Guys - we are 14 months away from the election. Stop obsessing on polls. Track them by all means. You need to track news stories, US network talking heads, trends, pundits and so on. Polls are merely snapshots.
Look at the 2008 election cycle and learn the lesson.
I prefer to look at what the actual voters are saying rather than the pundits. In 2008 McCain and Obama were second at this stage so hardly came from nowhere, in 2000 and 2012 George W Bush and Romney were ahead at this stage and became nominee
The actual voters aren't saying anything - at this point most of them haven't taken an interest yet, and won't for about 6 months.
The pace of change where I live is unbelievable,it took 50 years in my area for the Asian community to be the dominant population.
In the past 4 to 5 years ,another mass migration of the Roma community to my area in a very short period of time,you can see the change with the large families that are coming.
Looking at the state of the GOP race I think it's Trump vs anti-Trump, but the anti-Trump crowd is divided, its looking around and are getting stuck in flavours of the month type candidates like the anti-Romney ones in 2012. Walker rose and crashed, Carson rose and crashed, and now Fiorina rose and is crashing. I'm hearing noises that the anti-Trumps will try Rubio next.
Quick question that someone might be able to answer. When Bill Clinton was President, Hillary was First Lady. If Hillary becomes President - Bill becomes - what? First Husband? First Lord???
It may also be complicated by the fact that he was himself also a President. I have in mind that there is a convention that even ex-Presidents are still referred to as "Mr President". If so, that would be seriously weird - Mr President and Madam President.....
Looking at the state of the GOP race I think it's Trump vs anti-Trump, but the anti-Trump crowd is divided, its looking around and are getting stuck in flavours of the month type candidates like the anti-Romney ones in 2012. Walker rose and crashed, Carson rose and crashed, and now Fiorina rose and is crashing. I'm hearing noises that the anti-Trumps will try Rubio next.
Guys - we are 14 months away from the election. Stop obsessing on polls. Track them by all means. You need to track news stories, US network talking heads, trends, pundits and so on. Polls are merely snapshots.
Look at the 2008 election cycle and learn the lesson.
You tell me how to reduce "news stories, US network talking heads, trends, pundits and so on" to a measurable statistic and I'll do it.
Guys - we are 14 months away from the election. Stop obsessing on polls. Track them by all means. You need to track news stories, US network talking heads, trends, pundits and so on. Polls are merely snapshots.
Look at the 2008 election cycle and learn the lesson.
I prefer to look at what the actual voters are saying rather than the pundits. In 2008 McCain and Obama were second at this stage so hardly came from nowhere, in 2000 and 2012 George W Bush and Romney were ahead at this stage and became nominee
The actual voters aren't saying anything - at this point most of them haven't taken an interest yet, and won't for about 6 months.
Thats what they all say, the trends are pretty clear now, enough such that an early frontrunner like Walker has now dropped out. If some other candidate can manage to beat Trump in Iowa or New Hampshire then you are right, Trump may well not be nominee, if he wins both momentum will carry him over the line
Looking at the state of the GOP race I think it's Trump vs anti-Trump, but the anti-Trump crowd is divided, its looking around and are getting stuck in flavours of the month type candidates like the anti-Romney ones in 2012. Walker rose and crashed, Carson rose and crashed, and now Fiorina rose and is crashing. I'm hearing noises that the anti-Trumps will try Rubio next.
"Fury" can't crash! Rule of Cool demands she survives to the last round!
Nobody 'deserves to survive'. Personally I doubt the nominee will be Fiorina - much more likely to be Rubio or Bush. That's just conjecture on my part based on the current situation, and that will probably change. But we don't know yet - it's like predicting the triple crown winners before any of the races have been run. This is a marathon and a crapshoot.
At this point anyone saying "based on the poll I predict X will be the nominee" is merely showing ignorance. None of us have any idea at this point who either nominee will be, although the Democratic one (taking into the account the FBI risk) is more likely.
Guys - we are 14 months away from the election. Stop obsessing on polls. Track them by all means. You need to track news stories, US network talking heads, trends, pundits and so on. Polls are merely snapshots.
Look at the 2008 election cycle and learn the lesson.
You tell me how to reduce "news stories, US network talking heads, trends, pundits and so on" to a measurable statistic and I'll do it.
That's the whole point - you can't reduce it to a 'measurable statistic'. You need to invest the time to follow it all. Otherwise you have an incomplete picture.
On reflection, do you not think that comment was a little unwise?
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination
I agree. In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Looking at the state of the GOP race I think it's Trump vs anti-Trump, but the anti-Trump crowd is divided, its looking around and are getting stuck in flavours of the month type candidates like the anti-Romney ones in 2012. Walker rose and crashed, Carson rose and crashed, and now Fiorina rose and is crashing. I'm hearing noises that the anti-Trumps will try Rubio next.
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination
I agree. In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Looking at the state of the GOP race I think it's Trump vs anti-Trump, but the anti-Trump crowd is divided, its looking around and are getting stuck in flavours of the month type candidates like the anti-Romney ones in 2012. Walker rose and crashed, Carson rose and crashed, and now Fiorina rose and is crashing. I'm hearing noises that the anti-Trumps will try Rubio next.
Looking at the state of the GOP race I think it's Trump vs anti-Trump, but the anti-Trump crowd is divided, its looking around and are getting stuck in flavours of the month type candidates like the anti-Romney ones in 2012. Walker rose and crashed, Carson rose and crashed, and now Fiorina rose and is crashing. I'm hearing noises that the anti-Trumps will try Rubio next.
The first bullet point is both hearsay and on its face highly implausible. If a quarter of what else has been unveiled is true, our Prime Minister would not want for suppliers.
It does appear a bit all over the place.
Day 1 Cameron household awash with drugs Day 2 Cameron attends parties awash with drugs Day 3 Cameron can't find drugs
Guys - we are 14 months away from the election. Stop obsessing on polls. Track them by all means. You need to track news stories, US network talking heads, trends, pundits and so on. Polls are merely snapshots.
Look at the 2008 election cycle and learn the lesson.
You tell me how to reduce "news stories, US network talking heads, trends, pundits and so on" to a measurable statistic and I'll do it.
That's the whole point - you can't reduce it to a 'measurable statistic'. You need to invest the time to follow it all. Otherwise you have an incomplete picture.
On reflection, do you not think that comment was a little unwise?
Looking at the state of the GOP race I think it's Trump vs anti-Trump, but the anti-Trump crowd is divided, its looking around and are getting stuck in flavours of the month type candidates like the anti-Romney ones in 2012. Walker rose and crashed, Carson rose and crashed, and now Fiorina rose and is crashing. I'm hearing noises that the anti-Trumps will try Rubio next.
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination
I agree. In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Guys - we are 14 months away from the election. Stop obsessing on polls. Track them by all means. You need to track news stories, US network talking heads, trends, pundits and so on. Polls are merely snapshots.
Look at the 2008 election cycle and learn the lesson.
You tell me how to reduce "news stories, US network talking heads, trends, pundits and so on" to a measurable statistic and I'll do it.
That's the whole point - you can't reduce it to a 'measurable statistic'. You need to invest the time to follow it all. Otherwise you have an incomplete picture.
On reflection, do you not think that comment was a little unwise?
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination
I agree. In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination
I agree. In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Fury! Fury! Fury! Fury!
What's this Fury, Fury, Fury shit?
If you like her it's Carly, Carly, Carly!
Otherwise silence is golden.
Fiorina ("Fury") 161, the prison planet in Alien 3
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination
I agree. In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Fury! Fury! Fury! Fury!
What's this Fury, Fury, Fury shit?
If you like her it's Carly, Carly, Carly!
Otherwise silence is golden.
Fiorina ("Fury") 161, the prison planet in Alien 3
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination
I agree. In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Fury! Fury! Fury! Fury!
What's this Fury, Fury, Fury shit?
If you like her it's Carly, Carly, Carly!
Otherwise silence is golden.
Fiorina ("Fury") 161, the prison planet in Alien 3
I know - that's why I've been saying it's early days yet and things will change.
Then why not wait until things have changed appreciatively – say, next year perhaps?
Because you feel that's the way things look now, but things will probably change over time.
That's like saying you won't poll until a week before the election, in case things change. It's human nature to say "Right now it looks like X, but it will probably change over time." Rather than "It will probably change over time, so I won't say anything right now".
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination
I agree. In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Fury! Fury! Fury! Fury!
What's this Fury, Fury, Fury shit?
If you like her it's Carly, Carly, Carly!
Otherwise silence is golden.
Fiorina ("Fury") 161, the prison planet in Alien 3
I'm trying to make a serious point and you keep mentioning crap scifi movies. I'm going to call Ripley right now, and hold my breath until you apologize
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination
I agree. In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Fury! Fury! Fury! Fury!
What's this Fury, Fury, Fury shit?
If you like her it's Carly, Carly, Carly!
Otherwise silence is golden.
Fiorina ("Fury") 161, the prison planet in Alien 3
I'm trying to make a serious point and you keep mentioning crap scifi movies. I'm going to call Ripley right now, and hold my breath until you apologize
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination
I agree. In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Fury! Fury! Fury! Fury!
What's this Fury, Fury, Fury shit?
If you like her it's Carly, Carly, Carly!
Otherwise silence is golden.
Fiorina ("Fury") 161, the prison planet in Alien 3
I'm trying to make a serious point and you keep mentioning crap scifi movies. I'm going to call Ripley right now, and hold my breath until you apologize
Ripley: "Then we're f*cked!"
I'm a tad disappointed - I expected one of your "Tonight Comrades we....." speeches.
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination
I agree. In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Fury! Fury! Fury! Fury!
What's this Fury, Fury, Fury shit?
If you like her it's Carly, Carly, Carly!
Otherwise silence is golden.
Fiorina ("Fury") 161, the prison planet in Alien 3
I'm trying to make a serious point and you keep mentioning crap scifi movies. I'm going to call Ripley right now, and hold my breath until you apologize
Ripley: "Then we're f*cked!"
I'm a tad disappointed - I expected one of your "Tonight Comrades we....." speeches.
That's it?
Wrong movie - "Comrades, this is your Captain" is from Tom Clancy's The Hunt for Red October
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination
I agree. In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Fury! Fury! Fury! Fury!
What's this Fury, Fury, Fury shit?
If you like her it's Carly, Carly, Carly!
Otherwise silence is golden.
Fiorina ("Fury") 161, the prison planet in Alien 3
I'm trying to make a serious point and you keep mentioning crap scifi movies. I'm going to call Ripley right now, and hold my breath until you apologize
Ripley: "Then we're f*cked!"
I'm a tad disappointed - I expected one of your "Tonight Comrades we....." speeches.
That's it?
Wrong movie - "Comrades, this is your Captain" is from Tom Clancy's The Hunt for Red October
Come on - you've never hesitated to bastardize it before
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
y
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
n
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Fury! Fury! Fury! Fury!
What's this Fury, Fury, Fury shit?
If you like her it's Carly, Carly, Carly!
Otherwise silence is golden.
Fiorina ("Fury") 161, the prison planet in Alien 3
I'm trying to make a serious point and you keep mentioning crap scifi movies. I'm going to call Ripley right now, and hold my breath until you apologize
Ripley: "Then we're f*cked!"
I'm a tad disappointed - I expected one of your "Tonight Comrades we....." speeches.
That's it?
Wrong movie - "Comrades, this is your Captain" is from Tom Clancy's The Hunt for Red October
Come on - you've never hesitated to bastardize it before
You're right about Alien 3, nowhere near as good as the second film, Aliens from 1986
Sgt. Sunil: Alright, sweethearts, you're a team and there's nothin' to worry about. We come here, and we're gonna conquer, and we're gonna kick some, is that understood? That's what we're gonna do, sweethearts, we are going to go and get some. All right, people, on the ready line! Are ya lean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: Are ya mean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU?
PB Tories: Lean and mean!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU? RobD! TSE! Get on the ready line, PB Tories, get some today! Get on the ready line! Move it out! Move it out, goddammit! Get hot! One, two, three, four! Get out, get out, get out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badasses! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
n
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Fury! Fury! Fury! Fury!
What's this Fury, Fury, Fury shit?
If you like her it's Carly, Carly, Carly!
Otherwise silence is golden.
Fiorina ("Fury") 161, the prison planet in Alien 3
I'm trying to make a serious point and you keep mentioning crap scifi movies. I'm going to call Ripley right now, and hold my breath until you apologize
Ripley: "Then we're f*cked!"
I'm a tad disappointed - I expected one of your "Tonight Comrades we....." speeches.
That's it?
Wrong movie - "Comrades, this is your Captain" is from Tom Clancy's The Hunt for Red October
Come on - you've never hesitated to bastardize it before
You're right about Alien 3, nowhere near as good as the second film, Aliens from 1986
Sgt. Sunil: Alright, sweethearts, you're a team and there's nothin' to worry about. We come here, and we're gonna conquer, and we're gonna kick some, is that understood? That's what we're gonna do, sweethearts, we are going to go and get some. All right, people, on the ready line! Are ya lean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: Are ya mean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU?
PB Tories: Lean and mean!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU? RobD! TSE! Get on the ready line, PB Tories, get some today! Get on the ready line! Move it out! Move it out, goddammit! Get hot! One, two, three, four! Get out, get out, get out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badasses! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!
Foxinsoxuk is a badass. I am pure as the driven snow.
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
y
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
n
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Fury! Fury! Fury! Fury!
What's this Fury, Fury, Fury shit?
If you like her it's Carly, Carly, Carly!
Otherwise silence is golden.
Fiorina ("Fury") 161, the prison planet in Alien 3
I'm trying to make a serious point and you keep mentioning crap scifi movies. I'm going to call Ripley right now, and hold my breath until you apologize
Ripley: "Then we're f*cked!"
I'm a tad disappointed - I expected one of your "Tonight Comrades we....." speeches.
That's it?
Wrong movie - "Comrades, this is your Captain" is from Tom Clancy's The Hunt for Red October
Come on - you've never hesitated to bastardize it before
You're right about Alien 3, nowhere near as good as the second film, Aliens from 1986
Sgt. Sunil: Alright, sweethearts, you're a team and there's nothin' to worry about. We come here, and we're gonna conquer, and we're gonna kick some, is that understood? That's what we're gonna do, sweethearts, we are going to go and get some. All right, people, on the ready line! Are ya lean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: Are ya mean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU?
PB Tories: Lean and mean!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU? RobD! TSE! Get on the ready line, PB Tories, get some today! Get on the ready line! Move it out! Move it out, goddammit! Get hot! One, two, three, four! Get out, get out, get out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badasses! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!
If Hillary does implode (what, 25% chance?) who gets it?
I can't see it being Saunders... s
Biden, no question, but at the moment it still looks like Trump v Clinton, all the polls this week have them leading the GOP and Democrat fields respectively
It's probably not going to be Trump - tone of coverage and trends. There's a long way to go yet.
Trump has more consistent leads in the 3 early states, Iowa, NH and SC than Hillary does. He has the money to carry him through and 3 months on he still holds his frontrunner status, a challenger needs to beat him in Iowa or NH to have a chance, if he wins both momentum will carry him to the nomination
I agree. In fact a national poll today showed Fiorina heading back down to mid-single digits.
She had a very successful appearance on the Jimmy Fallon show last night and is only just breaking through to a mainstream audience. Don't bet against her.
Fury! Fury! Fury! Fury!
What's this Fury, Fury, Fury shit?
If you like her it's Carly, Carly, Carly!
Otherwise silence is golden.
Fiorina ("Fury") 161, the prison planet in Alien 3
I'm trying to make a serious point and you keep mentioning crap scifi movies. I'm going to call Ripley right now, and hold my breath until you apologize
Ripley: "Then we're f*cked!"
I'm a tad disappointed - I expected one of your "Tonight Comrades we....." speeches.
That's it?
Wrong movie - "Comrades, this is your Captain" is from Tom Clancy's The Hunt for Red October
Must say,"lay off their largest constituency and listen to their chortling and tittering... while we conduct Austerity Debates" get me every time
Watching a bit of coverage of the Lib Dem conference. The tribute to Charles Kennedy was introduced by a speech by Ian Wrigglesworth, who was an SDP MP from 1981 to 1987. I was very surprised to discover that he looks older than he was 28 years ago.
Watching a bit of coverage of the Lib Dem conference. The tribute to Charles Kennedy was introduced by a speech by Ian Wrigglesworth, who was an SDP MP from 1981 to 1987. I was very surprised to discover that he looks older than he was 28 years ago.
The Lib Dems are having a conference? Well they kept that quiet.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I'm hardly an expert on this, being more or less in the same position as you are. But I've hung around with lots of people who've taken drugs, especially during my youth in London. There was a massive societal aspect to it that reminded me of smokers at school: it was easier to fit in with the 'in' crowd if you did as they did. At school, smoking (although there was a significant problem with steroid abuse); at university it was harder drugs.
After that, I guess addiction of whatever level kicks in. Once they're at that stage, they'll find any excuse for taking them. "It helps with my depression," or "everyone does it."
The last one in particular annoys me. Not everyone does it, and not by a long chalk. I haven't seen anyone take illegal drugs since university. I guess that unlike the PM I don't get invited to that sort of party any more.
There's no fundamental material difference between 'all that crap' and drink, though, is there? Or, say, coffee for that matter. I think one of the worst things Brown did was reversing the reclassification of cannabis, just when at least it looked like the bizarre and damaging puritan policy regarding natural substances that just happen to modulate neurotransmitters might finally be slowly heading in the right direction.
There's no fundamental material difference between 'all that crap' and drink, though, is there? Or, say, coffee for that matter. I think one of the worst things Brown did was reversing the reclassification of cannabis, just when at least it looked like the bizarre and damaging puritan policy regarding natural substances that just happen to modulate neurotransmitters might finally be slowly heading in the right direction.
I used to think like that, but over the last couple of decades I have seen enough of my old schoolfriends and some of Fox jr's friends squander their lives and talents through drug use. A bit of casual experimentation when young is one thing, but regular use blights lives.
Can we now assume that Boris Johnson is the source of all of the stuff in this book?
If it's proved to be him (which I doubt it is, or it would be proved if it was), then he can wave his leadership ambitions bye-bye.
Boris Johnson's communication skills and political common-touch may be admired, but is there anyone out there who trusts him?
Quite. No idea if Boris is involved or not but surely he accepts his leadership ambitions are finished, people can't take him seriously.
Comres this week had Boris with higher favourables and a higher net rating than Osborne, May, Corbyn, Watson, Umunna, Farron, Sturgeon and even Cameron. He is the most popular politician in the country
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
My personal experience is the same as yours. My observation is that some people have addictive personalities. This shows by obsessions about TV shows, sports teams or substance abuse. I see it as something of an arc. This personality trait makes it very difficult for those who have it to resist addiction to any particular thing at a particular time.
If a particular drug becomes their obsession of the moment they will make that the centre of their lives until their obsession moves on. I think we miss a trick by focussing on the addictiveness of particular substances. This is not, in my opinion, really the point. Those who are lucky enough not to have this personality trait may feel temporary discomfort if they withdraw from a substance but this is a temporary thing which a sense of perspective easily deals with.
What we need to focus on is the personality trait itself. That suggests treatments such as cognitive therapy are the way forward. The idea that you "treat" someone with, say, a heroin addiction by giving them an alternative drug like methadone is borderline crazy and has killed far too many people.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I'm hardly an expert on this, being more or less in the same position as you are. But I've hung around with lots of people who've taken drugs, especially during my youth in London. There was a massive societal aspect to it that reminded me of smokers at school: it was easier to fit in with the 'in' crowd if you did as they did. At school, smoking (although there was a significant problem with steroid abuse); at university it was harder drugs.
After that, I guess addiction of whatever level kicks in. Once they're at that stage, they'll find any excuse for taking them. "It helps with my depression," or "everyone does it."
The last one in particular annoys me. Not everyone does it, and not by a long chalk. I haven't seen anyone take illegal drugs since university. I guess that unlike the PM I don't get invited to that sort of party any more.
Thanks JJ. I've noticed a decline in the number of my friends that smoke (down from c.20% 10 years ago to negligible ones and twos now) but I know more who still recreationally smoke pot at weekends on social occasions together - can't say I've ever seen the appeal myself. It's certainly quite excluding when they do do it, and I can see how that'd make some feel that you should do what's necessary to be included. I just go into another room or garden and talk to someone else.
None I know do anything 'harder' to my knowledge, but what do I know?
Ah, but SO, if we weren't interfering in the free market by regulating emissions, VW wouldn't have had to fake the tests! It's all the fault of the nanny state.
DavidL - do you drink? If so, is it because you have an addictive personality? Drinkers can enjoy a glass of red every few days and probably add a net positive to their lives, or down a litre of vodka a day and set their livers, brains and kidneys (and lives) to self-destruct. The same is true with a lot of other, currently illegal, drugs.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
There's no fundamental material difference between 'all that crap' and drink, though, is there? Or, say, coffee for that matter.
I'm afraid there is.
Being as solvents are actively and immediately toxic to your system, unlike, say, cannabis, psychedelics and so on, which are all actually a lot less poisonous than alcohol, and indeed have been shown to cause positive effects in some instances and doses, I don't think it's really a fair comparison.
Ah, but SO, if we weren't interfering in the free market by regulating emissions, VW wouldn't have had to fake the tests! It's all the fault of the nanny state.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
There's no fundamental material difference between 'all that crap' and drink, though, is there? Or, say, coffee for that matter. I think one of the worst things Brown did was reversing the reclassification of cannabis, just when at least it looked like the bizarre and damaging puritan policy regarding natural substances that just happen to modulate neurotransmitters might finally be slowly heading in the right direction.
I used to think like that, but over the last couple of decades I have seen enough of my old schoolfriends and some of Fox jr's friends squander their lives and talents through drug use. A bit of casual experimentation when young is one thing, but regular use blights lives.
Yes, it does blight lives. Perhaps if we took the Professor Nutt view of realistically and accurately classifying drugs, things might be better, but he was sacked by Blunkett. Not the first time academics have been trashed for opposing the Home Office line.
I see the first Syrians are arriving in the UK. Its about time they were put in a wealthy low immigration area. If we stick them in Bradford or similar places we should not be surprised when they do not integrate.
DavidL - do you drink? If so, is it because you have an addictive personality? Drinkers can enjoy a glass of red every few days and probably add a net positive to their lives, or down a litre of vodka a day and set their livers, brains and kidneys (and lives) to self-destruct. The same is true with a lot of other, currently illegal, drugs.
Yes I drink but I am not addicted to it. So I can stop (I did for a month earlier this year) without any particular discomfort. Those with addictive personalities, in contrast, can't stop and destroy their lives with a poison that the body can tolerate in moderate doses but not in large ones.
I think we are in agreement that the distinction between legal and illegal substances is meaningless and frankly irrational. We are putting far too many of our resources into the wrong areas treating the wrong problem.
Ah, but SO, if we weren't interfering in the free market by regulating emissions, VW wouldn't have had to fake the tests! It's all the fault of the nanny state.
But if wealth creators couldn't externalise costs onto the rest of society, they couldn't get filthy rich and we'd be living in communist Russia. Or something.
Ah, but SO, if we weren't interfering in the free market by regulating emissions, VW wouldn't have had to fake the tests! It's all the fault of the nanny state.
Most of us drink but if alcohol was invented today it would never be legalised. Drugs ruin lives but they don't respect class, as Stephen Fry says the problem occurs when you can't afford them. I know people who's lives have been ruined along with their nearest and dearest, it's easy to be pious about drugs. I'd treat users and jail dealers for life.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
My personal experience is the same as yours. My observation is that some people have addictive personalities. This shows by obsessions about TV shows, sports teams or substance abuse. I see it as something of an arc. This personality trait makes it very difficult for those who have it to resist addiction to any particular thing at a particular time.
If a particular drug becomes their obsession of the moment they will make that the centre of their lives until their obsession moves on. I think we miss a trick by focussing on the addictiveness of particular substances. This is not, in my opinion, really the point. Those who are lucky enough not to have this personality trait may feel temporary discomfort if they withdraw from a substance but this is a temporary thing which a sense of perspective easily deals with.
What we need to focus on is the personality trait itself. That suggests treatments such as cognitive therapy are the way forward. The idea that you "treat" someone with, say, a heroin addiction by giving them an alternative drug like methadone is borderline crazy and has killed far too many people.
Thanks David - all good points. I'd actually be interested in hearing SeanT's views on this: he's been there and got the t-shirt.
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
Ah, but SO, if we weren't interfering in the free market by regulating emissions, VW wouldn't have had to fake the tests! It's all the fault of the nanny state.
One of the things that has come out of this for me is that there is a much, much bigger trade off between "clean" engine technology and performance than I had appreciated. So the requirements to meet ecological standards mean our cars use more fuel less efficiently to go slower than would otherwise be the case.
I am not saying that is a bad thing, we clearly need to control pollution, particularly in our cities but the differences being disclosed when the VWs are running "dirty" are much bigger than I had appreciated.
Most of us drink but if alcohol was invented today it would never be legalised. Drugs ruin lives but they don't respect class, as Stephen Fry says the problem occurs when you can't afford them. I know people who's lives have been ruined along with their nearest and dearest, it's easy to be pious about drugs. I'd treat users and jail dealers for life.
Used correctly, sensibly, moderately and safely, alcohol and many other drugs (obviously not all) can enrich life. There's a reason they are pretty much ubiquitous in human societies going back time immemorial.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
My personal experience is the same as yours. My observation is that some people have addictive personalities. This shows by obsessions about TV shows, sports teams or substance abuse. I see it as something of an arc. This personality trait makes it very difficult for those who have it to resist addiction to any particular thing at a particular time.
If a particular drug becomes their obsession of the moment they will make that the centre of their lives until their obsession moves on. I think we miss a trick by focussing on the addictiveness of particular substances. This is not, in my opinion, really the point. Those who are lucky enough not to have this personality trait may feel temporary discomfort if they withdraw from a substance but this is a temporary thing which a sense of perspective easily deals with.
What we need to focus on is the personality trait itself. That suggests treatments such as cognitive therapy are the way forward. The idea that you "treat" someone with, say, a heroin addiction by giving them an alternative drug like methadone is borderline crazy and has killed far too many people.
Thanks David - all good points. I'd actually be interested in hearing SeanT's views on this: he's been there and got the t-shirt.
Not sure No 1 selling authors (has he mentioned that, I may have missed it) are encouraged to talk about such things.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Surely drink generally requires more volume to have a greater effect? I can stop at a shot of whisky, or a glass of wine, rather than drink the entire bottle. It's harder to take a quarter of an E, or inject just a little heroin.
There's no fundamental material difference between 'all that crap' and drink, though, is there? Or, say, coffee for that matter. I think one of the worst things Brown did was reversing the reclassification of cannabis, just when at least it looked like the bizarre and damaging puritan policy regarding natural substances that just happen to modulate neurotransmitters might finally be slowly heading in the right direction.
I used to think like that, but over the last couple of decades I have seen enough of my old schoolfriends and some of Fox jr's friends squander their lives and talents through drug use. A bit of casual experimentation when young is one thing, but regular use blights lives.
We need to get out of the instinctive and incorrect opinion that banning a drug reduces its usage. The experiences of other countries shows that is not the case.
I would also like to reduce the number of people in jail for low level drug offences so we could put violent offenders away for a lot longer.
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
The point is that most of us on the left are arguing for a mixed economy that takes the best of private and public, those on the right are the fundamentalists arguing that the uncontrolled free market is the answer to everything.
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
Plenty of people do say it about public services. It's much less common to hear it about the private sector. Instead, you have people like Nigel Farage saying that we can sort out the NHS by putting a businessman in charge of it. But as is clear, the private sector does not have close to all the answers. When we seek to outsource public services we need to be very careful indeed about the oversight and the incentives. And we also need to ensure that we do not water down general regulatory oversight. That is all.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Alcohol has higher social harm due to its legalisation and widespread use. But Heroin, Crack cocaine and meths all carry higher risk of mortality and psychosis for the user.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Surely drink generally requires more volume to have a greater effect? I can stop at a shot of whisky, or a glass of wine, rather than drink the entire bottle. It's harder to take a quarter of an E, or inject just a little heroin.
If you drink pure alcohol you can get in trouble pretty quickly, as someone who has drunk 75% rum I can attest to this.
Conversely, it's quite easy to do low doses of other drugs too, if that is your desire.
The Mail headlines now are starting to look a little overkill it has to be said.
Clearly the pig thing was embarassing and should start to push Cameron towards a door which he's already walking out of sometime, but this is starting to look an awful lot like a lot of tittle-tattle now.
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
The point is that most of us on the left are arguing for a mixed economy that takes the best of private and public, those on the right are the fundamentalists arguing that the uncontrolled free market is the answer to everything.
Strawman. Very very few people on the right say that.
Most of us drink but if alcohol was invented today it would never be legalised. Drugs ruin lives but they don't respect class, as Stephen Fry says the problem occurs when you can't afford them. I know people who's lives have been ruined along with their nearest and dearest, it's easy to be pious about drugs. I'd treat users and jail dealers for life.
Used correctly, sensibly, moderately and safely, alcohol and many other drugs (obviously not all) can enrich life. There's a reason they are pretty much ubiquitous in human societies going back time immemorial.
Correct. I had a friend 30 years who became an addict, from a good family he was able to "sort himself out" with enormous help and support, he talks of how close he was to death. Another of chap my acquaintance, who's family had finally washed their hands of him after years of misery was found dead in a public toilet. The Priory Clinic is not full of dustmen and tens of checkout workers.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
My personal experience is the same as yours. My observation is that some people have addictive personalities. This shows by obsessions about TV shows, sports teams or substance abuse. I see it as something of an arc. This personality trait makes it very difficult for those who have it to resist addiction to any particular thing at a particular time.
If a particular drug becomes their obsession of the moment they will make that the centre of their lives until their obsession moves on. I think we miss a trick by focussing on the addictiveness of particular substances. This is not, in my opinion, really the point. Those who are lucky enough not to have this personality trait may feel temporary discomfort if they withdraw from a substance but this is a temporary thing which a sense of perspective easily deals with.
What we need to focus on is the personality trait itself. That suggests treatments such as cognitive therapy are the way forward. The idea that you "treat" someone with, say, a heroin addiction by giving them an alternative drug like methadone is borderline crazy and has killed far too many people.
Thanks David - all good points. I'd actually be interested in hearing SeanT's views on this: he's been there and got the t-shirt.
A lot of media folk have come out the other side of excessive drugs use - Mr T, Toby Young, James Dellingpole and many more. They write about it well and engagingly. In a funny kind of way it seems glamorous. But most of all it comes across as survivable. If you are young, foolish and impressionable, what is not to like?
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Alcohol has higher social harm due to its legalisation and widespread use. But Heroin, Crack cocaine and meths all carry higher risk of mortality and psychosis for the user.
And, Heroin, in particular, is very addictive.
Yes, I wouldn't recommend any of the above, and have never fancied trying any of them despite having being able to in my party days - because I was educated enough to know what they can do to you and felt comfortable and confident in myself not to want to self-destruct. Plenty of other illegal drugs are less harmful in absolute terms than alcohol, though.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
My personal experience is the same as yours. My observation is that some people have addictive personalities. This shows by obsessions about TV shows, sports teams or substance abuse. I see it as something of an arc. This personality trait makes it very difficult for those who have it to resist addiction to any particular thing at a particular time.
If a particular drug becomes their obsession of the moment they will make that the centre of their lives until their obsession moves on. I think we miss a trick by focussing on the addictiveness of particular substances. This is not, in my opinion, really the point. Those who are lucky enough not to have this personality trait may feel temporary discomfort if they withdraw from a substance but this is a temporary thing which a sense of perspective easily deals with.
What we need to focus on is the personality trait itself. That suggests treatments such as cognitive therapy are the way forward. The idea that you "treat" someone with, say, a heroin addiction by giving them an alternative drug like methadone is borderline crazy and has killed far too many people.
Thanks David - all good points. I'd actually be interested in hearing SeanT's views on this: he's been there and got the t-shirt.
A lot of media folk have come out the other side of excessive drugs use - Mr T, Toby Young, James Dellingpole and many more. They write about it well and engagingly. In a funny kind of way it seems glamorous. But most of all it comes across as survivable. If you are young, foolish and impressionable, what is not to like?
Isn't it considered a pre-requisite for a high profil(ish) media job these days ?
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Alcohol has higher social harm due to its legalisation and widespread use. But Heroin, Crack cocaine and meths all carry higher risk of mortality and psychosis for the user.
And, Heroin, in particular, is very addictive.
I have had doctors tell me that no one has ever died of heroin withdrawal. I am not sure I believe this because people who have been neglecting themselves can generate other complications such as seizures which might be fatal but as a general proposition it is probably correct.
So the problem remains with the user. He or she chooses not to tolerate temporary discomfort required to get clean ( I am not underestimating its unpleasantness but it is no more than a few days) because they are psychologically addicted and obsessed. That is what we have to treat.
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
The point is that most of us on the left are arguing for a mixed economy that takes the best of private and public, those on the right are the fundamentalists arguing that the uncontrolled free market is the answer to everything.
Then how do you account for Labour's current plans to renationalise the railways? The current railway setup is exactly what you say they want: a combination of private (the operators) and public (Network Rail). Yet we're told with very little evidence that renationalisation would somehow make a better railway.
There are fundamentalists on both sides; it's just that Labour have fundamentalists as leader and shadow chancellor.
I don't understand some people, particularly the wealthy and high-profiled. I've managed to have a rich and fulfilling life - including getting through the far less fun stress-filled and dark parts - without ever touching a cigarette, or cannabis, let alone anything like cocaine or heroin.
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
I used to love a ciggie, especially after a good meal. But as a pessimist I could not justify them so gave up seventeen years ago and have not had one since. I still have five or six cigars a year. With whisky, soft lights and good music they make the world's worries dissolve.
Not that I have but I can understand the appeal of a cigar a little more, actually.
You still haven't explained what's different about alcohol. Surely the key, whatever your indulgences, is moderation.
Surely drink generally requires more volume to have a greater effect? I can stop at a shot of whisky, or a glass of wine, rather than drink the entire bottle. It's harder to take a quarter of an E, or inject just a little heroin.
If you drink pure alcohol you can get in trouble pretty quickly, as someone who has drunk 75% rum I can attest to this.
Conversely, it's quite easy to do low doses of other drugs too, if that is your desire.
I can't go down the local shop and buy pure drinking alcohol. (I think).
The pace of change where I live is unbelievable,it took 50 years in my area for the Asian community to be the dominant population.
In the past 4 to 5 years ,another mass migration of the Roma community to my area in a very short period of time,you can see the change with the large families that are coming.
I think the issue with any immigration assimilation is large families as you say, and 2nd generation problems of not being able to fit in.
The actions of young islamic men and their proclivities in Sweden whereby their religion's honourable standards of behaviour to women are forgotten are a microcosm of the problems Europe-wide where people are welcomed and choose to operate with their own laws in close communities instead of fitting in with those who had welcomed them.
I suspect in parts of England some people vote UKIP out of frustration as nothing seems to be being done about it, as subject matter is almost taboo.
It is not annoyance at Oz and Kiwis swamping Earls Court, it is cultural. Numbers is not the issue really.
I come back to UK every couple of years so get a snapshot each time and I was surprised that most service workers I met spoke English as a 2nd language. They were pleasant and welcoming. So there is good and bad with immigration. We need to see both sides.
I would postulate that if I was a second generation muslim called Mohammed sending my C.V. in for a job "all other things being equal" I would not hold out much faith of being top of the pile as preconceptions and misconceptions based on general assumptions would not help. That generalisation, not helped by a rabid MSM which influences pubic opinion, will unfortunately lead to further problems as frustrated (competent) youths are given few opportunities.
At the age of 75 and having worked in the media for most of that time I have yet to see anyone using drugs except for one well known director on a high profile drama series..he lasted ten days, got fired and disappeared from the industry....Seen a lot of drunks tho..at all levels..
The front page of the Times today is a great warning against the fetishisation of private enterprise.
You could just as easily say: "yesterday's headlines about Addenbrookes is a great warning against the fetishisation of the public sector and the NHS".
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
The point is that most of us on the left are arguing for a mixed economy that takes the best of private and public, those on the right are the fundamentalists arguing that the uncontrolled free market is the answer to everything.
Strawman. Very very few people on the right say that.
The issue is oversight and incentive, not on type of organisation. Do we incentivise private sector companies to provide the minimum acceptable level of public service for the general good or the best possible? Too often in this country I fear it is the former rather than the latter. And even then the oversight is often too lax.
Comments
Goodnight all
In the past 4 to 5 years ,another mass migration of the Roma community to my area in a very short period of time,you can see the change with the large families that are coming.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/20/politics/carly-fiorina-donald-trump-republican-2016-poll/index.html
Germans chant 'Putin to Berlin, Merkel to Siberia!' at Dresden Rally in ... https://youtu.be/dszwLbsTMdY via @YouTube
At this point anyone saying "based on the poll I predict X will be the nominee" is merely showing ignorance. None of us have any idea at this point who either nominee will be, although the Democratic one (taking into the account the FBI risk) is more likely.
On reflection, do you not think that comment was a little unwise?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/20/politics/carly-fiorina-donald-trump-republican-2016-poll/index.html
Of course nothing Apple sells is 'cheap', but quite a bit is not exceptionally good for the price.
Day 1 Cameron household awash with drugs
Day 2 Cameron attends parties awash with drugs
Day 3 Cameron can't find drugs
But I'm am android user now. Some great, some not so much. Everyone I know with an iPhone - not many - is going android next upgrade.
What's this Fury, Fury, Fury shit?
If you like her it's Carly, Carly, Carly!
Otherwise silence is golden.
http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Fiorina_"Fury"_161
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/
That's like saying you won't poll until a week before the election, in case things change. It's human nature to say "Right now it looks like X, but it will probably change over time." Rather than "It will probably change over time, so I won't say anything right now".
Where's the fun in that?
That's it?
Sgt. Sunil: Alright, sweethearts, you're a team and there's nothin' to worry about. We come here, and we're gonna conquer, and we're gonna kick some, is that understood? That's what we're gonna do, sweethearts, we are going to go and get some. All right, people, on the ready line! Are ya lean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: Are ya mean?
PB Tories: Yeah!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU?
PB Tories: Lean and mean!
Sgt. Sunil: WHAT ARE YOU? RobD! TSE! Get on the ready line, PB Tories, get some today! Get on the ready line! Move it out! Move it out, goddammit! Get hot! One, two, three, four! Get out, get out, get out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! Move it out, move it out, move it out! One, two, three, four, five, six, seven! Aaarrrrr, absolutely badasses! Let's pack 'em in! Get in there!
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListFiles/Sunil060902&ilshowall=1
And no, I'm not a square - I enjoy a drink - but I don't see the need to ingest all this crap into your body.
What possible benefit does it bring you?
After that, I guess addiction of whatever level kicks in. Once they're at that stage, they'll find any excuse for taking them. "It helps with my depression," or "everyone does it."
The last one in particular annoys me. Not everyone does it, and not by a long chalk. I haven't seen anyone take illegal drugs since university. I guess that unlike the PM I don't get invited to that sort of party any more.
I assume that it's not really done anymore - but crikey at the time.
If a particular drug becomes their obsession of the moment they will make that the centre of their lives until their obsession moves on. I think we miss a trick by focussing on the addictiveness of particular substances. This is not, in my opinion, really the point. Those who are lucky enough not to have this personality trait may feel temporary discomfort if they withdraw from a substance but this is a temporary thing which a sense of perspective easily deals with.
What we need to focus on is the personality trait itself. That suggests treatments such as cognitive therapy are the way forward. The idea that you "treat" someone with, say, a heroin addiction by giving them an alternative drug like methadone is borderline crazy and has killed far too many people.
None I know do anything 'harder' to my knowledge, but what do I know?
Drinkers can enjoy a glass of red every few days and probably add a net positive to their lives, or down a litre of vodka a day and set their livers, brains and kidneys (and lives) to self-destruct. The same is true with a lot of other, currently illegal, drugs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_1956
I think we are in agreement that the distinction between legal and illegal substances is meaningless and frankly irrational. We are putting far too many of our resources into the wrong areas treating the wrong problem.
I'm not sure what your point is: there are plenty of cases of fraud, bad practice and waste in the public sector. Fetishisation off any organisation can allow them that organisation to take advantage, as Apple Fandom shows all too well.
David Cameron once stole my rice pudding at lunch when I was at Eton*
He once said he didn't like national treasure, Stephen Fry and confused which was Ant and which was Dec*
He missed 2 lectures on a monday whilst at Uni after a wild party the night before left him hungover*
*so a bloke told me when I was waiting for my bus so just reporting that.
I can't wait for this blockbuster to continue.
I am not saying that is a bad thing, we clearly need to control pollution, particularly in our cities but the differences being disclosed when the VWs are running "dirty" are much bigger than I had appreciated.
I would also like to reduce the number of people in jail for low level drug offences so we could put violent offenders away for a lot longer.
And, Heroin, in particular, is very addictive.
Conversely, it's quite easy to do low doses of other drugs too, if that is your desire.
Clearly the pig thing was embarassing and should start to push Cameron towards a door which he's already walking out of sometime, but this is starting to look an awful lot like a lot of tittle-tattle now.
So the problem remains with the user. He or she chooses not to tolerate temporary discomfort required to get clean ( I am not underestimating its unpleasantness but it is no more than a few days) because they are psychologically addicted and obsessed. That is what we have to treat.
There are fundamentalists on both sides; it's just that Labour have fundamentalists as leader and shadow chancellor.
The actions of young islamic men and their proclivities in Sweden whereby their religion's honourable standards of behaviour to women are forgotten are a microcosm of the problems Europe-wide where people are welcomed and choose to operate with their own laws in close communities instead of fitting in with those who had welcomed them.
I suspect in parts of England some people vote UKIP out of frustration as nothing seems to be being done about it, as subject matter is almost taboo.
It is not annoyance at Oz and Kiwis swamping Earls Court, it is cultural. Numbers is not the issue really.
I come back to UK every couple of years so get a snapshot each time and I was surprised that most service workers I met spoke English as a 2nd language. They were pleasant and welcoming. So there is good and bad with immigration. We need to see both sides.
I would postulate that if I was a second generation muslim called Mohammed sending my C.V. in for a job "all other things being equal" I would not hold out much faith of being top of the pile as preconceptions and misconceptions based on general assumptions would not help.
That generalisation, not helped by a rabid MSM which influences pubic opinion, will unfortunately lead to further problems as frustrated (competent) youths are given few opportunities.