Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Roe v Wade ruling has made the Midterms less predictable – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited August 21 in General
imageThe Roe v Wade ruling has made the Midterms less predictable – politicalbetting.com

Up to last month’s historic decision by the US Supreme Court to overturn the 1973 Roe v Wade precedent on abortion it did appear that the Republican party was going to take the House and the Senate in the November 8th mid-term elections.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,876
    First
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    LOL if overturning RvW has this effect.
  • Middle class parents would rather have their kid be taught Critical Race Theory foe two hours a day than deal with an unexpected grandchild. No getting into a good school - or any at all - after that.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    WAPO (via Seattle Times $) - Trump is rushing to hire seasoned lawyers. But he keeps hearing ‘No’

    Former President Donald Trump and close aides have spent the days since the FBI searched his Florida home rushing to assemble a team of respected defense lawyers. But the answer they keep hearing is “No.”

    The struggle to find expert legal advice puts Trump in a bind as he faces potential criminal exposure from a records dispute with the National Archives that escalated into a federal investigation of possible violations of the Espionage Act and other statutes.

    “Everyone is saying no,” said a prominent Republican lawyer who like some others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential conversations. . . .

    Longtime confidants and advisers of Trump have grown worried about Trump’s current stable of lawyers, noting that most of them have little to no experience in cases of this type, according to two people familiar with the internal discussions.

    A Trump spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. . . .

    “The Trump team needs a first-rate, highly experienced federal criminal practitioner,” said Jon Sale, a Florida defense attorney who worked on the Watergate prosecution team and said he turned down representing Trump last week because he did not have enough time to devote to the case. “You have to evaluate whether you want to take it. It’s not like a DUI. It’s representing the former president of the United States — and maybe the next one — in what’s one of the highest-visibility cases ever.”

    “In olden days, he would tell firms representing him was a benefit because they could advertise off it. Today it’s not the same,” said Michael Cohen, a former lawyer for Trump who was convicted of tax evasion, making false statements, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress in 2018. “He’s also a very difficult client in that he’s always pushing the envelope, he rarely listens to sound legal advice and he wants you to do things that are not appropriate, ethically or legally.”

    One lawyer told a story from early in Trump’s presidency about members of his legal team urging him against tweeting about the Mueller probe, only to find he had tweeted about it before they got to the end of the West Wing driveway. Several people said that Trump was nearly impossible to represent and that it would be unclear whether they would ever get paid. . . .
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    edited August 17
    FPT - kle4 asked WHY is Sarah Palin running for Congress in the first place?

    Far be it from me to ken the innermost workings of the heart of Leon's former heartthrob!

    However, will venture to guess that she is perhaps motivated by desire to refuel her celebrity status, and with it her (rejuvenated) political clout in GOP circles AND (more to the point methinks) access to serious cash from campaigns, media & other sources.

    Addendum - it appears that much though not all of reluctance of many Alaskans to embrace the 2nd political coming of Sarah Palin, is skepticism that she will be truly focused on the needs of Alaska - which is uniquely dependent on federal government policy among the states - as opposed to her own self aggrandizement.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    A very helpful sign in the header. It tells us abortion is murder, but also that forgiveness for murder can be found through Jesus Christ alone, so people can keep doing it and know they can be forgiven for it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238

    FPT - kle4 asked WHY is Sarah Palin running for Congress in the first place?

    Far be it from me to ken the innermost workings of the heart of Leon's former heartthrob!

    However, will venture to guess that she is perhaps motivated by desire to refuel her celebrity status, and with it her (rejuvenated) political clout in GOP circles AND (more to the point methinks) access to serious cash from campaigns, media & other sources.

    Eh, she's old hat at this point. Once you go full Trump lame substitutes don't do it anymore.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,547
    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,547
    edited August 17
    kle4 said:

    A very helpful sign in the header. It tells us abortion is murder, but also that forgiveness for murder can be found through Jesus Christ alone, so people can keep doing it and know they can be forgiven for it.

    Now why has no-one ever thought of that take on Christian doctrine before?

    BTW despite the rhetoric, I don't think there are any principles whatsoever in this debate which belong distinctively to either religious or non religious traditions. Bringing either religion or humanism (etc) into it distorts the debate.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    A very helpful sign in the header. It tells us abortion is murder, but also that forgiveness for murder can be found through Jesus Christ alone, so people can keep doing it and know they can be forgiven for it.

    Now why has no-one ever thought of that take on Christian doctrine before?

    I don't claim particular insight. Just that as a scare tactic it seems self defeating.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,629
    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    Will be much funnier if the effect is to destroy the Republican party and to ensure that abortion rights are enshrined in law at last. That would be a truly epic act of karma.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,547
    ydoethur said:

    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    Will be much funnier if the effect is to destroy the Republican party and to ensure that abortion rights are enshrined in law at last. That would be a truly epic act of karma.
    Yes. I fear this may be too much to hope for.

  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 877
    Speculation: If Chief Justice John Roberts had had his way and gotten the Court to issue a narrow ruling, without formally over ruling Roe v. Wade, the poltical fallout would have been much less, either way.

    (John Roberts and his wife have two children, both adopted. Amy Coney Barrett and her husband have seven children, two adopted from Haiti. Their youngest biological child has Down syndrome. Those four may be a record for adoptees for a single court.)

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    Trigger warning...


    Suddenly pineapple pizza doesn't seem that bad! Chicago Town deep pan with sausage and BLUEBERRIES is set to be the new divisive dish

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-11120051/Chicago-Town-launches-sausage-blueberry-pizza.html
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    kle4 said:

    FPT - kle4 asked WHY is Sarah Palin running for Congress in the first place?

    Far be it from me to ken the innermost workings of the heart of Leon's former heartthrob!

    However, will venture to guess that she is perhaps motivated by desire to refuel her celebrity status, and with it her (rejuvenated) political clout in GOP circles AND (more to the point methinks) access to serious cash from campaigns, media & other sources.

    Eh, she's old hat at this point. Once you go full Trump lame substitutes don't do it anymore.
    Thomas Wolfe famously said that there are no second acts in American life. Which is total bs.

    Bit early to discount Sarah Palin's potential presence as part of what one GOP consultant calls "the exotic section of the Capitol Hill zoo".

    She's a grifter, grifters keep on a' grifting. It's just what they do.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    Re: public perceptions by Alaska voters re: Sarah Palin and he less-than-ironclad commitment to their interests as opposed to her own, similar logic in Wyoming seems to have added to the vote landslide AGAINST Liz Cheney in HER Republican primary, despite support she got from a sizable number of Democratic crossovers.

    Why? Because bulk of Wyoming voters are VERY focused on the needs, challenges & prospects of the energy industry, in particular coal and natural gas, also oil. And were alienated in good measure from Cheney because she is clearly NOT putting the economic interest of Wyoming (as perceived by locals) first & foremost on HER political agenda.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    If it ultimately has the effect of the parties not relying on the court to make decisions for them that might be a good thing, but it seems pretty likely the Court will be plenty happy to take decisions away from electors when it suits, as in that New York gun law.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,556
    They just noticed in Warsaw


    “The Polish prime minister claims the EU is democratic in name only — with Germany and France wielding the real power.”

    https://twitter.com/dwnews/status/1559662568469401603?s=21&t=JybzmCBqb6nLvItAoxYYsQ
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,286
    Betfair next prime minister
    1.07 Liz Truss 93%
    13 Rishi Sunak 8%

    Next Conservative leader
    1.08 Liz Truss 93%
    13 Rishi Sunak 8%
  • "Fix You" is one of the greatest songs ever written.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    Leon said:

    They just noticed in Warsaw


    “The Polish prime minister claims the EU is democratic in name only — with Germany and France wielding the real power.”

    https://twitter.com/dwnews/status/1559662568469401603?s=21&t=JybzmCBqb6nLvItAoxYYsQ

    Well, that should make Ukraine's accession criteria much easier.

    Singing the same old tunes, though given recent events feels just like a moan about getting knuckles tapped.

    "It is the member states and not the EU institutions that must decide on the direction and priorities of EU action," he added.

    The search for consensus, and "not the domination of the strongest," must form the basis of cooperation, he wrote.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    A very helpful sign in the header. It tells us abortion is murder, but also that forgiveness for murder can be found through Jesus Christ alone, so people can keep doing it and know they can be forgiven for it.

    Now why has no-one ever thought of that take on Christian doctrine before?

    BTW despite the rhetoric, I don't think there are any principles whatsoever in this debate which belong distinctively to either religious or non religious traditions. Bringing either religion or humanism (etc) into it distorts the debate.

    I think that was Rasputin's schtick wasn't it?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,282
    edited August 17
    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,451

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







    British isles? Or is that not correct?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    edited August 17

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.



    British isles? Or is that not correct?
    I think people often refer euphemestically to 'these islands' to avoid the UK appearing to claim ownership over both main islands.

    And while Rishi probably is only interesting in talking to one section of the NI population, is this another Tory husting event? Such a group is only a section of one section of the NI population in any case.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,035
    To be fair I do think that people expected Roe v Wade would go, at least once Kennedy stepped down.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,451
    kle4 said:

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.



    British isles? Or is that not correct?
    I think people refer euphemestically to 'these islands' to avoid the UK appearing to claim ownership over both main islands.
    Is Britons easier to say but less accurate than fellow U.K. citizens?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







    The ones voting in the Conservative leadership election perchance?

    Who are they by the way, is it the Ulster Unionists? Are they affiliated and get a vote? Or is there a tiny Tory party there?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    As usual, the Pavlovian reaction on here to deem anyone who opposes Trump as a saint regardless of their faults kicks into play (I agree with your comment BTW @SeaShantyIrish2 ).

    Cheney was, by all accounts, an awful representative for Wyoming and widely disliked. She had a reputation for cancelling events and not turning up, not even bothering to live in the state or represent its interests, and was only concerned about her own status in the Beltway.

    That had far more to do with the scale of her defeat than her opposition to Trump.


    Re: public perceptions by Alaska voters re: Sarah Palin and he less-than-ironclad commitment to their interests as opposed to her own, similar logic in Wyoming seems to have added to the vote landslide AGAINST Liz Cheney in HER Republican primary, despite support she got from a sizable number of Democratic crossovers.

    Why? Because bulk of Wyoming voters are VERY focused on the needs, challenges & prospects of the energy industry, in particular coal and natural gas, also oil. And were alienated in good measure from Cheney because she is clearly NOT putting the economic interest of Wyoming (as perceived by locals) first & foremost on HER political agenda.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    edited August 17

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







    The ones voting in the Conservative leadership election perchance?

    Who are they by the way, is it the Ulster Unionists? Are they affiliated and get a vote? Or is there a tiny Tory party there?
    The Tories actually stand candidates in at least some Northern Irish seats (after the formal alliance with the UUP was a disaster 12 years ago). They get tiny amounts of the vote, but I regard it as encouraging for a major party to stand there.

    Edit: Very nearly held their deposit in North Down, their best result. Not bad, honestly.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Panelbase Scottish Independence poll out in the wild.

    Asked a lot of hypotheticals:
    "What if Boris Johnson remained Prime Minster"
    "What if Liz Truss..."
    "What if Sunak..."
    "What if Stamer..."
    etc.

    Used the standard form of the independence question and no weird culture war questions tacked on so that rules out both lunatic fringe ends from the potential commissioner list.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,035
    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    This is misleading because the US regulates a ton of things at federal level under its constitution: commerce, personal weaponry, liquor importation, politicians' pay, and in the past slavery. Britain's constitution is of course based on pseudonymous letters by equerries to The Times, totally incomparable situation.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    EPG said:

    To be fair I do think that people expected Roe v Wade would go, at least once Kennedy stepped down.

    A lot of people naively assumed that Supreme Court nominees wouldn't perjure themselves during confirmation hearings.

    There wasn't a centrist pundit in the land who thought Row was at risk.

    Even after the draft opinion was leaked you could still find "don't freak out" columns being penned.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    Alistair said:

    Panelbase Scottish Independence poll out in the wild.

    Asked a lot of hypotheticals:
    "What if Boris Johnson remained Prime Minster"
    "What if Liz Truss..."
    "What if Sunak..."
    "What if Stamer..."
    etc.

    Used the standard form of the independence question and no weird culture war questions tacked on so that rules out both lunatic fringe ends from the potential commissioner list.

    I'd be surprised if there were much difference. It makes you seem a bit of a lightweight if you say 'Yes to independence, but not if that Dishy Rishi comes in!!'. If either of the candidates are actually going to take some sting out of the issue, we'll have to wait and see till they're in place.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    edited August 17
    MrEd said:


    Cheney was, by all accounts, an awful representative for Wyoming and widely disliked. She had a reputation for cancelling events and not turning up, not even bothering to live in the state or represent its interests, and was only concerned about her own status in the Beltway.

    That had far more to do with the scale of her defeat than her opposition to Trump.

    That seems unlikely given how many awful representatives in safe areas still get re-selected, even in America where primary challenges are robust. She got 29% despite being both apparently awful and a traitor to Trump, is it really the case she would have not done a lot better than 29% had she been loyal to Trump? We cannot know if she would still have lost, but she'd surely have gotten north of 29% since one major factor against her would not exist - in which case how can the opposition to Trump not be at the least very significant, even if not the deal breaker?
  • MrEd said:


    As usual, the Pavlovian reaction on here to deem anyone who opposes Trump as a saint regardless of their faults kicks into play (I agree with your comment BTW @SeaShantyIrish2 ).

    Cheney was, by all accounts, an awful representative for Wyoming and widely disliked. She had a reputation for cancelling events and not turning up, not even bothering to live in the state or represent its interests, and was only concerned about her own status in the Beltway.

    That had far more to do with the scale of her defeat than her opposition to Trump.




    Re: public perceptions by Alaska voters re: Sarah Palin and he less-than-ironclad commitment to their interests as opposed to her own, similar logic in Wyoming seems to have added to the vote landslide AGAINST Liz Cheney in HER Republican primary, despite support she got from a sizable number of Democratic crossovers.

    Why? Because bulk of Wyoming voters are VERY focused on the needs, challenges & prospects of the energy industry, in particular coal and natural gas, also oil. And were alienated in good measure from Cheney because she is clearly NOT putting the economic interest of Wyoming (as perceived by locals) first & foremost on HER political agenda.

    It's like when the South Suffolk Tories deselected Tim Yeo. There was some suggestion it was about his strong environmentalism but a lot of it was due to the fact he lived in East Kent
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,035
    Alistair said:

    EPG said:

    To be fair I do think that people expected Roe v Wade would go, at least once Kennedy stepped down.

    A lot of people naively assumed that Supreme Court nominees wouldn't perjure themselves during confirmation hearings.

    There wasn't a centrist pundit in the land who thought Row was at risk.

    Even after the draft opinion was leaked you could still find "don't freak out" columns being penned.
    Well, that was daft. Trusting a Trump appointee (sorry if I trigger any snowflakes with that one).
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493

    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    I'm in favour of returning what happens to a woman's body to the woman concerned rather than electors.
    Unless the woman in question happens to be foetal.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,035

    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    I'm in favour of returning what happens to a woman's body to the woman concerned rather than electors.
    Unless the woman in question happens to be foetal.
    That's a new concept to me. What's the pronoun for a minus zero point five year old woman?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    MrEd said:


    As usual, the Pavlovian reaction on here to deem anyone who opposes Trump as a saint regardless of their faults kicks into play (I agree with your comment BTW @SeaShantyIrish2 ).

    Cheney was, by all accounts, an awful representative for Wyoming and widely disliked. She had a reputation for cancelling events and not turning up, not even bothering to live in the state or represent its interests, and was only concerned about her own status in the Beltway.

    That had far more to do with the scale of her defeat than her opposition to Trump.

    Re: public perceptions by Alaska voters re: Sarah Palin and he less-than-ironclad commitment to their interests as opposed to her own, similar logic in Wyoming seems to have added to the vote landslide AGAINST Liz Cheney in HER Republican primary, despite support she got from a sizable number of Democratic crossovers.

    Why? Because bulk of Wyoming voters are VERY focused on the needs, challenges & prospects of the energy industry, in particular coal and natural gas, also oil. And were alienated in good measure from Cheney because she is clearly NOT putting the economic interest of Wyoming (as perceived by locals) first & foremost on HER political agenda.

    Believe you are taking an inch and turning into a mile . . . or rather MANY miles.

    Certainly the stories about Liz Cheney's "awful" representation of Wyoming interests in Congress were NOT prevalent BEFORE she voted to impeach Trump.

    Indeed, her removal from GOP leadership in wake of Jan 2021 was stark before-after divide with respect to her political clout inside the Beltway, including for Wyoming interests.

  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,286
    edited August 17

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







    British isles? Or is that not correct?
    First, Britain is synonymous with the UK, not with Great Britain. This might be being lost now the government under Boris has taken to saying UK all the time, possibly after realising their Brexit settlement brought forward the prospect of Irish unification. 100 years ago, England would have been used interchangeably with Britain to mean the whole country before those pesky Scots decided it was not inclusive enough.

    Second, Rishi is talking to members of the Conservative and Unionist Party, who probably do identify as British rather than Irish, even though the genius of the Good Friday Agreement is to allow a Schrodinger's Cat-like ambiguity on the question of national identity, as viewers of the recent documentary series Derry Girls would know (especially the finale set on the day of the referendum).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238

    MrEd said:


    As usual, the Pavlovian reaction on here to deem anyone who opposes Trump as a saint regardless of their faults kicks into play (I agree with your comment BTW @SeaShantyIrish2 ).

    Cheney was, by all accounts, an awful representative for Wyoming and widely disliked. She had a reputation for cancelling events and not turning up, not even bothering to live in the state or represent its interests, and was only concerned about her own status in the Beltway.

    That had far more to do with the scale of her defeat than her opposition to Trump.

    Re: public perceptions by Alaska voters re: Sarah Palin and he less-than-ironclad commitment to their interests as opposed to her own, similar logic in Wyoming seems to have added to the vote landslide AGAINST Liz Cheney in HER Republican primary, despite support she got from a sizable number of Democratic crossovers.

    Why? Because bulk of Wyoming voters are VERY focused on the needs, challenges & prospects of the energy industry, in particular coal and natural gas, also oil. And were alienated in good measure from Cheney because she is clearly NOT putting the economic interest of Wyoming (as perceived by locals) first & foremost on HER political agenda.

    Believe you are taking an inch and turning into a mile . . . or rather MANY miles.

    Certainly the stories about Liz Cheney's "awful" representation of Wyoming interests in Congress were NOT prevalent BEFORE she voted to impeach Trump.

    Indeed, her removal from GOP leadership in wake of Jan 2021 was stark before-after divide with respect to her political clout inside the Beltway, including for Wyoming interests.

    Very Trumpesque though - all those people he appointed/supported, who when they quit it turned out they were utterly awful and obviously so from the beginning, only a fool could not have seen it. I suppose its possible they all woke up to how awful Cheney was in her last term, she is not a very long server, but it's quite the coincidence they noticed at this point.
  • algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    I'm in favour of returning what happens to a woman's body to the woman concerned rather than electors.
    Unless the woman in question happens to be foetal.
    Regardless of your personal moral position on abortion, a foetus of say 15 weeks is capable neither of expressing nor of even holding a view.

    In those circumstances, you need a very strong justification to hand that decision from the woman carrying and sustaining the foetus within her to the electorate. It's the very definition of the tyranny of the majority.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493
    ...
    kle4 said:

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







    The ones voting in the Conservative leadership election perchance?

    Who are they by the way, is it the Ulster Unionists? Are they affiliated and get a vote? Or is there a tiny Tory party there?
    The Tories actually stand candidates in at least some Northern Irish seats (after the formal alliance with the UUP was a disaster 12 years ago). They get tiny amounts of the vote, but I regard it as encouraging for a major party to stand there.

    Edit: Very nearly held their deposit in North Down, their best result. Not bad, honestly.
    Thanks. I don't know that I'd vote for them if I lived there. DUP are more likely to negotiate and get higher public spending in NI. There should be a Scottish DUP, as I'm never off my soap box about.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938

    MrEd said:


    As usual, the Pavlovian reaction on here to deem anyone who opposes Trump as a saint regardless of their faults kicks into play (I agree with your comment BTW @SeaShantyIrish2 ).

    Cheney was, by all accounts, an awful representative for Wyoming and widely disliked. She had a reputation for cancelling events and not turning up, not even bothering to live in the state or represent its interests, and was only concerned about her own status in the Beltway.

    That had far more to do with the scale of her defeat than her opposition to Trump.

    Re: public perceptions by Alaska voters re: Sarah Palin and he less-than-ironclad commitment to their interests as opposed to her own, similar logic in Wyoming seems to have added to the vote landslide AGAINST Liz Cheney in HER Republican primary, despite support she got from a sizable number of Democratic crossovers.

    Why? Because bulk of Wyoming voters are VERY focused on the needs, challenges & prospects of the energy industry, in particular coal and natural gas, also oil. And were alienated in good measure from Cheney because she is clearly NOT putting the economic interest of Wyoming (as perceived by locals) first & foremost on HER political agenda.

    Believe you are taking an inch and turning into a mile . . . or rather MANY miles.

    Certainly the stories about Liz Cheney's "awful" representation of Wyoming interests in Congress were NOT prevalent BEFORE she voted to impeach Trump.

    Indeed, her removal from GOP leadership in wake of Jan 2021 was stark before-after divide with respect to her political clout inside the Beltway, including for Wyoming interests.

    It seems like you can get away with being somewhat critical of Trump, within the Republican Party, but voting for impeachment will see you cast into outer darkness.

    That is a massive vote against her in the primary.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,109
    Sean_F said:

    MrEd said:


    As usual, the Pavlovian reaction on here to deem anyone who opposes Trump as a saint regardless of their faults kicks into play (I agree with your comment BTW @SeaShantyIrish2 ).

    Cheney was, by all accounts, an awful representative for Wyoming and widely disliked. She had a reputation for cancelling events and not turning up, not even bothering to live in the state or represent its interests, and was only concerned about her own status in the Beltway.

    That had far more to do with the scale of her defeat than her opposition to Trump.

    Re: public perceptions by Alaska voters re: Sarah Palin and he less-than-ironclad commitment to their interests as opposed to her own, similar logic in Wyoming seems to have added to the vote landslide AGAINST Liz Cheney in HER Republican primary, despite support she got from a sizable number of Democratic crossovers.

    Why? Because bulk of Wyoming voters are VERY focused on the needs, challenges & prospects of the energy industry, in particular coal and natural gas, also oil. And were alienated in good measure from Cheney because she is clearly NOT putting the economic interest of Wyoming (as perceived by locals) first & foremost on HER political agenda.

    Believe you are taking an inch and turning into a mile . . . or rather MANY miles.

    Certainly the stories about Liz Cheney's "awful" representation of Wyoming interests in Congress were NOT prevalent BEFORE she voted to impeach Trump.

    Indeed, her removal from GOP leadership in wake of Jan 2021 was stark before-after divide with respect to her political clout inside the Beltway, including for Wyoming interests.

    It seems like you can get away with being somewhat critical of Trump, within the Republican Party, but voting for impeachment will see you cast into outer darkness.

    That is a massive vote against her in the primary.
    How many senior Republicans are now prepared to call out Trump over 6th January? And how many can keep their seats in Congress.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,493

    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    I'm in favour of returning what happens to a woman's body to the woman concerned rather than electors.
    Unless the woman in question happens to be foetal.
    Regardless of your personal moral position on abortion, a foetus of say 15 weeks is capable neither of expressing nor of even holding a view.

    In those circumstances, you need a very strong justification to hand that decision from the woman carrying and sustaining the foetus within her to the electorate. It's the very definition of the tyranny of the majority.
    I don't have a pronounced views on it myself, it was merely a wry observation.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







    British isles? Or is that not correct?
    Britain is one of the islands, Ireland the other (major) one, so you could as well say the Irish Isles as the British Isles.

    But, anyway, the Good Friday Agreement allows everyone in Northern Ireland to identify as British, and it's pretty safe to assume that any members of the Conservative and Unionist Party will identify as British, though they may think of themselves as Irish as well.

    The criticism is bizarre. How many Irish Republicans would you expect to find as members of the Tory party?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372
    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    Yes, that's very much my opinion.

    And Kansas tells us that - in the vast majority of US states - abortion will continue to be legal and available. The exceptions will be in the Deep South and Utah,

    It is, however, worth noting that the Republican Party has got itself into a bit of a pickle here. There are a couple of US States where legal abortion is popular, and yet Republican controlled legislatures have passed laws that broadly criminalise it. While RvW existed, this was of little import; it was virtue signaling to primary voters.

    Now, though, those laws come into existence.

    Voters, for what it's worth, tend to support restrictions on abortion. But very few of them support blanket bans.

    The key question, really, is how much abortion matters.

    And Kansas tells us the answer is quite a lot. Around 200,000 independents came out to vote in the Kansas ballot proposition, even though they couldn't vote in either party's primaries. Overall turnout was up close to 90% from the 2018 primaries.

    That's a hell of a lot of people who cared enough to come out and vote.

    Now, this doesn't mean that those people will vote Democrat. But they might well come out to overturn blanket abortion bans. And that probably means voting Democrat.
  • Karma's a bitch and so are the GOP.

    Hopefully the treasonous Trump fanatics get their due deserves.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







    British isles? Or is that not correct?
    Britain is one of the islands, Ireland the other (major) one, so you could as well say the Irish Isles as the British Isles.

    But, anyway, the Good Friday Agreement allows everyone in Northern Ireland to identify as British, and it's pretty safe to assume that any members of the Conservative and Unionist Party will identify as British, though they may think of themselves as Irish as well.

    The criticism is bizarre. How many Irish Republicans would you expect to find as members of the Tory party?
    Yes, I doubt if many Irish Republicans would be interested in voting Conservative, and I would not expect the Conservatives to be courting their votes.
  • rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    Yes, that's very much my opinion.

    And Kansas tells us that - in the vast majority of US states - abortion will continue to be legal and available. The exceptions will be in the Deep South and Utah,

    It is, however, worth noting that the Republican Party has got itself into a bit of a pickle here. There are a couple of US States where legal abortion is popular, and yet Republican controlled legislatures have passed laws that broadly criminalise it. While RvW existed, this was of little import; it was virtue signaling to primary voters.

    Now, though, those laws come into existence.

    Voters, for what it's worth, tend to support restrictions on abortion. But very few of them support blanket bans.

    The key question, really, is how much abortion matters.

    And Kansas tells us the answer is quite a lot. Around 200,000 independents came out to vote in the Kansas ballot proposition, even though they couldn't vote in either party's primaries. Overall turnout was up close to 90% from the 2018 primaries.

    That's a hell of a lot of people who cared enough to come out and vote.

    Now, this doesn't mean that those people will vote Democrat. But they might well come out to overturn blanket abortion bans. And that probably means voting Democrat.
    You've hit us before with your hot take that it's all a thoroughly good thing if the right of women to choose what happens to their own bodies is taken from them and handed to a bare majority in their own state. And if the only losers are a few thousand women, including victims of rape/incest, in Alabama or whatever then, y'know, state rights or something.

    It's still a rotten take - as intellectually shallow as it is callous.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,286
    OT welcome to London.

    According to BBC analysis of police crime figures, 66 murder investigations have been launched this year in London by the Met Police, City of London Police and British Transport Police (BTP).

    This is slightly lower compared with this time last year where police had launched 78 murder investigations in the capital.

    Nearly two-thirds of London homicide victims in 2022 have been stabbed to death.

    Four people have been fatally shot - all within the last month.

    Sixty-two cases have led to arrests, and 52 cases have seen someone charged with murder.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62575679
  • Alistair said:

    EPG said:

    To be fair I do think that people expected Roe v Wade would go, at least once Kennedy stepped down.

    A lot of people naively assumed that Supreme Court nominees wouldn't perjure themselves during confirmation hearings.

    There wasn't a centrist pundit in the land who thought Row was at risk.

    Even after the draft opinion was leaked you could still find "don't freak out" columns being penned.
    What perjury?

    They said to the best of my knowledge that Roe was "settled law" and it was, until it was unsettled by them.

    They never to the best of my knowledge said they wouldn't unsettle it, given the opportunity.

    Biden should have stacked the court when he was inaugurated, he didn't, so he let them do this. He should have also made DC and PR states.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,372

    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    Yes, that's very much my opinion.

    And Kansas tells us that - in the vast majority of US states - abortion will continue to be legal and available. The exceptions will be in the Deep South and Utah,

    It is, however, worth noting that the Republican Party has got itself into a bit of a pickle here. There are a couple of US States where legal abortion is popular, and yet Republican controlled legislatures have passed laws that broadly criminalise it. While RvW existed, this was of little import; it was virtue signaling to primary voters.

    Now, though, those laws come into existence.

    Voters, for what it's worth, tend to support restrictions on abortion. But very few of them support blanket bans.

    The key question, really, is how much abortion matters.

    And Kansas tells us the answer is quite a lot. Around 200,000 independents came out to vote in the Kansas ballot proposition, even though they couldn't vote in either party's primaries. Overall turnout was up close to 90% from the 2018 primaries.

    That's a hell of a lot of people who cared enough to come out and vote.

    Now, this doesn't mean that those people will vote Democrat. But they might well come out to overturn blanket abortion bans. And that probably means voting Democrat.
    You've hit us before with your hot take that it's all a thoroughly good thing if the right of women to choose what happens to their own bodies is taken from them and handed to a bare majority in their own state. And if the only losers are a few thousand women, including victims of rape/incest, in Alabama or whatever then, y'know, state rights or something.

    It's still a rotten take - as intellectually shallow as it is callous.
    I apologize for being intellectually shallow.

    But I believe process matters. And process means democratic buy in.

    I'm sorry that abortion will be illegal in some states. It sucks for the women involved. But decisions about criminality should be made by voters.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938

    Karma's a bitch and so are the GOP.

    Hopefully the treasonous Trump fanatics get their due deserves.

    If, as SSI argues, the Washington Primaries suggest a swing of about 5%, compared to 2018, then the Republicans will probably gain the House, with a lead of 1-2%, which would give them a majority, but much lower than would have been expected.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 27,575

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







    British isles? Or is that not correct?
    Britain is one of the islands, Ireland the other (major) one, so you could as well say the Irish Isles as the British Isles.

    But, anyway, the Good Friday Agreement allows everyone in Northern Ireland to identify as British, and it's pretty safe to assume that any members of the Conservative and Unionist Party will identify as British, though they may think of themselves as Irish as well.

    The criticism is bizarre. How many Irish Republicans would you expect to find as members of the Tory party?
    Britannia was the name the Romans originally gave to the whole of the British Isles including Ireland. Nor did the Romans ever refer to just the largest island as Britannia. They transferred the name to the specific province they ruled in the southern half of that largest island. It only came to refer to the largest island alone after the act of Union in 1707.

    Geographically The British Isles are the whole archipelago including Ireland. But of course that derives from the fact that the British (as opposed to the Irish) wrote the rules and named stuff.

    As an aside interestingly, names can of course change and quite quickly. The North Sea was usually known as The German Sea until the middle of the 18th Century. Perhaps in the future The British Isles will indeed be The Irish Isles. It does have a rather more poetic alliteration to it.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917

    OT welcome to London.

    According to BBC analysis of police crime figures, 66 murder investigations have been launched this year in London by the Met Police, City of London Police and British Transport Police (BTP).

    This is slightly lower compared with this time last year where police had launched 78 murder investigations in the capital.

    Nearly two-thirds of London homicide victims in 2022 have been stabbed to death.

    Four people have been fatally shot - all within the last month.

    Sixty-two cases have led to arrests, and 52 cases have seen someone charged with murder.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62575679

    Pretty good stats compared to most cities of similar size.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,030

    Alistair said:

    EPG said:

    To be fair I do think that people expected Roe v Wade would go, at least once Kennedy stepped down.

    A lot of people naively assumed that Supreme Court nominees wouldn't perjure themselves during confirmation hearings.

    There wasn't a centrist pundit in the land who thought Row was at risk.

    Even after the draft opinion was leaked you could still find "don't freak out" columns being penned.
    What perjury?

    They said to the best of my knowledge that Roe was "settled law" and it was, until it was unsettled by them.

    They never to the best of my knowledge said they wouldn't unsettle it, given the opportunity.

    Biden should have stacked the court when he was inaugurated, he didn't, so he let them do this. He should have also made DC and PR states.
    I can't see either of those having any undesirable medium-term consequences.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917

    Sean_F said:

    MrEd said:


    As usual, the Pavlovian reaction on here to deem anyone who opposes Trump as a saint regardless of their faults kicks into play (I agree with your comment BTW @SeaShantyIrish2 ).

    Cheney was, by all accounts, an awful representative for Wyoming and widely disliked. She had a reputation for cancelling events and not turning up, not even bothering to live in the state or represent its interests, and was only concerned about her own status in the Beltway.

    That had far more to do with the scale of her defeat than her opposition to Trump.

    Re: public perceptions by Alaska voters re: Sarah Palin and he less-than-ironclad commitment to their interests as opposed to her own, similar logic in Wyoming seems to have added to the vote landslide AGAINST Liz Cheney in HER Republican primary, despite support she got from a sizable number of Democratic crossovers.

    Why? Because bulk of Wyoming voters are VERY focused on the needs, challenges & prospects of the energy industry, in particular coal and natural gas, also oil. And were alienated in good measure from Cheney because she is clearly NOT putting the economic interest of Wyoming (as perceived by locals) first & foremost on HER political agenda.

    Believe you are taking an inch and turning into a mile . . . or rather MANY miles.

    Certainly the stories about Liz Cheney's "awful" representation of Wyoming interests in Congress were NOT prevalent BEFORE she voted to impeach Trump.

    Indeed, her removal from GOP leadership in wake of Jan 2021 was stark before-after divide with respect to her political clout inside the Beltway, including for Wyoming interests.

    It seems like you can get away with being somewhat critical of Trump, within the Republican Party, but voting for impeachment will see you cast into outer darkness.

    That is a massive vote against her in the primary.
    How many senior Republicans are now prepared to call out Trump over 6th January? And how many can keep their seats in Congress.
    Senior? Murkowski is probably alone in being senior and likely to win in 22.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    edited August 17

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







    British isles? Or is that not correct?
    Britain is one of the islands, Ireland the other (major) one, so you could as well say the Irish Isles as the British Isles.

    But, anyway, the Good Friday Agreement allows everyone in Northern Ireland to identify as British, and it's pretty safe to assume that any members of the Conservative and Unionist Party will identify as British, though they may think of themselves as Irish as well.

    The criticism is bizarre. How many Irish Republicans would you expect to find as members of the Tory party?
    Britannia was the name the Romans originally gave to the whole of the British Isles including Ireland. Nor did the Romans ever refer to just the largest island as Britannia. They transferred the name to the specific province they ruled in the southern half of that largest island. It only came to refer to the largest island alone after the act of Union in 1707.

    Geographically The British Isles are the whole archipelago including Ireland. But of course that derives from the fact that the British (as opposed to the Irish) wrote the rules and named stuff.

    As an aside interestingly, names can of course change and quite quickly. The North Sea was usually known as The German Sea until the middle of the 18th Century. Perhaps in the future The British Isles will indeed be The Irish Isles. It does have a rather more poetic alliteration to it.
    Better than Islands of the North Atlantic, which was apparently one suggestion.

    I'd be happy with British-Irish Isles, though who knows what a Manxer would think of it.

    Wiki tells me UK Law uses the subtly different 'British Islands' to include the bits that include the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. So if someone uses that one they are not including the Republic and are well set if someone gets huffy about the name.

    Edit: Another suggestion was Anglo-Celtic Isles, which I guess might be more accurate than British?
  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,030

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    Yes, that's very much my opinion.

    And Kansas tells us that - in the vast majority of US states - abortion will continue to be legal and available. The exceptions will be in the Deep South and Utah,

    It is, however, worth noting that the Republican Party has got itself into a bit of a pickle here. There are a couple of US States where legal abortion is popular, and yet Republican controlled legislatures have passed laws that broadly criminalise it. While RvW existed, this was of little import; it was virtue signaling to primary voters.

    Now, though, those laws come into existence.

    Voters, for what it's worth, tend to support restrictions on abortion. But very few of them support blanket bans.

    The key question, really, is how much abortion matters.

    And Kansas tells us the answer is quite a lot. Around 200,000 independents came out to vote in the Kansas ballot proposition, even though they couldn't vote in either party's primaries. Overall turnout was up close to 90% from the 2018 primaries.

    That's a hell of a lot of people who cared enough to come out and vote.

    Now, this doesn't mean that those people will vote Democrat. But they might well come out to overturn blanket abortion bans. And that probably means voting Democrat.
    You've hit us before with your hot take that it's all a thoroughly good thing if the right of women to choose what happens to their own bodies is taken from them and handed to a bare majority in their own state. And if the only losers are a few thousand women, including victims of rape/incest, in Alabama or whatever then, y'know, state rights or something.

    It's still a rotten take - as intellectually shallow as it is callous.
    I apologize for being intellectually shallow.

    But I believe process matters. And process means democratic buy in.

    I'm sorry that abortion will be illegal in some states. It sucks for the women involved. But decisions about criminality should be made by voters.
    That, right there, is the intellectual shallowness.

    Democracy matters - we both agree on that. But other fundamental things matter too, such as the autonomy of the individual over his or her body. There are matters where 50%+1 simply isn't sufficient justification. If you think it is, I'd suggest you haven't really thought at all. What you've done is fetishise one important principle over all others.
    The problem that you have to square is that, with abortion, it's not only the mother's body under consideration.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,286

    OT welcome to London.

    According to BBC analysis of police crime figures, 66 murder investigations have been launched this year in London by the Met Police, City of London Police and British Transport Police (BTP).

    This is slightly lower compared with this time last year where police had launched 78 murder investigations in the capital.

    Nearly two-thirds of London homicide victims in 2022 have been stabbed to death.

    Four people have been fatally shot - all within the last month.

    Sixty-two cases have led to arrests, and 52 cases have seen someone charged with murder.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62575679

    Pretty good stats compared to most cities of similar size.
    And a high clear-up rate.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,308
    Taz said:

    On the local news tonight. This farm shop will close due to their energy bill going from 20K a year to 76K a year. Unable to afford just over a grand a week extra charges they’ve thrown in the towel.

    The tip of the iceberg. This is going to be brutal on these sort of businesses.

    https://thestrayferret.co.uk/70000-energy-bill-increase-forces-harrogate-district-farm-shop-to-close/

    If everyone's suffering the same, then everyone will have to put prices up, so they should be able to increase their prices. That's what always goes unsaid in these stories.

    Of course, it's not quite that simple - the public may not be able to pay the new prices, and the whole farm shop sector may shrink in favour of supermarkets. But every story about business energy prices seems to feature a business owner swearing blind they can't put prices up. It seems odd.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,035

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    Yes, that's very much my opinion.

    And Kansas tells us that - in the vast majority of US states - abortion will continue to be legal and available. The exceptions will be in the Deep South and Utah,

    It is, however, worth noting that the Republican Party has got itself into a bit of a pickle here. There are a couple of US States where legal abortion is popular, and yet Republican controlled legislatures have passed laws that broadly criminalise it. While RvW existed, this was of little import; it was virtue signaling to primary voters.

    Now, though, those laws come into existence.

    Voters, for what it's worth, tend to support restrictions on abortion. But very few of them support blanket bans.

    The key question, really, is how much abortion matters.

    And Kansas tells us the answer is quite a lot. Around 200,000 independents came out to vote in the Kansas ballot proposition, even though they couldn't vote in either party's primaries. Overall turnout was up close to 90% from the 2018 primaries.

    That's a hell of a lot of people who cared enough to come out and vote.

    Now, this doesn't mean that those people will vote Democrat. But they might well come out to overturn blanket abortion bans. And that probably means voting Democrat.
    You've hit us before with your hot take that it's all a thoroughly good thing if the right of women to choose what happens to their own bodies is taken from them and handed to a bare majority in their own state. And if the only losers are a few thousand women, including victims of rape/incest, in Alabama or whatever then, y'know, state rights or something.

    It's still a rotten take - as intellectually shallow as it is callous.
    I apologize for being intellectually shallow.

    But I believe process matters. And process means democratic buy in.

    I'm sorry that abortion will be illegal in some states. It sucks for the women involved. But decisions about criminality should be made by voters.
    And if those voters decide that slavery should be legal again? Or all homosexuals should be chemically castrated? Would you still hold to that claim?

    Churchill's comment on democracy - "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" is perfectly true but within its construction there is an explicit and valid criticism.

    Democracy is flawed and like any other system created by man it needs constant supervision and challenge. That is why we have the other arms of Government. Because pure democracy killed Socrates. Because Hitler and Trump were both democratically elected and because there are some basic principles which are even more important than democracy.

    I think you have drawn your line in the wrong place in the sand.

    It would mean the end of - for example - speech protections, which are a very fine thing in the United States, but I get that many people prefer to criminalise hearing things they don't like, so that's just my opinion.
  • Driver said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    Yes, that's very much my opinion.

    And Kansas tells us that - in the vast majority of US states - abortion will continue to be legal and available. The exceptions will be in the Deep South and Utah,

    It is, however, worth noting that the Republican Party has got itself into a bit of a pickle here. There are a couple of US States where legal abortion is popular, and yet Republican controlled legislatures have passed laws that broadly criminalise it. While RvW existed, this was of little import; it was virtue signaling to primary voters.

    Now, though, those laws come into existence.

    Voters, for what it's worth, tend to support restrictions on abortion. But very few of them support blanket bans.

    The key question, really, is how much abortion matters.

    And Kansas tells us the answer is quite a lot. Around 200,000 independents came out to vote in the Kansas ballot proposition, even though they couldn't vote in either party's primaries. Overall turnout was up close to 90% from the 2018 primaries.

    That's a hell of a lot of people who cared enough to come out and vote.

    Now, this doesn't mean that those people will vote Democrat. But they might well come out to overturn blanket abortion bans. And that probably means voting Democrat.
    You've hit us before with your hot take that it's all a thoroughly good thing if the right of women to choose what happens to their own bodies is taken from them and handed to a bare majority in their own state. And if the only losers are a few thousand women, including victims of rape/incest, in Alabama or whatever then, y'know, state rights or something.

    It's still a rotten take - as intellectually shallow as it is callous.
    I apologize for being intellectually shallow.

    But I believe process matters. And process means democratic buy in.

    I'm sorry that abortion will be illegal in some states. It sucks for the women involved. But decisions about criminality should be made by voters.
    That, right there, is the intellectual shallowness.

    Democracy matters - we both agree on that. But other fundamental things matter too, such as the autonomy of the individual over his or her body. There are matters where 50%+1 simply isn't sufficient justification. If you think it is, I'd suggest you haven't really thought at all. What you've done is fetishise one important principle over all others.
    The problem that you have to square is that, with abortion, it's not only the mother's body under consideration.
    Sure - a vast number of decisions have some impact beyond the individual. But the fact there is some externality simply doesn't mean you hand it over to 50%+1. What it means is more than one principle is at stake. The subtle point is that you need a stronger justification than "a-ha! I've found an externality and a bare majority are behind me!" before you trample on a person's physical autonomy.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    Sean_F said:

    Karma's a bitch and so are the GOP.

    Hopefully the treasonous Trump fanatics get their due deserves.

    If, as SSI argues, the Washington Primaries suggest a swing of about 5%, compared to 2018, then the Republicans will probably gain the House, with a lead of 1-2%, which would give them a majority, but much lower than would have been expected.
    For clarification, the suggestion re: WA 2022 primary was made in analysis published by Seattle Times and NOT by yours truly.

    Also, somewhat problematic projecting approx 5% swing in WA to USA as a whole.

    That said, your general proposition of slender GOP majority in next US House MAY hold well hold water.

    Perhaps worth noting, that 158 years ago, in the Summer of 1864, it looked like Abraham was all-but-certain to be booted out of the White House that Fall.

    Until, that is, Union victory in September, 1864 at the Battle of Atlanta, the schwerpunkt of the Confederacy, significantly altered the electoral prospects for Abe and the Republican Party sharply upward.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,476

    MrEd said:


    As usual, the Pavlovian reaction on here to deem anyone who opposes Trump as a saint regardless of their faults kicks into play (I agree with your comment BTW @SeaShantyIrish2 ).

    Cheney was, by all accounts, an awful representative for Wyoming and widely disliked. She had a reputation for cancelling events and not turning up, not even bothering to live in the state or represent its interests, and was only concerned about her own status in the Beltway.

    That had far more to do with the scale of her defeat than her opposition to Trump.

    Um No. Her seat came up every 2 years and she re-won it in both 2018 and 2020 with massive majorities. And this is not just about it being a republican state. In the 2020 Primary she won with 73% of the vote against the other GOP candidate.

    This is just you as a Trump apologist trying to rewrite history
    Mr Ed is a very knowledgeable (when it comes to US politics) and lucid poster. Unfortunately he extrapolates an almost fully fictional but convincing analysis from Team Trump conjecture, and sells it as fact.

    Ironically he claims to be a critic of Trump
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,220
    The Raducanu of August 21 vintage seems to have made a reappearance in the last 24 hours. She’s absolutely battering Azarenka.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    carnforth said:

    Taz said:

    On the local news tonight. This farm shop will close due to their energy bill going from 20K a year to 76K a year. Unable to afford just over a grand a week extra charges they’ve thrown in the towel.

    The tip of the iceberg. This is going to be brutal on these sort of businesses.

    https://thestrayferret.co.uk/70000-energy-bill-increase-forces-harrogate-district-farm-shop-to-close/

    If everyone's suffering the same, then everyone will have to put prices up, so they should be able to increase their prices. That's what always goes unsaid in these stories.

    Of course, it's not quite that simple - the public may not be able to pay the new prices, and the whole farm shop sector may shrink in favour of supermarkets. But every story about business energy prices seems to feature a business owner swearing blind they can't put prices up. It seems odd.
    Nothing odd about it. Business gets energy bill and absorbs some and puts up prices a bit is not a newspaper story. Business closes is.

    Of course most businesses will survive but tens of thousands of extra businesses will fold over the winter compared to a typical year.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,451

    The Raducanu of August 21 vintage seems to have made a reappearance in the last 24 hours. She’s absolutely battering Azarenka.

    Raducanuooni...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938
    edited August 17

    Sean_F said:

    Karma's a bitch and so are the GOP.

    Hopefully the treasonous Trump fanatics get their due deserves.

    If, as SSI argues, the Washington Primaries suggest a swing of about 5%, compared to 2018, then the Republicans will probably gain the House, with a lead of 1-2%, which would give them a majority, but much lower than would have been expected.
    For clarification, the suggestion re: WA 2022 primary was made in analysis published by Seattle Times and NOT by yours truly.

    Also, somewhat problematic projecting approx 5% swing in WA to USA as a whole.

    That said, your general proposition of slender GOP majority in next US House MAY hold well hold water.

    Perhaps worth noting, that 158 years ago, in the Summer of 1864, it looked like Abraham was all-but-certain to be booted out of the White House that Fall.

    Until, that is, Union victory in September, 1864 at the Battle of Atlanta, the schwerpunkt of the Confederacy, significantly altered the electoral prospects for Abe and the Republican Party sharply upward.
    Sherman took the gloves off, and did what had to be done. People shy away from acknowledging that if you want to win wars you need people like Sherman, and Curtis Le May, and Sir Arthur Harris.
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    Will Truss appeal against the High Court's refusal to grant 6 of the 10 public interest immunity certificates she wanted in "send them to Rwanda"?

    The judge ruled that the Foreign Office must hand over the documents before a hearing on 5 September.

    Chortle.

    And.........nobody knows when the book with codeword "Finland" might come out...but it's possible to suppose what might be considered an important date...

    Truss and Rwanda is one to watch.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/aug/17/rwanda-asylum-policy-passages-must-be-revealed-judge-rules

    "The 10 passages the government asked the court to allow it not to disclose were contained in a draft country policy and information note about the asylum system and related human rights issues in Rwanda, and in an accompanying email – five comments in each document.

    "The judge ruled that there was 'public interest' in the court having access to some of the material. He added that some of it was already in the public domain.

    "His judgment states: 'I recognise strong public interest in not undermining international relations with a friendly state (Rwanda). Nonetheless that consideration is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring access to relevant information in this litigation.'

    The decision means the six passages, barring a few words, will not be kept secret during the high court hearing on 5 September. The other four passages will not be disclosed.'
    "
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    What the GOP need right now is for no Kafkaesque nightmare of a court ruling coming down in a critical swing state with a Senate election this November.

    Oh.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    Nigelb said:

    MrEd said:


    As usual, the Pavlovian reaction on here to deem anyone who opposes Trump as a saint regardless of their faults kicks into play (I agree with your comment BTW @SeaShantyIrish2 ).

    Cheney was, by all accounts, an awful representative for Wyoming and widely disliked. She had a reputation for cancelling events and not turning up, not even bothering to live in the state or represent its interests, and was only concerned about her own status in the Beltway.

    That had far more to do with the scale of her defeat than her opposition to Trump.

    Re: public perceptions by Alaska voters re: Sarah Palin and he less-than-ironclad commitment to their interests as opposed to her own, similar logic in Wyoming seems to have added to the vote landslide AGAINST Liz Cheney in HER Republican primary, despite support she got from a sizable number of Democratic crossovers.

    Why? Because bulk of Wyoming voters are VERY focused on the needs, challenges & prospects of the energy industry, in particular coal and natural gas, also oil. And were alienated in good measure from Cheney because she is clearly NOT putting the economic interest of Wyoming (as perceived by locals) first & foremost on HER political agenda.

    Believe you are taking an inch and turning into a mile . . . or rather MANY miles.

    Certainly the stories about Liz Cheney's "awful" representation of Wyoming interests in Congress were NOT prevalent BEFORE she voted to impeach Trump.

    Indeed, her removal from GOP leadership in wake of Jan 2021 was stark before-after divide with respect to her political clout inside the Beltway, including for Wyoming interests.

    All of which kind of misses the point anyway.

    Cheney had never been, from my POV, an admirable politician.
    But on the single most important thing in her career - the future of US democracy - she made a brave and correct stand.
    Liz Cheney schemed her way up the greasy pole of GOP politics in WY and DC, aided and abetted overtly & covertly by Daddy Dick, the Cowboy Machiavelli. And along the way she & he left a trail of fellow Republican politicos - for example, Wyoming's current Governor and US Senators - with sore heads, bruised egos and festering resentments.

    Which takes nothing away from the Profiles in Courage character of her current position. But does go a long way - along with the deterioration of her former political clout at home and in DC - to explain the depths to which her support has fallen in the state where Cheneys once called the tune and ruled the roost.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    Yes, that's very much my opinion.

    And Kansas tells us that - in the vast majority of US states - abortion will continue to be legal and available. The exceptions will be in the Deep South and Utah,

    It is, however, worth noting that the Republican Party has got itself into a bit of a pickle here. There are a couple of US States where legal abortion is popular, and yet Republican controlled legislatures have passed laws that broadly criminalise it. While RvW existed, this was of little import; it was virtue signaling to primary voters.

    Now, though, those laws come into existence.

    Voters, for what it's worth, tend to support restrictions on abortion. But very few of them support blanket bans.

    The key question, really, is how much abortion matters.

    And Kansas tells us the answer is quite a lot. Around 200,000 independents came out to vote in the Kansas ballot proposition, even though they couldn't vote in either party's primaries. Overall turnout was up close to 90% from the 2018 primaries.

    That's a hell of a lot of people who cared enough to come out and vote.

    Now, this doesn't mean that those people will vote Democrat. But they might well come out to overturn blanket abortion bans. And that probably means voting Democrat.
    You've hit us before with your hot take that it's all a thoroughly good thing if the right of women to choose what happens to their own bodies is taken from them and handed to a bare majority in their own state. And if the only losers are a few thousand women, including victims of rape/incest, in Alabama or whatever then, y'know, state rights or something.

    It's still a rotten take - as intellectually shallow as it is callous.
    I apologize for being intellectually shallow.

    But I believe process matters. And process means democratic buy in.

    I'm sorry that abortion will be illegal in some states. It sucks for the women involved. But decisions about criminality should be made by voters.
    And if those voters decide that slavery should be legal again? Or all homosexuals should be chemically castrated? Would you still hold to that claim?

    Churchill's comment on democracy - "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" is perfectly true but within its construction there is an explicit and valid criticism.

    Democracy is flawed and like any other system created by man it needs constant supervision and challenge. That is why we have the other arms of Government. Because pure democracy killed Socrates. Because Hitler and Trump were both democratically elected and because there are some basic principles which are even more important than democracy.

    I think you have drawn your line in the wrong place in the sand.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    If abortion, or other contentious issues, are exclusively a matter for the courts, well, the appointment of judges then just becomes a matter of political partisanship, as we've seen.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,238
    IDK, for the modern era these membership numbers still look perfectly decent, after periods of unusual rises.

    Keir Starmer's Labour lost an "alarming" 100,000 members in 2021, according to the party's latest annual accounts...

    At the end of 2020 total membership stood at 523,332, but fell by over 91,000 to 432,213 in December 2021.


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmers-labour-lost-almost-27763417

    LDs also dropped quite a bit apparently.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,286

    The Raducanu of August 21 vintage seems to have made a reappearance in the last 24 hours. She’s absolutely battering Azarenka.

    I plan to back Raducanu for the US Open. I'm a great believer in course and distance winners, and not just on the turf. I'd like to see her not withdraw through injury in the lead-up though. Getting beaten is one thing; not being able to hold the bat properly because of blisters is quite another; as is not being able to run through muscle strains.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,035
    Sean_F said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    Yes, that's very much my opinion.

    And Kansas tells us that - in the vast majority of US states - abortion will continue to be legal and available. The exceptions will be in the Deep South and Utah,

    It is, however, worth noting that the Republican Party has got itself into a bit of a pickle here. There are a couple of US States where legal abortion is popular, and yet Republican controlled legislatures have passed laws that broadly criminalise it. While RvW existed, this was of little import; it was virtue signaling to primary voters.

    Now, though, those laws come into existence.

    Voters, for what it's worth, tend to support restrictions on abortion. But very few of them support blanket bans.

    The key question, really, is how much abortion matters.

    And Kansas tells us the answer is quite a lot. Around 200,000 independents came out to vote in the Kansas ballot proposition, even though they couldn't vote in either party's primaries. Overall turnout was up close to 90% from the 2018 primaries.

    That's a hell of a lot of people who cared enough to come out and vote.

    Now, this doesn't mean that those people will vote Democrat. But they might well come out to overturn blanket abortion bans. And that probably means voting Democrat.
    You've hit us before with your hot take that it's all a thoroughly good thing if the right of women to choose what happens to their own bodies is taken from them and handed to a bare majority in their own state. And if the only losers are a few thousand women, including victims of rape/incest, in Alabama or whatever then, y'know, state rights or something.

    It's still a rotten take - as intellectually shallow as it is callous.
    I apologize for being intellectually shallow.

    But I believe process matters. And process means democratic buy in.

    I'm sorry that abortion will be illegal in some states. It sucks for the women involved. But decisions about criminality should be made by voters.
    And if those voters decide that slavery should be legal again? Or all homosexuals should be chemically castrated? Would you still hold to that claim?

    Churchill's comment on democracy - "democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" is perfectly true but within its construction there is an explicit and valid criticism.

    Democracy is flawed and like any other system created by man it needs constant supervision and challenge. That is why we have the other arms of Government. Because pure democracy killed Socrates. Because Hitler and Trump were both democratically elected and because there are some basic principles which are even more important than democracy.

    I think you have drawn your line in the wrong place in the sand.

    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    If abortion, or other contentious issues, are exclusively a matter for the courts, well, the appointment of judges then just becomes a matter of political partisanship, as we've seen.
    No, because appointment of judges will continue to be a matter of partisanship. For some reason I suspect Democrats will not accept the Brexiteer take that "when WE win, it's over".
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,220

    The Raducanu of August 21 vintage seems to have made a reappearance in the last 24 hours. She’s absolutely battering Azarenka.

    I plan to back Raducanu for the US Open. I'm a great believer in course and distance winners, and not just on the turf. I'd like to see her not withdraw through injury in the lead-up though. Getting beaten is one thing; not being able to hold the bat properly because of blisters is quite another; as is not being able to run through muscle strains.
    Yes, low expectations may help her. 6-0, 5-1 at the moment btw.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472
    kle4 said:

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







    British isles? Or is that not correct?
    Britain is one of the islands, Ireland the other (major) one, so you could as well say the Irish Isles as the British Isles.

    But, anyway, the Good Friday Agreement allows everyone in Northern Ireland to identify as British, and it's pretty safe to assume that any members of the Conservative and Unionist Party will identify as British, though they may think of themselves as Irish as well.

    The criticism is bizarre. How many Irish Republicans would you expect to find as members of the Tory party?
    Britannia was the name the Romans originally gave to the whole of the British Isles including Ireland. Nor did the Romans ever refer to just the largest island as Britannia. They transferred the name to the specific province they ruled in the southern half of that largest island. It only came to refer to the largest island alone after the act of Union in 1707.

    Geographically The British Isles are the whole archipelago including Ireland. But of course that derives from the fact that the British (as opposed to the Irish) wrote the rules and named stuff.

    As an aside interestingly, names can of course change and quite quickly. The North Sea was usually known as The German Sea until the middle of the 18th Century. Perhaps in the future The British Isles will indeed be The Irish Isles. It does have a rather more poetic alliteration to it.
    Better than Islands of the North Atlantic, which was apparently one suggestion.

    I'd be happy with British-Irish Isles, though who knows what a Manxer would think of it.

    Wiki tells me UK Law uses the subtly different 'British Islands' to include the bits that include the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. So if someone uses that one they are not including the Republic and are well set if someone gets huffy about the name.

    Edit: Another suggestion was Anglo-Celtic Isles, which I guess might be more accurate than British?
    The advantage of "Islands Of the North Atlantic" is that you can then use the initialism of IONA, which appeals, although may cause some confusion with the Island of Iona when used in speech.

    The Atlantic Archipelago is another alternative that has been proposed, but I tend simply to use "Britain and Ireland".
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,035
    Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    Karma's a bitch and so are the GOP.

    Hopefully the treasonous Trump fanatics get their due deserves.

    If, as SSI argues, the Washington Primaries suggest a swing of about 5%, compared to 2018, then the Republicans will probably gain the House, with a lead of 1-2%, which would give them a majority, but much lower than would have been expected.
    For clarification, the suggestion re: WA 2022 primary was made in analysis published by Seattle Times and NOT by yours truly.

    Also, somewhat problematic projecting approx 5% swing in WA to USA as a whole.

    That said, your general proposition of slender GOP majority in next US House MAY hold well hold water.

    Perhaps worth noting, that 158 years ago, in the Summer of 1864, it looked like Abraham was all-but-certain to be booted out of the White House that Fall.

    Until, that is, Union victory in September, 1864 at the Battle of Atlanta, the schwerpunkt of the Confederacy, significantly altered the electoral prospects for Abe and the Republican Party sharply upward.
    Sherman took the gloves off, and did what had to be done. People shy away from acknowledging that if you want to win wars you need people like Sherman, and Curtis Le May, and Sir Arthur Harris.
    Really? Isn't it a central tenet of centrist dadism? Sorkin made maybe the most famous movie scene of the 90s based on that idea.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    kle4 said:

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







    British isles? Or is that not correct?
    Britain is one of the islands, Ireland the other (major) one, so you could as well say the Irish Isles as the British Isles.

    But, anyway, the Good Friday Agreement allows everyone in Northern Ireland to identify as British, and it's pretty safe to assume that any members of the Conservative and Unionist Party will identify as British, though they may think of themselves as Irish as well.

    The criticism is bizarre. How many Irish Republicans would you expect to find as members of the Tory party?
    Britannia was the name the Romans originally gave to the whole of the British Isles including Ireland. Nor did the Romans ever refer to just the largest island as Britannia. They transferred the name to the specific province they ruled in the southern half of that largest island. It only came to refer to the largest island alone after the act of Union in 1707.

    Geographically The British Isles are the whole archipelago including Ireland. But of course that derives from the fact that the British (as opposed to the Irish) wrote the rules and named stuff.

    As an aside interestingly, names can of course change and quite quickly. The North Sea was usually known as The German Sea until the middle of the 18th Century. Perhaps in the future The British Isles will indeed be The Irish Isles. It does have a rather more poetic alliteration to it.
    Better than Islands of the North Atlantic, which was apparently one suggestion.

    I'd be happy with British-Irish Isles, though who knows what a Manxer would think of it.

    Wiki tells me UK Law uses the subtly different 'British Islands' to include the bits that include the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. So if someone uses that one they are not including the Republic and are well set if someone gets huffy about the name.

    Edit: Another suggestion was Anglo-Celtic Isles, which I guess might be more accurate than British?
    The advantage of "Islands Of the North Atlantic" is that you can then use the initialism of IONA, which appeals, although may cause some confusion with the Island of Iona when used in speech.

    The Atlantic Archipelago is another alternative that has been proposed, but I tend simply to use "Britain and Ireland".
    Bloody terrible idea. North Atlantic goes all the way to the equator so that's everything from iceland to the canaries and cape verde, and west to bermuda.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472
    Alistair said:

    What the GOP need right now is for no Kafkaesque nightmare of a court ruling coming down in a critical swing state with a Senate election this November.

    Oh.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court

    Not mature enough to decide to have an abortion, so perfectly fine to force them to carry a pregnancy to term.

    Land of the Free.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    kle4 said:

    IDK, for the modern era these membership numbers still look perfectly decent, after periods of unusual rises.

    Keir Starmer's Labour lost an "alarming" 100,000 members in 2021, according to the party's latest annual accounts...

    At the end of 2020 total membership stood at 523,332, but fell by over 91,000 to 432,213 in December 2021.


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmers-labour-lost-almost-27763417

    LDs also dropped quite a bit apparently.

    Lab way ahead though of Tory ageing membership of 160K.

    Truth is. Far too many people join a political party for the health of democracy. Whereas millions will join single issues campaigns and charities.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472
    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







    British isles? Or is that not correct?
    Britain is one of the islands, Ireland the other (major) one, so you could as well say the Irish Isles as the British Isles.

    But, anyway, the Good Friday Agreement allows everyone in Northern Ireland to identify as British, and it's pretty safe to assume that any members of the Conservative and Unionist Party will identify as British, though they may think of themselves as Irish as well.

    The criticism is bizarre. How many Irish Republicans would you expect to find as members of the Tory party?
    Britannia was the name the Romans originally gave to the whole of the British Isles including Ireland. Nor did the Romans ever refer to just the largest island as Britannia. They transferred the name to the specific province they ruled in the southern half of that largest island. It only came to refer to the largest island alone after the act of Union in 1707.

    Geographically The British Isles are the whole archipelago including Ireland. But of course that derives from the fact that the British (as opposed to the Irish) wrote the rules and named stuff.

    As an aside interestingly, names can of course change and quite quickly. The North Sea was usually known as The German Sea until the middle of the 18th Century. Perhaps in the future The British Isles will indeed be The Irish Isles. It does have a rather more poetic alliteration to it.
    Better than Islands of the North Atlantic, which was apparently one suggestion.

    I'd be happy with British-Irish Isles, though who knows what a Manxer would think of it.

    Wiki tells me UK Law uses the subtly different 'British Islands' to include the bits that include the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. So if someone uses that one they are not including the Republic and are well set if someone gets huffy about the name.

    Edit: Another suggestion was Anglo-Celtic Isles, which I guess might be more accurate than British?
    The advantage of "Islands Of the North Atlantic" is that you can then use the initialism of IONA, which appeals, although may cause some confusion with the Island of Iona when used in speech.

    The Atlantic Archipelago is another alternative that has been proposed, but I tend simply to use "Britain and Ireland".
    Bloody terrible idea. North Atlantic goes all the way to the equator so that's everything from iceland to the canaries and cape verde, and west to bermuda.
    The Atlantic is in general oceanographic terms normally split into three, South Atlantic, Tropical Atlantic and North Atlantic.

    But anyway, I didn't say that IONA was a perfect option.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 10,472
    The Russian retreat continues...

    The Kyiv Independent
    @KyivIndependent
    ⚡️Russia pulls military aircraft out of Crimean airbases after recent explosions.

    The Ukrainian Defense Ministry's Main Intelligence Directorate reported that no less than 24 planes and 14 helicopters had been transferred out of airfields in Crimea.


    https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1559963717860737024
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093

    The Russian retreat continues...

    The Kyiv Independent
    @KyivIndependent
    ⚡️Russia pulls military aircraft out of Crimean airbases after recent explosions.

    The Ukrainian Defense Ministry's Main Intelligence Directorate reported that no less than 24 planes and 14 helicopters had been transferred out of airfields in Crimea.


    https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1559963717860737024

    Putin's invasion is a military disaster that will be studied for decades.

  • DriverDriver Posts: 2,030

    Driver said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    Yes, that's very much my opinion.

    And Kansas tells us that - in the vast majority of US states - abortion will continue to be legal and available. The exceptions will be in the Deep South and Utah,

    It is, however, worth noting that the Republican Party has got itself into a bit of a pickle here. There are a couple of US States where legal abortion is popular, and yet Republican controlled legislatures have passed laws that broadly criminalise it. While RvW existed, this was of little import; it was virtue signaling to primary voters.

    Now, though, those laws come into existence.

    Voters, for what it's worth, tend to support restrictions on abortion. But very few of them support blanket bans.

    The key question, really, is how much abortion matters.

    And Kansas tells us the answer is quite a lot. Around 200,000 independents came out to vote in the Kansas ballot proposition, even though they couldn't vote in either party's primaries. Overall turnout was up close to 90% from the 2018 primaries.

    That's a hell of a lot of people who cared enough to come out and vote.

    Now, this doesn't mean that those people will vote Democrat. But they might well come out to overturn blanket abortion bans. And that probably means voting Democrat.
    You've hit us before with your hot take that it's all a thoroughly good thing if the right of women to choose what happens to their own bodies is taken from them and handed to a bare majority in their own state. And if the only losers are a few thousand women, including victims of rape/incest, in Alabama or whatever then, y'know, state rights or something.

    It's still a rotten take - as intellectually shallow as it is callous.
    I apologize for being intellectually shallow.

    But I believe process matters. And process means democratic buy in.

    I'm sorry that abortion will be illegal in some states. It sucks for the women involved. But decisions about criminality should be made by voters.
    That, right there, is the intellectual shallowness.

    Democracy matters - we both agree on that. But other fundamental things matter too, such as the autonomy of the individual over his or her body. There are matters where 50%+1 simply isn't sufficient justification. If you think it is, I'd suggest you haven't really thought at all. What you've done is fetishise one important principle over all others.
    The problem that you have to square is that, with abortion, it's not only the mother's body under consideration.
    Sure - a vast number of decisions have some impact beyond the individual. But the fact there is some externality simply doesn't mean you hand it over to 50%+1. What it means is more than one principle is at stake. The subtle point is that you need a stronger justification than "a-ha! I've found an externality and a bare majority are behind me!" before you trample on a person's physical autonomy.
    This specific decision has a specific (terminal) impact on a specific other individual. That's why the question is so fraught.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,913

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    If there was a smidgeon of doubt, Rishi only interested in talking to one section of the NI population.







    British isles? Or is that not correct?
    Britain is one of the islands, Ireland the other (major) one, so you could as well say the Irish Isles as the British Isles.

    But, anyway, the Good Friday Agreement allows everyone in Northern Ireland to identify as British, and it's pretty safe to assume that any members of the Conservative and Unionist Party will identify as British, though they may think of themselves as Irish as well.

    The criticism is bizarre. How many Irish Republicans would you expect to find as members of the Tory party?
    Britannia was the name the Romans originally gave to the whole of the British Isles including Ireland. Nor did the Romans ever refer to just the largest island as Britannia. They transferred the name to the specific province they ruled in the southern half of that largest island. It only came to refer to the largest island alone after the act of Union in 1707.

    Geographically The British Isles are the whole archipelago including Ireland. But of course that derives from the fact that the British (as opposed to the Irish) wrote the rules and named stuff.

    As an aside interestingly, names can of course change and quite quickly. The North Sea was usually known as The German Sea until the middle of the 18th Century. Perhaps in the future The British Isles will indeed be The Irish Isles. It does have a rather more poetic alliteration to it.
    Better than Islands of the North Atlantic, which was apparently one suggestion.

    I'd be happy with British-Irish Isles, though who knows what a Manxer would think of it.

    Wiki tells me UK Law uses the subtly different 'British Islands' to include the bits that include the UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. So if someone uses that one they are not including the Republic and are well set if someone gets huffy about the name.

    Edit: Another suggestion was Anglo-Celtic Isles, which I guess might be more accurate than British?
    The advantage of "Islands Of the North Atlantic" is that you can then use the initialism of IONA, which appeals, although may cause some confusion with the Island of Iona when used in speech.

    The Atlantic Archipelago is another alternative that has been proposed, but I tend simply to use "Britain and Ireland".
    Bloody terrible idea. North Atlantic goes all the way to the equator so that's everything from iceland to the canaries and cape verde, and west to bermuda.
    The Atlantic is in general oceanographic terms normally split into three, South Atlantic, Tropical Atlantic and North Atlantic.

    But anyway, I didn't say that IONA was a perfect option.
    Isles of Britain and Ireland is the current term in some circles.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,017
    kle4 said:

    algarkirk said:

    If overturning RvW has the effect of properly returning the issue, as in the UK, from courts to electors this will be a massive gain.

    If it ultimately has the effect of the parties not relying on the court to make decisions for them that might be a good thing, but it seems pretty likely the Court will be plenty happy to take decisions away from electors when it suits, as in that New York gun law.
    The US Supreme Court is the American equivalent of the pre-1911 House Of Lords.

    An unrepresentative legislative body, with life membership and ultimate constitutional power.

    Only the insane think that is a good idea.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,876
    kle4 said:

    IDK, for the modern era these membership numbers still look perfectly decent, after periods of unusual rises.

    Keir Starmer's Labour lost an "alarming" 100,000 members in 2021, according to the party's latest annual accounts...

    At the end of 2020 total membership stood at 523,332, but fell by over 91,000 to 432,213 in December 2021.


    https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/keir-starmers-labour-lost-almost-27763417

    LDs also dropped quite a bit apparently.

    Do you have a source for the "apparently" comment?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,551
    Alistair said:

    What the GOP need right now is for no Kafkaesque nightmare of a court ruling coming down in a critical swing state with a Senate election this November.

    Oh.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/aug/17/florida-pregnant-teenager-abortion-court

    What a dreadful decision . The GOP are going to regret the day the SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade .
This discussion has been closed.