some truth in the “terrorism” charge the Chinese level at the Uighur, though no evidence of this has been provided. More likely, the Chinese have cynically used fear of Islamic terrorism as a justification, knowing that this fear is shared (not without some reason) by many countries and that this may inhibit condemnation, let alone action.
Chinese markets, money, business and trade matter to the West, far more than the fate of a people whose name is hard to spell. Unlike the Soviet Union, which had few economic goodies to offer the West, China’s economy matters.”
The claim that the military are being put into Vienna to do police duties whilst the police lead the chase is just bollocks.
But there’s a distinction between a reluctance to be offensive, and accepting the curtailing of freedom of speech.
I think Trump does better in the fracking stares and holds TX, PA, along with FL (Cubans), and NC, OH, IA.
Biden, then, makes gains in the rust belt and the sun belt, winning MI, WI, MN, NV, AZ and crucially ME2, so it's a tie.
Trump stays in the White House in this situation, because each state gets to vote once more only and more smaller states have gone red.
Riots and SCOTUS warfare ensues and we all recognise that my prediction (66/1 at coral, not a tip) was so good because it was in hindsight so obvious. What other possible ending could 2020 have for us?
Sleep tight.
If somebody expects me to be polite because otherwise they will kill or attack me then I will, on principle, refuse to be polite. Just as I would refuse to be polite to anyone threatening me. You cannot behave like an impolite oaf yourself but expect politeness or respect in return. And that is what these Islamists and demonstrators are: impolite oafs - to put it at its mildest.
I wouldn't normally take much interest in the 538 crowd, but these are at least relatively wise words this time around.
https://twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/status/1323401008941277185
I just don't see where this 'but it is not sensible' idea gets us. Maybe it isn't, but it's pretty irrelevant as to whether people should feel unafraid to do it if they want, and that it upsets people is no reason whatsoever to suggest they should not.
You wouldn't 'necessarily ban' them, but what does that matter when in effect you're suggesting if people get upset we probably shouldn't do it and so might as well unofficially ban it? That encourages people who are upset to cause a bigger fuss to get what they want.
Caving in to people being upset is not the way to ensure people respect one another. It might even make heroes out of arseholes who act just to offend.
Wondeful
Not sure how you get to that, Gallowgate. If the Dems have a lead of 10% over 10m votes, that's a lead of 1m. If 6m turn out on the day (unlikely, granted) and Trump has a 25% lead on the day, that's an on the day margin of 1.5m and Trump takes TX with 500k votes to spare.
The total turnout in 2016 was 8.5 million. Do you really think its going to get to 16?
Trump ahead:
Iowa: 1.6%
Texas: 1.3%
Ohio: 0.4%
Biden ahead:
Georgia: 0.8%
North Carolina: 1.9%
Florida: 2.5%
Arizona: 2.6%
Also:
Maine 2nd: 1.8% Biden
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast
No, but I am just showing his numbers to be wrong. Basically, if the numbers cited are correct, Trump needs 4m+ to turn up on the day to win.
Bear in mind some of the biggest increases in TX have come in the Trump supporting counties. Some of the heavily Democrat counties on the border (Hidalgo, El Paso) look as though there have not been the same trends.
If we wanted to we could say that this is the most appalling provocation but we don’t because we are civilised. Well, we have a right to expect that the Muslim world should behave in an equally civilised way. And to call it out when it doesn’t. The silence of much of the Muslim world over the Uighurs shows what utter hypocrites they are - caring more about drawings of a dead man than about real atrocities being committed on fellow Muslims. Well if they can be silent about the Uighurs they can be silent about French cartoonists.
Well FWIW this is my prediction, narrow misses for Biden in the Sunbelt, Trump wins Florida by 1% and Texas by 3%. All comes down to postal votes in Pennsylvania. Obviously I could be quite a way off with this! Can't see IA, TX, OH going blue; Trump wins thanks to large "shy Trump" vote, plus any post-election legal manoeuvres will I think be more likely to benefit the GOP. Of Sunbelt, maybe Arizona is best chance of a flip for Biden?
Anyway good luck to everyone betting and looking forward to the Zoom chat!
Turning back the clocks and adding an extra hour to 2020 is like putting a bonus track on a radiohead album.
That would certainly cover Trumps dalliances with porn stars/everyone invited into Moscow hotel rooms etc
Shows Post Trump betting landscape can offer us whole coterie of Trump bets.
Bailiwicks he can’t enter into, like can he enter Trump Tower ever again? Can the tower and other assets be seized for unpaid bills and taxes?
This is where the real fun starts.
I don't think tolerant Western liberals are capable of doing anything to combat this.
Biden 53
Trump 43
In 2016 their final poll was .
Clinton 45
Trump 41
The difference is that DC knows what he is talking about so that gives my projection some credibility! 😊
2020 Unknown/Other 4%
This as much as the lead is why Trump has lost. The electorate has simply made up it's mind on him.
“If you continue acting in this way, nowhere in the world can any European, any Western, safely, peacefully set foot on the streets. If you open this dangerous path, you will suffer the most.”
That is an appalling threat from the head of a country which is in NATO and which we are pledged to defend.
Erdogan deserves all the contemptuous mockery possible, frankly.
Also didn't realise just how close Reagan came to winning every state, or how big a win Nixon had.
There must be many in the community that know about the plans for the attacks before they happen, but they choose not to inform the authorities.
Night all.
https://morningconsult.com/exit-polling-live-updates/?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiT1dKbU5ESTJaVFkzTmpBMSIsInQiOiI2Y2N1b2o4aVJFR3c2SDJiU2JzM2tZUnljSStzNU9Gdm13VWFyV2RJY3VneWxVVFlQQkhoaWkrczlUUGJrYmQwaVE4N1d5NWZjQTNIcVM3cDJSZVwvbjR2c1EzMjBJQUpBQ1RMWEpNTytaWGNuZmZ4dU1iWE9aTnFEODlpK2F2RUsifQ==
So let’s have less of the allegedly principled outraged injury to feelings shtick.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2020/white_house_watch_nov02
Rasmussen's final 2016 poll was more accurate than Yougov's with a 2% Clinton lead, Clinton 45% Trump 43% Others 6%
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/rasmussen_reports_calls_it_right
But it also requires Biden to have extraordinarily inefficient votes.
Plus it is also not the case that no Muslims are protesting China's actions against the Uighurs, here are some doing so in Indonesia
https://apnews.com/article/b37f2e7a4bb145e58e2c8e9316aaf8eb
http://cpec.gov.pk/