With regard to the headline, and with all due deference to Sunil, the comedian Paul Sinha has just observed that "Le Pen is not mightier than the Fraud".
Voters consistently say issues like the economy and reproductive rights are their top concerns in this election. But in the closing weeks of the campaign, Republican ads focusing on transgender rights are dominating airwaves all over the country.
Desperate for answers on what went wrong on Election Day, finger-pointing among Democrats and media pundits has been swift. Many — in private — are holding President Joe Biden responsible. Others are blaming the operatives who have run the party’s last several campaigns. But some are pointing to an issue with far less power in American politics: transgender rights.
“The Democrats have to stop pandering to the far left,” Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., told The New York Times on Wednesday. “I don’t want to discriminate against anybody, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports.”
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., shared a similar view, telling the Times on Thursday: “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
But you said Harris was banging on about transgender rights when she should have campaigned on other things. Do you have any evidence that she spent time campaigning on transgender rights? Because so far as I can tell she avoided the issue as far as possible and it was the Republicans who spent a lot of time and money campaigning on the issue.
So Dems bang on about trans rights, Harris keeps quiet and the GOP say that a vote for Harris is a vote for 'they/them' while a vote for Trump is a vote for 'you'.
Guess what conclusion the voters draw ?
Trans rights may well have been a vote winner for Trump, I'm just disputing that Harris chose to campaign on the issue, and that she lost because she was 'banging on about abortion and trans rights' and if only someone in the Democratic party had told her to campaign on some other issues she might have won. I'm not convinced that Democrats generally were either - which Democrats are you referring to in the 2024 election campaigns? Republicans definitely were banging on about trans rights.
I also think that abortion was probably a vote-winning issue for Harris.
People who thought strongly about abortion, one way or another, were going to vote one way or the other.
People who don't wondered instead why politicians are talking about abortion instead of 'everyday life issues'.
As to trans, after the election but the general principle applies:
US Senate Democrats block bill to ban trans athletes from women’s sports Democratic senator says trans athletes ‘deserve an ally’ after Republican-led bill quashed in razor-sharp 51-45 vote
US Senate Democrats banded together to torpedo a Republican bill that would ban transgender athletes from women’s sports, defeating the legislation in a razor-sharp party-line vote of 51-45 on Monday evening.
The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, led by Tommy Tuberville, a senator from Alabama, crashed before reaching the 60 votes needed to advance, halting the proposal that had passed the House in January.
A New York Times/Ipsos poll from January found 79% of Americans opposed transgender female athletes competing in women’s sports, a statistic Republicans hoped would bolster their position. Democrats, however, swiftly branded the bill a cynical political distraction.
This is now ingrained in the public mind - Dems are for trans rights and the GOP are against them. The problem for the Dems is that they're assumed (whether accurately or not) to be on the deeply unpopular side of the issue.
What the Dems need is for the whole trans issue to disappear, which it will not if they keep playing into the GOP's hands on the issue.
I guess I must have completely misunderstood your initial post. I thought you were saying Harris spent too much time campaigning on abortion and trans rights. I'm only saying that a) abortion was a good issue for her b) she didn't campaign on trans rights
What is the name for the little loop on a watch strap in which you insert the scrag end of the strap? Because the one on my Garmin's broken. I reckon the extra drag of the loose bit of strap was the reason I was slower in the pool today, and not the drinks I had last night.
And am I the only person who (incorrectly?) uses 'scrag end' for that part of the strap?
The one on my old Garmin broke, it was very annoying as I have small wrists so the watch strap had a long scrag end. The elastic bands holding asparagus bunches together are a good substitute, the ones for spring onions, less so
Garmin will replace the strap for free. I'm on my third.
27% probably think democratic governments are incompetent. They have yet to experience the true incompetence and corruption of the average dictatorship.
They also assume that the dictatorship will be one of preference.
What is the name for the little loop on a watch strap in which you insert the scrag end of the strap? Because the one on my Garmin's broken. I reckon the extra drag of the loose bit of strap was the reason I was slower in the pool today, and not the drinks I had last night.
And am I the only person who (incorrectly?) uses 'scrag end' for that part of the strap?
The one on my old Garmin broke, it was very annoying as I have small wrists so the watch strap had a long scrag end. The elastic bands holding asparagus bunches together are a good substitute, the ones for spring onions, less so
Garmin will replace the strap for free. I'm on my third.
They will also replace your strap with a nylon one if - like me - the rubber ones cause contact dermititis.
Voters consistently say issues like the economy and reproductive rights are their top concerns in this election. But in the closing weeks of the campaign, Republican ads focusing on transgender rights are dominating airwaves all over the country.
Desperate for answers on what went wrong on Election Day, finger-pointing among Democrats and media pundits has been swift. Many — in private — are holding President Joe Biden responsible. Others are blaming the operatives who have run the party’s last several campaigns. But some are pointing to an issue with far less power in American politics: transgender rights.
“The Democrats have to stop pandering to the far left,” Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., told The New York Times on Wednesday. “I don’t want to discriminate against anybody, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports.”
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., shared a similar view, telling the Times on Thursday: “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
But you said Harris was banging on about transgender rights when she should have campaigned on other things. Do you have any evidence that she spent time campaigning on transgender rights? Because so far as I can tell she avoided the issue as far as possible and it was the Republicans who spent a lot of time and money campaigning on the issue.
So Dems bang on about trans rights, Harris keeps quiet and the GOP say that a vote for Harris is a vote for 'they/them' while a vote for Trump is a vote for 'you'.
Guess what conclusion the voters draw ?
Trans rights may well have been a vote winner for Trump, I'm just disputing that Harris chose to campaign on the issue, and that she lost because she was 'banging on about abortion and trans rights' and if only someone in the Democratic party had told her to campaign on some other issues she might have won. I'm not convinced that Democrats generally were either - which Democrats are you referring to in the 2024 election campaigns? Republicans definitely were banging on about trans rights.
I also think that abortion was probably a vote-winning issue for Harris.
The pro life evangelical and RC vote at least matched the pro choice female vote given the Trump and GOP win
When you say the "pro choice female vote", surely you mean "satanic woke baby-murdering vote"?
Voters consistently say issues like the economy and reproductive rights are their top concerns in this election. But in the closing weeks of the campaign, Republican ads focusing on transgender rights are dominating airwaves all over the country.
Desperate for answers on what went wrong on Election Day, finger-pointing among Democrats and media pundits has been swift. Many — in private — are holding President Joe Biden responsible. Others are blaming the operatives who have run the party’s last several campaigns. But some are pointing to an issue with far less power in American politics: transgender rights.
“The Democrats have to stop pandering to the far left,” Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., told The New York Times on Wednesday. “I don’t want to discriminate against anybody, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports.”
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., shared a similar view, telling the Times on Thursday: “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
But you said Harris was banging on about transgender rights when she should have campaigned on other things. Do you have any evidence that she spent time campaigning on transgender rights? Because so far as I can tell she avoided the issue as far as possible and it was the Republicans who spent a lot of time and money campaigning on the issue.
So Dems bang on about trans rights, Harris keeps quiet and the GOP say that a vote for Harris is a vote for 'they/them' while a vote for Trump is a vote for 'you'.
Guess what conclusion the voters draw ?
Trans rights may well have been a vote winner for Trump, I'm just disputing that Harris chose to campaign on the issue, and that she lost because she was 'banging on about abortion and trans rights' and if only someone in the Democratic party had told her to campaign on some other issues she might have won. I'm not convinced that Democrats generally were either - which Democrats are you referring to in the 2024 election campaigns? Republicans definitely were banging on about trans rights.
I also think that abortion was probably a vote-winning issue for Harris.
The pro life evangelical and RC vote at least matched the pro choice female vote given the Trump and GOP win
When you say the "pro choice female vote", surely you mean "satanic woke baby-murdering vote"?
The Satanists are ok: at least they believe in a god of sorts. It's the atheists that @HYUFD really takes issue with.
Reform membership numbers were stuck on about 219,000 for a couple of weeks after the Rupert Lowe saga, but have now started to slowly increase again. Currently on 220,664.
@Keir_Starmer As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.
We all need to be having these conversations more.
I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.
It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.
Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.
Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).
Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.
I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.
At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
Ah I'm currently unemployed, but I work in the tech sector, specifically within data science.
It's not my grade that matters for men in the late teens and early 20s, no one is becoming a VP of Data or CDO at that age. I'm talking about all of the graduate programmes and job fairs that specifically help women into the workplace, they've been hugely successful. I literally opened a programme for it at one of my previous workplaces when I was in investment management so we could increase the number of female grads in our intake we went from 90/10 to around 70/30 by the time I left. Though as I did so I recommended that the company freeze or close the programme because any further than that and they really would be taking substandard female candidates over vastly better qualified male ones. Even at 70/30 there was a lot of favouritism towards the women in the process, they got to skip a panel interview and got a 1 on 1 interview instead, they got a much lower pressure home task rather than the live case study the male candidates had to do and we had a lower entry bar on the aptitude test all candidates had to sit to enter into the process.
I've literally been there and done it, I've walked the walk on helping women into male dominated work places. I'm suggesting that it's probably time to take stock and look at where we are and maybe not push down on the accelerator for it. I don't see how it's controversial.
The Alan Turing Institute says women make up 22% of AI and data professionals. So, I'd suggest a bit of a way to go...
You go an speak to 100 girls aged 13-16 and find me more than 22 who give any fucks about computing, maths or software engineering/coding. That's the issue, girls don't give any fucks about it and it's difficult to then recruit from a smaller pool without excluding better qualified male candidates.
Girls in single sex schools typically take further maths/science/computer science at much higher rates than in mixed schools.
So a decent amount of the gap is caused by our education system (and girls preferring to be in classes with lots of other girls) rather than innate desire.
Related to this, we dropped the panel interview for women and replaced it with a stakeholder/peer interview with a senior female manager for a similar reason to this effect.
However, and it's a big one, there is an innate geekiness that boys have which isn't replicated among anywhere near the same number of girls. What percentage of girls do you think have changed the graphics card in their computer before the age of 16? What percentage of girls have booted their computers into safe mode by the same age? For boys the numbers will be seriously high, I mean when we discovered that if we booted the school PCs into safe mode the content filtering didn't initialise everyone learned how to do it.
I might suggest that if you were to take 50 5-year old boys, and 50 5-year old girls, and take them through how to change a graphics card in a computer, you would get the same success rate regardless of their gender. Because too many kids at a slightly older age are being told "that's a man's job".
If you were to ask what percentage of girls could sew up some torn jeans, you might get an expectedly corresponding result, for similar reasons. "This is a man's role" "This is a woman's role"
It's all bullshit.
When I had dinner with Princess Anne (*), we talked about nature versus nurture. It was a fascinating conversation, that covered multi-generational aspects. Which is a little worrying, as it infers it might take multiple generations to fix. If, indeed, you think it needs fixing...
(*) Gratuitous name drop
My nephew is 3 years old (almost 4) and all he wants to do is play with Lego, take everything apart to see how it works and destroy/rebuild his lego towers. He has had identical upbringing and literally identical toys as my niece who is two years older, she has substantially less interest in Lego, she likes to listen to stories, loves anything about dragons, princes and saving the princess - even shit that I've made up on the spot. My sample size of two says you don't know what you're talking about. Girls are simply less innately interested in building, spatial science and maths just as boys are innately less interested in linguistics and socialising. It's literally a million years of accumulated evolution.
Here's the thing: even a small innate differences can result in big differences in choices. Let's say (making up numbers here) than men are 20% more likely to be into hard sciences than women.
What happens then is that - because women prefer to hang out with other women, and men prefer to hang out with other men - the Physics class ends up with a male teacher, 18 boys and 2 girls. Which in turn perpetuates the disparity.
And it's why - when you go to single sex schools - there's a much smaller gap in terms of girls' choices than in mixed schools. Simply, the societal impact might well be a lot larger than any innate one.
My non-professional field, military history, is overwhelmingly male, not I think, because women are unwelcome, (and there are excellent military historians who are women), but because it just attracts far more men than women, as a subject.
If you get people debating the respective merits of the longbow and the composite bow, online, 95% of them will be male.
But how much of that is nature versus nurture? How much intrinsically our nature, and how much taught behaviour?
And that's the big question.
I'd like you to retract your statement please or I'll ask the moderators to intervene. You have, IMO, made unfounded accusations against me.
Voters consistently say issues like the economy and reproductive rights are their top concerns in this election. But in the closing weeks of the campaign, Republican ads focusing on transgender rights are dominating airwaves all over the country.
Desperate for answers on what went wrong on Election Day, finger-pointing among Democrats and media pundits has been swift. Many — in private — are holding President Joe Biden responsible. Others are blaming the operatives who have run the party’s last several campaigns. But some are pointing to an issue with far less power in American politics: transgender rights.
“The Democrats have to stop pandering to the far left,” Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., told The New York Times on Wednesday. “I don’t want to discriminate against anybody, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports.”
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., shared a similar view, telling the Times on Thursday: “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
But you said Harris was banging on about transgender rights when she should have campaigned on other things. Do you have any evidence that she spent time campaigning on transgender rights? Because so far as I can tell she avoided the issue as far as possible and it was the Republicans who spent a lot of time and money campaigning on the issue.
So Dems bang on about trans rights, Harris keeps quiet and the GOP say that a vote for Harris is a vote for 'they/them' while a vote for Trump is a vote for 'you'.
Guess what conclusion the voters draw ?
Trans rights may well have been a vote winner for Trump, I'm just disputing that Harris chose to campaign on the issue, and that she lost because she was 'banging on about abortion and trans rights' and if only someone in the Democratic party had told her to campaign on some other issues she might have won. I'm not convinced that Democrats generally were either - which Democrats are you referring to in the 2024 election campaigns? Republicans definitely were banging on about trans rights.
I also think that abortion was probably a vote-winning issue for Harris.
The pro life evangelical and RC vote at least matched the pro choice female vote given the Trump and GOP win
When you say the "pro choice female vote", surely you mean "satanic woke baby-murdering vote"?
Well if you wish to put it like that but the vote that lost last year regardless
Voters consistently say issues like the economy and reproductive rights are their top concerns in this election. But in the closing weeks of the campaign, Republican ads focusing on transgender rights are dominating airwaves all over the country.
Desperate for answers on what went wrong on Election Day, finger-pointing among Democrats and media pundits has been swift. Many — in private — are holding President Joe Biden responsible. Others are blaming the operatives who have run the party’s last several campaigns. But some are pointing to an issue with far less power in American politics: transgender rights.
“The Democrats have to stop pandering to the far left,” Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., told The New York Times on Wednesday. “I don’t want to discriminate against anybody, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports.”
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., shared a similar view, telling the Times on Thursday: “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
But you said Harris was banging on about transgender rights when she should have campaigned on other things. Do you have any evidence that she spent time campaigning on transgender rights? Because so far as I can tell she avoided the issue as far as possible and it was the Republicans who spent a lot of time and money campaigning on the issue.
So Dems bang on about trans rights, Harris keeps quiet and the GOP say that a vote for Harris is a vote for 'they/them' while a vote for Trump is a vote for 'you'.
Guess what conclusion the voters draw ?
Trans rights may well have been a vote winner for Trump, I'm just disputing that Harris chose to campaign on the issue, and that she lost because she was 'banging on about abortion and trans rights' and if only someone in the Democratic party had told her to campaign on some other issues she might have won. I'm not convinced that Democrats generally were either - which Democrats are you referring to in the 2024 election campaigns? Republicans definitely were banging on about trans rights.
I also think that abortion was probably a vote-winning issue for Harris.
The pro life evangelical and RC vote at least matched the pro choice female vote given the Trump and GOP win
The pro-choice vote was bigger by a long way. The problem was that not enough of the pro-choice vote voted for Kamala.
eg Trump won Florida by 13% but on the same day Florida Amendment 4 (which would have enshrined the right to abortion up to fetal viability in the Florida constitution): Yes 57.2% No 42.8%
Is it ridiculous post competition night on PB this evening? There have been an unusually high (or low) calibre of entries, but that one is a pretty solid effort. I'm sorry I missed the fun, I can normally give allcomers a good show when it comes to posting bollocks.
What is the name for the little loop on a watch strap in which you insert the scrag end of the strap? Because the one on my Garmin's broken. I reckon the extra drag of the loose bit of strap was the reason I was slower in the pool today, and not the drinks I had last night.
And am I the only person who (incorrectly?) uses 'scrag end' for that part of the strap?
What is the name for the little loop on a watch strap in which you insert the scrag end of the strap? Because the one on my Garmin's broken. I reckon the extra drag of the loose bit of strap was the reason I was slower in the pool today, and not the drinks I had last night.
And am I the only person who (incorrectly?) uses 'scrag end' for that part of the strap?
Is it ridiculous post competition night on PB this evening? There have been an unusually high (or low) calibre of entries, but that one is a pretty solid effort. I'm sorry I missed the fun, I can normally give allcomers a good show when it comes to posting bollocks.
I didn’t think much of the series. It left me wondering just how much research went into it. It felt to me like something not from the real world. Hackneyed.
If a case like that actually happened, it would be as massive and explosive media frenzy. Yet the police detective racks up at a school 2 days later, that hardly seems touched by it, goes into a a class with his own son in it. His son takes him aside to explain they’ve all got it fundamentally wrong down at the station, and explains emoji’s to him. WTF?
After an opening episode that was like an episode of Doctors, that second one torpedoed it for me.
The third was pretty good. Could have been an excellent one off drama of its own.
Overall the one take gimmick didn’t work for the story, which would have been better served told iteratively including the trial and sentencing. We were never shown how the UK was reporting and reacting to this crime, another angle that made the story feel short and unformed.
Where it tried to apportion motive, it got proper lost and does not deserve the attention this loopy and increasingly populist government has given it. Some people are born bad seeds, quick to a red mist and violent temper, this TV show tried to blame the internet. This bad seed would have been capable of such a crime a hundred years ago, long before the internet.
What is the name for the little loop on a watch strap in which you insert the scrag end of the strap? Because the one on my Garmin's broken. I reckon the extra drag of the loose bit of strap was the reason I was slower in the pool today, and not the drinks I had last night.
And am I the only person who (incorrectly?) uses 'scrag end' for that part of the strap?
The one on my old Garmin broke, it was very annoying as I have small wrists so the watch strap had a long scrag end. The elastic bands holding asparagus bunches together are a good substitute, the ones for spring onions, less so
I'm currently using one of my wife's hairbands, wrapped around the strap several times. Does the job.
What is the name for the little loop on a watch strap in which you insert the scrag end of the strap? Because the one on my Garmin's broken. I reckon the extra drag of the loose bit of strap was the reason I was slower in the pool today, and not the drinks I had last night.
And am I the only person who (incorrectly?) uses 'scrag end' for that part of the strap?
The one on my old Garmin broke, it was very annoying as I have small wrists so the watch strap had a long scrag end. The elastic bands holding asparagus bunches together are a good substitute, the ones for spring onions, less so
I'm currently using one of my wife's hairbands, wrapped around the strap several times. Does the job.
I misread that as "I'm currently using one of my wife's husbands".
Voters consistently say issues like the economy and reproductive rights are their top concerns in this election. But in the closing weeks of the campaign, Republican ads focusing on transgender rights are dominating airwaves all over the country.
Desperate for answers on what went wrong on Election Day, finger-pointing among Democrats and media pundits has been swift. Many — in private — are holding President Joe Biden responsible. Others are blaming the operatives who have run the party’s last several campaigns. But some are pointing to an issue with far less power in American politics: transgender rights.
“The Democrats have to stop pandering to the far left,” Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., told The New York Times on Wednesday. “I don’t want to discriminate against anybody, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports.”
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., shared a similar view, telling the Times on Thursday: “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
But you said Harris was banging on about transgender rights when she should have campaigned on other things. Do you have any evidence that she spent time campaigning on transgender rights? Because so far as I can tell she avoided the issue as far as possible and it was the Republicans who spent a lot of time and money campaigning on the issue.
So Dems bang on about trans rights, Harris keeps quiet and the GOP say that a vote for Harris is a vote for 'they/them' while a vote for Trump is a vote for 'you'.
Guess what conclusion the voters draw ?
Trans rights may well have been a vote winner for Trump, I'm just disputing that Harris chose to campaign on the issue, and that she lost because she was 'banging on about abortion and trans rights' and if only someone in the Democratic party had told her to campaign on some other issues she might have won. I'm not convinced that Democrats generally were either - which Democrats are you referring to in the 2024 election campaigns? Republicans definitely were banging on about trans rights.
I also think that abortion was probably a vote-winning issue for Harris.
People who thought strongly about abortion, one way or another, were going to vote one way or the other.
People who don't wondered instead why politicians are talking about abortion instead of 'everyday life issues'.
As to trans, after the election but the general principle applies:
US Senate Democrats block bill to ban trans athletes from women’s sports Democratic senator says trans athletes ‘deserve an ally’ after Republican-led bill quashed in razor-sharp 51-45 vote
US Senate Democrats banded together to torpedo a Republican bill that would ban transgender athletes from women’s sports, defeating the legislation in a razor-sharp party-line vote of 51-45 on Monday evening.
The Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, led by Tommy Tuberville, a senator from Alabama, crashed before reaching the 60 votes needed to advance, halting the proposal that had passed the House in January.
A New York Times/Ipsos poll from January found 79% of Americans opposed transgender female athletes competing in women’s sports, a statistic Republicans hoped would bolster their position. Democrats, however, swiftly branded the bill a cynical political distraction.
This is now ingrained in the public mind - Dems are for trans rights and the GOP are against them. The problem for the Dems is that they're assumed (whether accurately or not) to be on the deeply unpopular side of the issue.
What the Dems need is for the whole trans issue to disappear, which it will not if they keep playing into the GOP's hands on the issue.
It's not just about trans athletes though. It's about genital inspections for PE in schools. Do we really want that?
Also government over reach. I think sports associations should be able to set their own rules with respect to fair competition, participation and safety.
In a court filing this evening, the Trump administration said that it had mistakenly deported a Maryland father to a notorious Salvadoran prison due to an "administrative error." https://x.com/YAppelbaum/status/1906893341939339710
..But to see how my Lord Treasurer did bless himself, crying he could do no more than he could, nor give more money than he had, if the occasion and expence were never so great, which is but a sad story. And then to hear how like a passionate and ignorant asse Sir G. Carteret did harangue upon the abuse of Tickets did make me mad almost and yet was fain to hold my tongue. Thence home, vexed mightily to see how simply our greatest ministers do content themselves to understand and do things, while the King’s service in the meantime lies a-bleeding...
Can I just say, faffing about writing computer programmes cannot in any way be regarded as Engineering.
An interesting claim. IMV the specification, design, writing and testing is engineering. That's why pure coding is not IMO engineering, but software development is.
+1 - most of my life is spent nowadays telling halfwits in India that they I don't want them to put the same code in X different places, it should be a child function you call on demand.
wouldn't be so bad but the people we have a expensive, supposed to be good (they really aren't) and I could have done the entire project in 4 weeks by myself without any of them.
They aren’t halfwits. They just don’t know. And knowing is the expensive bit.
Some years ago, I worked for a company that had development teams, around the world, working on the same software platform. Perfect time for a comparison.
The cheapest development was in London - in cost per delivered feature. Eastern Europe was next. US was a way down the list. India was dead last. By a distance.
As Neville Shute Norway put it - an engineer is someone who can do for a shilling what any damn fool can do for a pound.
We just migrated an application written by a team in India from an on-prem data centre to the cloud.
It is the jankiest app in the entire portfolio
It was supposed to be a multi-tier application, with three distinct environments, but they just used any server for anything. They wrote some code on one server, then did a fileshare to all the others to distribute it...
We moved the QA servers, then they complained because one of them had production code on it.
Chaos.
Well, if you employ firms who quote the lowest possible number for everything, treat their employees like turds and have no track record of delivering….
In nearly every field of human endeavour, a smaller number of actual experts will out perform a huge number of random bods.
And no, this isn’t racism. There are plenty of brilliant software engineer from India. None of them are working for 50p an hour in Mumbai, though.
As with satire, Trump and Trumpism have done a lot of damage to April foolery.
Trump has surely saved satire. Being unable to criticise Starmer, who knows what HIGNFY would have been reduced to without him? 'That Liz Truss though, she was terrible wasn't she? Amiright?'
Voters consistently say issues like the economy and reproductive rights are their top concerns in this election. But in the closing weeks of the campaign, Republican ads focusing on transgender rights are dominating airwaves all over the country.
Desperate for answers on what went wrong on Election Day, finger-pointing among Democrats and media pundits has been swift. Many — in private — are holding President Joe Biden responsible. Others are blaming the operatives who have run the party’s last several campaigns. But some are pointing to an issue with far less power in American politics: transgender rights.
“The Democrats have to stop pandering to the far left,” Rep. Tom Suozzi, D-N.Y., told The New York Times on Wednesday. “I don’t want to discriminate against anybody, but I don’t think biological boys should be playing in girls’ sports.”
Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., shared a similar view, telling the Times on Thursday: “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls. I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”
But you said Harris was banging on about transgender rights when she should have campaigned on other things. Do you have any evidence that she spent time campaigning on transgender rights? Because so far as I can tell she avoided the issue as far as possible and it was the Republicans who spent a lot of time and money campaigning on the issue.
So Dems bang on about trans rights, Harris keeps quiet and the GOP say that a vote for Harris is a vote for 'they/them' while a vote for Trump is a vote for 'you'.
Guess what conclusion the voters draw ?
Trans rights may well have been a vote winner for Trump, I'm just disputing that Harris chose to campaign on the issue, and that she lost because she was 'banging on about abortion and trans rights' and if only someone in the Democratic party had told her to campaign on some other issues she might have won. I'm not convinced that Democrats generally were either - which Democrats are you referring to in the 2024 election campaigns? Republicans definitely were banging on about trans rights.
I also think that abortion was probably a vote-winning issue for Harris.
The pro life evangelical and RC vote at least matched the pro choice female vote given the Trump and GOP win
When you say the "pro choice female vote", surely you mean "satanic woke baby-murdering vote"?
The Satanists are ok: at least they believe in a god of sorts. It's the atheists that @HYUFD really takes issue with.
“ Nihilists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.”
The race reviews from 2023 and 2024 had an interesting coincidence: both featured a driver or two making early pit stops only to lose out late on as those on fresher rubber got ahead. I suspect Racing Bulls will suffer as they've been weak on strategy so far. It might also be something to bear in mind if you live live betting (I tend not to, especially at 6am).
As with satire, Trump and Trumpism have done a lot of damage to April foolery.
Trump has surely saved satire. Being unable to criticise Starmer, who knows what HIGNFY would have been reduced to without him? 'That Liz Truss though, she was terrible wasn't she? Amiright?'
Criticism of Starmer doesn't get one sent to an El Salvadorian expatriation camp I don't believe...yet.
As with satire, Trump and Trumpism have done a lot of damage to April foolery.
Trump has surely saved satire. Being unable to criticise Starmer, who knows what HIGNFY would have been reduced to without him? 'That Liz Truss though, she was terrible wasn't she? Amiright?'
Criticism of Starmer doesn't get one sent to an El Salvadorian expatriation camp I don't believe...yet.
Perhaps Lucky was just bemoaning his inability to come up with a convincing critique ?
As with satire, Trump and Trumpism have done a lot of damage to April foolery.
Trump has surely saved satire. Being unable to criticise Starmer, who knows what HIGNFY would have been reduced to without him? 'That Liz Truss though, she was terrible wasn't she? Amiright?'
Criticism of Starmer doesn't get one sent to an El Salvadorian expatriation camp I don't believe...yet.
Though stormtroopers armed with tasers can arrest you for eating hummus and breadsticks.
Musk claiming his enemies are paying people to protest against Tesla, while he pays people to attend a rally for the Republican candidate for the Wisconsin supreme court.
In another post, Musk accused his former ‘PayPal Mafia’ friend Reid Hoffman of funding these protests. Hoffman responded by telling Musk that he should just come to terms with the fact that many people don’t like him
Is it ridiculous post competition night on PB this evening? There have been an unusually high (or low) calibre of entries, but that one is a pretty solid effort. I'm sorry I missed the fun, I can normally give allcomers a good show when it comes to posting bollocks.
I didn’t think much of the series. It left me wondering just how much research went into it. It felt to me like something not from the real world. Hackneyed.
If a case like that actually happened, it would be as massive and explosive media frenzy. Yet the police detective racks up at a school 2 days later, that hardly seems touched by it, goes into a a class with his own son in it. His son takes him aside to explain they’ve all got it fundamentally wrong down at the station, and explains emoji’s to him. WTF?
After an opening episode that was like an episode of Doctors, that second one torpedoed it for me.
The third was pretty good. Could have been an excellent one off drama of its own.
Overall the one take gimmick didn’t work for the story, which would have been better served told iteratively including the trial and sentencing. We were never shown how the UK was reporting and reacting to this crime, another angle that made the story feel short and unformed.
Where it tried to apportion motive, it got proper lost and does not deserve the attention this loopy and increasingly populist government has given it. Some people are born bad seeds, quick to a red mist and violent temper, this TV show tried to blame the internet. This bad seed would have been capable of such a crime a hundred years ago, long before the internet.
Thanks. Prejudices confirmed, good work.
Saves me the bother of watching a schmaltzy and earnest diatribe that will just bug me.
As for the subject. It’s in us. The point of civilisation is to know that, and move determinedly onwards and upwards.
Is it ridiculous post competition night on PB this evening? There have been an unusually high (or low) calibre of entries, but that one is a pretty solid effort. I'm sorry I missed the fun, I can normally give allcomers a good show when it comes to posting bollocks.
I didn’t think much of the series. It left me wondering just how much research went into it. It felt to me like something not from the real world. Hackneyed.
If a case like that actually happened, it would be as massive and explosive media frenzy. Yet the police detective racks up at a school 2 days later, that hardly seems touched by it, goes into a a class with his own son in it. His son takes him aside to explain they’ve all got it fundamentally wrong down at the station, and explains emoji’s to him. WTF?
After an opening episode that was like an episode of Doctors, that second one torpedoed it for me.
The third was pretty good. Could have been an excellent one off drama of its own.
Overall the one take gimmick didn’t work for the story, which would have been better served told iteratively including the trial and sentencing. We were never shown how the UK was reporting and reacting to this crime, another angle that made the story feel short and unformed.
Where it tried to apportion motive, it got proper lost and does not deserve the attention this loopy and increasingly populist government has given it. Some people are born bad seeds, quick to a red mist and violent temper, this TV show tried to blame the internet. This bad seed would have been capable of such a crime a hundred years ago, long before the internet.
Thanks. Prejudices confirmed, good work.
Saves me the bother of watching a schmaltzy and earnest diatribe that will just bug me.
As for the subject. It’s in us. The point of civilisation is to know that, and move determinedly onwards and upwards.
What is it about new threads? Why do i end up talking to myself in this lonely place?
In a court filing this evening, the Trump administration said that it had mistakenly deported a Maryland father to a notorious Salvadoran prison due to an "administrative error." https://x.com/YAppelbaum/status/1906893341939339710
"The court has no ability to bring him back."
Surely the court can order the US government to take all necessary steps to arrange for El Salvador to repatriate him?
Comments
a) abortion was a good issue for her
b) she didn't campaign on trans rights
https://www.reformparty.uk/counter
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
eg Trump won Florida by 13% but on the same day Florida Amendment 4 (which would have enshrined the right to abortion up to fetal viability in the Florida constitution):
Yes 57.2%
No 42.8%
If a case like that actually happened, it would be as massive and explosive media frenzy. Yet the police detective racks up at a school 2 days later, that hardly seems touched by it, goes into a a class with his own son in it. His son takes him aside to explain they’ve all got it fundamentally wrong down at the station, and explains emoji’s to him. WTF?
After an opening episode that was like an episode of Doctors, that second one torpedoed it for me.
The third was pretty good. Could have been an excellent one off drama of its own.
Overall the one take gimmick didn’t work for the story, which would have been better served told iteratively including the trial and sentencing. We were never shown how the UK was reporting and reacting to this crime, another angle that made the story feel short and unformed.
Where it tried to apportion motive, it got proper lost and does not deserve the attention this loopy and increasingly populist government has given it. Some people are born bad seeds, quick to a red mist and violent temper, this TV show tried to blame the internet. This bad seed would have been capable of such a crime a hundred years ago, long before the internet.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KLVFzrlgiMI
And I thought... It takes all sorts.
https://www.ft.com/content/2a45fa9a-3acb-4eac-8a44-66152007853b (£££)
At last this Labour government does something for the ordinary working man.
Also government over reach. I think sports associations should be able to set their own rules with respect to fair competition, participation and safety.
https://x.com/YAppelbaum/status/1906893341939339710
"The court has no ability to bring him back."
Its around 2.22% of GDP, so definitely the largest ever peacetime tax hike ever, per
@TaxFoundation data.
https://x.com/JessicaBRiedl/status/1906373841657463099
Assuming he does what he says., which is never a given with the serial bullshitter.
Nothing has changed.
..But to see how my Lord Treasurer did bless himself, crying he could do no more than he could, nor give more money than he had, if the occasion and expence were never so great, which is but a sad story. And then to hear how like a passionate and ignorant asse Sir G. Carteret did harangue upon the abuse of Tickets did make me mad almost and yet was fain to hold my tongue. Thence home, vexed mightily to see how simply our greatest ministers do content themselves to understand and do things, while the King’s service in the meantime lies a-bleeding...
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/mar/31/awful-april-bill-rises-council-tax-energy-tv-licence-car-tax
Council tax, water, gas, electricity, car tax (including EVs), stamps, tv licence, broadband and mobile phones.
Good luck to journalists this 1st of April, as they try to sort out nonsense from what Trump's actually saying/doing.
In nearly every field of human endeavour, a smaller number of actual experts will out perform a huge number of random bods.
And no, this isn’t racism. There are plenty of brilliant software engineer from India. None of them are working for 50p an hour in Mumbai, though.
Podbean: https://undercutters.podbean.com/e/f1-2025-japanese-grand-prix-preview-and-predictions/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3vDvE8kHodqc8fXGckW77P
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/bcfe213b-55fb-408a-a823-dc6693ee9f78/episodes/51f955ff-feed-4fda-b8c9-834a39b846b8/undercutters---f1-podcast-f1-2025-japanese-grand-prix-preview-and-predictions
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/f1-2025-japanese-grand-prix-preview-and-predictions/id1786574257?i=1000701688081
Transcript: https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/04/f1-2025-japanese-grand-prix-preview-and.html
The race reviews from 2023 and 2024 had an interesting coincidence: both featured a driver or two making early pit stops only to lose out late on as those on fresher rubber got ahead. I suspect Racing Bulls will suffer as they've been weak on strategy so far. It might also be something to bear in mind if you live live betting (I tend not to, especially at 6am).
Otherwise no one would have believed the sheer economic imbecility.
On the other hand, Fox Jr2 in gainful employment, the beginning of a glittering career no doubt.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/01/large-majority-of-europeans-support-retaliatory-tariffs-against-us-poll-finds
It would probably just compound our problems.
Leeches.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2025/jan/25/mark-rylance-took-significant-pay-cut-to-get-wolf-hall-made-director-tells-mps
NEW THREAD
We have the advantage that for nearly all US products there are RoW substitutes, so wouldn't add much to costs of most consumers.
https://electrek.co/2025/03/31/elon-musk-loses-mind-over-tesla-protests-claims-paid-protestors-dumb-proof/
In another post, Musk accused his former ‘PayPal Mafia’ friend Reid Hoffman of funding these protests. Hoffman responded by telling Musk that he should just come to terms with the fact that many people don’t like him
Saves me the bother of watching a schmaltzy and earnest diatribe that will just bug me.
As for the subject. It’s in us. The point of civilisation is to know that, and move determinedly onwards and upwards.