Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tuesday may see the biggest change to the electoral process in

SystemSystem Posts: 6,389
edited November 4 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tuesday may see the biggest change to the electoral process in Florida since the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Video above: The WSJ’s take on Florida allowing felons to vote.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,257
    What chance other state's following Maine's lead? The americans seem to like doing things as different as they can reasonably manage.

    On felons voting, I am surprised the polling is as positive as it is. I see no issue with it, once people are out of prison I don't see the issue with them voting, but I'd have assumed more resistance to restore the right to a big chunk.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,257

    kle4 said:


    This is nearly as bad as when some middle class people pretend to be working class

    Heaven forbid.

    But frankly I am surprised there are not more stories of people identifying as other races. It can be hard to tell sometimes in any case.
    Like Welsh from Scottish from Irish from English.
    I wouldn't call that hard so much as impossible. I was just thinking more people come in a lot of different shades, it would seem pretty easy to claim another one if someone wanted.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 47,145
    The Florida results on Tuesday will be particularly interesting so turnout there will be important.

    In the Senate the Florida Governor is trying to defeat the incumbent Democratic Senator while the Denocrats in turn hope to win the Florida Governorship for the first time in 19 years
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,246
    Georgia look gnto ditch the Free and Fair part of its election

  • notmenotme Posts: 2,985
    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 3,772
    Cultural Marxism - When people are accused of being right wing because they defend free speech you have to think something is going on.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 21,326
    edited November 4
    fpt
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    My word, this is disgraceful, he should be ashamed.

    h.

    But this is the inevitable endpoint of cultural Marxist theory that race has no biological validity.
    The

    And to label that ‘cultural Marxist theory’ is tendentious, to say the least.

    "Cultural Marxism" is not how anyone describes themselves, it is a term used by alt.right conspiracy theorists, and one with more than a whiff of anti-semitism. No wonder it featured in Breiviks rambling manifesto.

    It is also a fundamental misunderstanding of the Frankfurt School's ideas, which are at heart a critique of materialism as a social, economic, cultural and political motivator. Something that Brexiteers or Trumpists who see erosion of their sovereignty and cultural identity should be able to agree with. I commend this article to understand the critique.

    https://areomagazine.com/2018/08/11/who-is-afraid-of-cultural-marxism-what-the-frankfurt-school-can-still-teach-us/
    I think there are almost as many interpretations of the term "cultural Marxism" as there are of the term "liberal", which can mean many different things, good, bad, evil, or virtuous, depending on which side of the Atlantic you are on.

    I agree it has been co-opted by some overtly nasty people, with clearly anti-Semitic agendas. On the other hand it is a good easy means to describe a certain kind of leftwing SJW obsessed with identity - racial and sexual - even as they deny these identities exist in the real world.

    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist. The only way to ascertain race is therefore how you self identify, how you "feel", so a white man can "feel" black, and, in SJW eyes, this makes him black.

    This patently absurd position leads, inevitably and predictably, to white people pretending to be black to gain certain advantages meant for "real" black people (whatever they are, God help us)

    Look at the career of Rachel Dolezal, as an example.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal

    The same lunacy (call it culturally Marxist or call it just plain idiocy, I don't mind) is now invading the gender debate, and men are wearing skirts to get positions reserved for women.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6195853/Credit-Suisse-boss-dresses-woman-slammed-appearing-100-women-list.html

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,085
    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    Nothing to do with the fact that they exposed him as a liar over his African diamond mines? 'Fake news', indeed.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,223
    HYUFD said:

    The Florida results on Tuesday will be particularly interesting so turnout there will be important.

    In the Senate the Florida Governor is trying to defeat the incumbent Democratic Senator while the Denocrats in turn hope to win the Florida Governorship for the first time in 19 years

    Inclement weather over large parts of the US on Tuesday could have an impact on the election. In Florida storms are expected over the panhandle, the culturally, rather than geographically, "Southern" part of the state that leans Republican. The more Democratic actual south of the state is expected to have much better weather.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 2,085
    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Florida results on Tuesday will be particularly interesting so turnout there will be important.

    In the Senate the Florida Governor is trying to defeat the incumbent Democratic Senator while the Denocrats in turn hope to win the Florida Governorship for the first time in 19 years

    Inclement weather over large parts of the US on Tuesday could have an impact on the election. In Florida storms are expected over the panhandle, the culturally, rather than geographically, "Southern" part of the state that leans Republican. The more Democratic actual south of the state is expected to have much better weather.
    Trump has clearly upset God.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,223
    kle4 said:

    What chance other state's following Maine's lead? The americans seem to like doing things as different as they can reasonably manage.

    On felons voting, I am surprised the polling is as positive as it is. I see no issue with it, once people are out of prison I don't see the issue with them voting, but I'd have assumed more resistance to restore the right to a big chunk.

    Most states already allow felons that have completed their sentence to vote, so it's not that exceptional. Also, unlike the UK and many other countries, where it's only serving prisoners (pace the ECHR) who are excluding from voting, most states that allow released felons to vote only allow them to do so when all parts of the sentence including supervised parole, probation etc, are completed. That's the model Florida will adopt if the measure passes.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 46,845
    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too :p
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,223

    rpjs said:

    HYUFD said:

    The Florida results on Tuesday will be particularly interesting so turnout there will be important.

    In the Senate the Florida Governor is trying to defeat the incumbent Democratic Senator while the Denocrats in turn hope to win the Florida Governorship for the first time in 19 years

    Inclement weather over large parts of the US on Tuesday could have an impact on the election. In Florida storms are expected over the panhandle, the culturally, rather than geographically, "Southern" part of the state that leans Republican. The more Democratic actual south of the state is expected to have much better weather.
    Trump has clearly upset God.
    Arguably the expected weather on Tuesday favours the GOP more, just not in Florida!
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 10,246
    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


    If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587
    edited November 4
    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 21,326
    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    lol. Yes. Calmly shredded her.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,257

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
    He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,257
    rpjs said:

    kle4 said:

    What chance other state's following Maine's lead? The americans seem to like doing things as different as they can reasonably manage.

    On felons voting, I am surprised the polling is as positive as it is. I see no issue with it, once people are out of prison I don't see the issue with them voting, but I'd have assumed more resistance to restore the right to a big chunk.

    Most states already allow felons that have completed their sentence to vote, so it's not that exceptional. Also, unlike the UK and many other countries, where it's only serving prisoners (pace the ECHR) who are excluding from voting, most states that allow released felons to vote only allow them to do so when all parts of the sentence including supervised parole, probation etc, are completed. That's the model Florida will adopt if the measure passes.
    That makes more sense then - I got the impression from american tv show jokes that almost no felons in the US could vote.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,370
    kle4 said:

    rpjs said:

    kle4 said:

    What chance other state's following Maine's lead? The americans seem to like doing things as different as they can reasonably manage.

    On felons voting, I am surprised the polling is as positive as it is. I see no issue with it, once people are out of prison I don't see the issue with them voting, but I'd have assumed more resistance to restore the right to a big chunk.

    Most states already allow felons that have completed their sentence to vote, so it's not that exceptional. Also, unlike the UK and many other countries, where it's only serving prisoners (pace the ECHR) who are excluding from voting, most states that allow released felons to vote only allow them to do so when all parts of the sentence including supervised parole, probation etc, are completed. That's the model Florida will adopt if the measure passes.
    That makes more sense then - I got the impression from american tv show jokes that almost no felons in the US could vote.
    Cue jokes about Congress...
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 1,223
    kle4 said:

    rpjs said:

    kle4 said:

    What chance other state's following Maine's lead? The americans seem to like doing things as different as they can reasonably manage.

    On felons voting, I am surprised the polling is as positive as it is. I see no issue with it, once people are out of prison I don't see the issue with them voting, but I'd have assumed more resistance to restore the right to a big chunk.

    Most states already allow felons that have completed their sentence to vote, so it's not that exceptional. Also, unlike the UK and many other countries, where it's only serving prisoners (pace the ECHR) who are excluding from voting, most states that allow released felons to vote only allow them to do so when all parts of the sentence including supervised parole, probation etc, are completed. That's the model Florida will adopt if the measure passes.
    That makes more sense then - I got the impression from american tv show jokes that almost no felons in the US could vote.
    Supervised parole etc can last a very long time after release so yes, a lot of released felons are in practice disenfranchised.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,985
    kle4 said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
    He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.
    Ok... as my wife says a million times, I do have a tendency to hyperbolise.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587
    edited November 4
    kle4 said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
    He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.
    I'd rather put a revolver to my head and pull the trigger than do x, y or z = calmly?

    I wonder why Banks didn't reach for the Webley before doing an interview 2 years ago for..er..CH4?

  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 21,326
    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


    If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

    Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft.




  • kle4kle4 Posts: 34,257
    edited November 4

    kle4 said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
    He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.
    I'd rather put a revolver to my head and pull the trigger than do x, y or z = calmly?

    I was referring to his delivery, not his words. He didn't get flustered, or rant, or shout, so while what he said was rude, he didn't lose his cool, I don't see how that is controversial to note. People get away with incendiary or nonsense comments all the time so long as they can deliver it in a calm or polite fashion, I wasn't endorsing what he said, but he was clearly calm and collected, therefore he dealt with it comfortably, comfortably enough in fact to engage in a deliberately absurd comparison.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,370
    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


    If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

    Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft.
    I would have paid good money to hear you responding to Professor Yehudi Bauer giving a speech on this topic at Yad Vashem when I was there a few years back.

    He muddled 'race' and 'species.'
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,640
    FPTFoxy said:
    » show previous quotes
    There is a big Polynesian minority too, Kanaks being Melanesian like PNG, so Kanaks are a minority overall.
    Same as happened in Scotland
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,833
    I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

    When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,833
    SeanT said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    lol. Yes. Calmly shredded her.
    I'm not a fan of Aaron Banks but it's hard to disagree with that, and even harder to have sympathy with Channel 4 news and their eight viewers.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    In defence of Channel 4 News, it's worth noting Jon Snow, rightly, pushed Corbyn hard on the money he was happy to take from Iranian state TV.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,659
    kle4 said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
    He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.
    Also, he was talking utter shit.

    Channel 4 is not the leading proponent of fake news. That's Carol Whatsername.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


    If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

    Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft....
    As a scientific category, it doesn’t. Genetic population groups have only the vaguest correspondence to the far less defined (and constantly redefined) categories which constitute ideas of ‘race’.

  • notmenotme Posts: 2,985
    edited November 4
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
    He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.
    Also, he was talking utter shit.

    Channel 4 is not the leading proponent of fake news. That's Carol Whatsername.
    Snigger. Guido calls her Carole Codswallop, but even so she knocked 20% off the share price of one of the biggest companies on the planet.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
    He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.
    Also, he was talking utter shit.

    Channel 4 is not the leading proponent of fake news. That's Carol Whatsername.
    But as Rees Mogg has demonstrated, politely talking utter shit can be quite persuasive for some people.

  • notmenotme Posts: 2,985
    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


    If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

    Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft.




    The presence of Neanderthal dna in European ancestry never really gets brought up as part of the debate about races. Interesting in its absence across the rest of the human populations.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 21,326

    I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

    When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.

    Hm. I'm not sure that would be true of places like Bermuda, or the Caymans, especially if HMG goes through with its plan to clamp down on overseas tax havens.

    As for the French, they cling on (rather well) to their still considerable overseas possessions by pumping them full of subsidies: paying Fench natives very high wages to go overseas, establishing lavish local welfare systems, and so forth.

    That said, this infantilising of the local populations, forever kept afloat by metropolitan largesse, never weaned off the teat of imperial Paris, can make these territories rather depressing places to visit.

    Martinique is one of the most miserable places on earth, in my experience. The locals know they rely on French subsidy, and they resent it, as it unmans them, yet they are also hooked on it. They are teenagerishly churlish and surly as a result.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 31,280
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
    He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.
    I'd rather put a revolver to my head and pull the trigger than do x, y or z = calmly?

    I was referring to his delivery, not his words. He didn't get flustered, or rant, or shout, so while what he said was rude, he didn't lose his cool,
    Magic Grandpa could learn a lot from Mr Banks.....

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,370
    Nigelb said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
    He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.
    Also, he was talking utter shit.

    Channel 4 is not the leading proponent of fake news. That's Carol Whatsername.
    But as Rees Mogg has demonstrated, politely talking utter shit can be quite persuasive for some people.

    For Jeremy Corbyn, 39.99% of the population. Admittedly he doesn't always stay calm and polite.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,898
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
    He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.
    Also, he was talking utter shit.

    Channel 4 is not the leading proponent of fake news. That's Carol Whatsername.
    Vorderman??!!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,370

    I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

    When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.

    I'm disappointed Malcolm hasn't made the obvious retort about Scotland...
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,898
    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


    If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

    Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft....
    As a scientific category, it doesn’t. Genetic population groups have only the vaguest correspondence to the far less defined (and constantly redefined) categories which constitute ideas of ‘race’.

    Fair point, but if we can use an objective test that can be defined numerically (the genetic clusters that @SeanT propounds) instead of subjective tests ("he looks black/white/whateva") then we have something that's tractable.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
    He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.
    I'd rather put a revolver to my head and pull the trigger than do x, y or z = calmly?

    I was referring to his delivery, not his words. He didn't get flustered, or rant, or shout, so while what he said was rude, he didn't lose his cool,
    Magic Grandpa could learn a lot from Mr Banks.....

    Not bothering with that tedious 'vote for me' business?
  • There is other polling in Florida showing this measure at or just above the 60% needed for it to pass. I wonder whether this is one of those issues where voters might be less liberal in reality than when they answer polls. To over simplify a bit the currently excluded felons are overwhelmingly Black men and Black men overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Although the socioeconomic group most impacted has very low turnouts. Regardless even a 20% turnout amongst a newly enfranchised 1.5m is 300K votes. If the demographics of that 300k lean Democratic... Wellit would have stoped Bush vs Gore going to the Supreme Court. I just wonder given how divided Florida is, given the racial subtext and given the need for a supermajority whether the polls will be correct.

    Incidently Michigan which Trump won narrowly has an even more radical set of Voter Registration reforms on the ballot and polling has them passing overwhelmingly. The potentional partisan impact is more mixed with easier postal voting perhaps compensating for other measures than make it easier to register economically marginalised groups.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    notme said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


    If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

    Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft.

    The presence of Neanderthal dna in European ancestry never really gets brought up as part of the debate about races. Interesting in its absence across the rest of the human populations.
    Probably because 1j it’s more complicated than that -
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding_between_archaic_and_modern_humans#Neanderthals
    - and 2) scientists have some time since abandoned race as a useful term, and are interested instead in population genetics.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 21,326
    notme said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


    If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

    Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft.




    The presence of Neanderthal dna in European ancestry never really gets brought up as part of the debate about races. Interesting in its absence across the rest of the human populations.
    Australian aborigines (especially those from the far north of Queensland, the Torres Strait, Tiwi islands, etc) seem to me the most obvious example of a discrete human race, clearly distinct from, say, Europeans or Chinese.

    Interestingly, DNA analysis shows that long ago Australian aborigines interbred with an unknown hominid species (NOT Neanderthal, or Denisovan - who interbred with Europeans and Asians)

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/dna-of-extinct-human-species-pacific-islanders-analysis-suggests/7968950

    This surely marks them out as a different "race", though I accept that some will never permit
    this word in polite circles.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    viewcode said:

    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


    If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

    Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft....
    As a scientific category, it doesn’t. Genetic population groups have only the vaguest correspondence to the far less defined (and constantly redefined) categories which constitute ideas of ‘race’.

    Fair point, but if we can use an objective test that can be defined numerically (the genetic clusters that @SeanT propounds) instead of subjective tests ("he looks black/white/whateva") then we have something that's tractable.
    There is no single ‘objective test’.
    It’s complicated.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,370
    viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
    He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.
    Also, he was talking utter shit.

    Channel 4 is not the leading proponent of fake news. That's Carol Whatsername.
    Vorderman??!!
    Letters not jump to conclusions.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    Mr. T, genetic differences between races, if we use that term, are really, really minor.

    Hair is an interesting divergence. Not just colour, but fineness, frizziness etc. Varies from European to African to Persian to Far Eastern.

    Single and double eyelids is another.

    There's a minor difference between limb and height proportions, I believe, between certainly the Far East and maybe Asia generally with Europe (read in a karate book once that the forms had to be slightly altered for Westerners because of this).

    But when you look at that, and the variety of other species, it's really small potatoes.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    SeanT said:

    notme said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


    If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

    Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft.




    The presence of Neanderthal dna in European ancestry never really gets brought up as part of the debate about races. Interesting in its absence across the rest of the human populations.
    Australian aborigines (especially those from the far north of Queensland, the Torres Strait, Tiwi islands, etc) seem to me the most obvious example of a discrete human race, clearly distinct from, say, Europeans or Chinese.

    Interestingly, DNA analysis shows that long ago Australian aborigines interbred with an unknown hominid species (NOT Neanderthal, or Denisovan - who interbred with Europeans and Asians)

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/dna-of-extinct-human-species-pacific-islanders-analysis-suggests/7968950

    This surely marks them out as a different "race", though I accept that some will never permit
    this word in polite circles.
    In pretty well the same way that aether and phlogiston aren’t talked about much in science anymore.
    Though with added poliitical overtones.

  • notmenotme Posts: 2,985
    SeanT said:

    I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

    When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.

    Hm. I'm not sure that would be true of places like Bermuda, or the Caymans, especially if HMG goes through with its plan to clamp down on overseas tax havens.

    As for the French, they cling on (rather well) to their still considerable overseas possessions by pumping them full of subsidies: paying Fench natives very high wages to go overseas, establishing lavish local welfare systems, and so forth.

    That said, this infantilising of the local populations, forever kept afloat by metropolitan largesse, never weaned off the teat of imperial Paris, can make these territories rather depressing places to visit.

    Martinique is one of the most miserable places on earth, in my experience. The locals know they rely on French subsidy, and they resent it, as it unmans them, yet they are also hooked on it. They are teenagerishly churlish and surly as a result.

    Struggling not to make the Northern Ireland comparison.
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 21,326
    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    notme said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Excepientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    This iss, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft.




    The presence of Neanderthal dna in European ancestry never really gets brought up as part of the debate about races. Interesting in its absence across the rest of the human populations.
    Australian aborigines (especially those from the far north of Queensland, the Torres Strait, Tiwi islands, etc) seem to me the most obvious example of a discrete human race, clearly distinct from, say, Europeans or Chinese.

    Interestingly, DNA analysis shows that long ago Australian aborigines interbred with an unknown hominid species (NOT Neanderthal, or Denisovan - who interbred with Europeans and Asians)

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/dna-of-extinct-human-species-pacific-islanders-analysis-suggests/7968950

    This surely marks them out as a different "race", though I accept that some will never permit
    this word in polite circles.
    In pretty well the same way that aether and phlogiston aren’t talked about much in science anymore.
    Though with added poliitical overtones.

    We basically agree, you're just angrier and have a smaller cranial size, because of your race.
  • I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

    When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.

    Except the margin you are mocking by which New Caledonia has voted to stay part of France is remarkably similar to the margin actual Caledonia voted to remain in the United Kingdom.

    So apart from by far the biggest and most recent example utterly refuting your jingoistic point you are correct.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    edited November 4
    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    notme said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Excepientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    This iss, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft.




    The presence of Neanderthal dna in European ancestry never really gets brought up as part of the debate about races. Interesting in its absence across the rest of the human populations.
    Australian aborigines (especially those from the far north of Queensland, the Torres Strait, Tiwi islands, etc) seem to me the most obvious example of a discrete human race, clearly distinct from, say, Europeans or Chinese.

    Interestingly, DNA analysis shows that long ago Australian aborigines interbred with an unknown hominid species (NOT Neanderthal, or Denisovan - who interbred with Europeans and Asians)

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/dna-of-extinct-human-species-pacific-islanders-analysis-suggests/7968950

    This surely marks them out as a different "race", though I accept that some will never permit
    this word in polite circles.
    In pretty well the same way that aether and phlogiston aren’t talked about much in science anymore.
    Though with added poliitical overtones.

    We basically agree, you're just angrier and have a smaller cranial size, because of your race.
    I’m just less wedded to antique terms, or genial abuse.
    Not angry with you at all, Sean.

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,898
    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


    If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    This isn't about colour (the use of colour to denote "race" has always bedevilled this poisonous debate) it is about genes. Most scientists accept that are three (or maybe five) genetic clusters which we might call human races (or human ancestries, if you prefer). Very very roughly, they correspond with common perceptions of "African", "European", and "east Asian". If you drill down you'd probably separate out Australian aborigines, and some others, etc

    Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft....
    As a scientific category, it doesn’t. Genetic population groups have only the vaguest correspondence to the far less defined (and constantly redefined) categories which constitute ideas of ‘race’.

    Fair point, but if we can use an objective test that can be defined numerically (the genetic clusters that @SeanT propounds) instead of subjective tests ("he looks black/white/whateva") then we have something that's tractable.
    There is no single ‘objective test’.
    It’s complicated.

    I accept that it's complicated, but it's something that should be sorted out IMHO. The original post was on this article (h ttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6350675/White-theatre-director-classes-born-African.html ). If there is no objective test then Mr Lennon's claim may be as legitimate as anybody elses's.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,898
    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    You think?

    I must remember the blowing my brains out gambit to ensure my opponents are totz pwnd.
    He calmly dealt with it while making his disdain for the channel abundantly clear. I don't think he burnt anyone by doing so, and it was rude, but he did deal with it comfortably.
    Also, he was talking utter shit.

    Channel 4 is not the leading proponent of fake news. That's Carol Whatsername.
    Vorderman??!!
    Letters not jump to conclusions.
    :)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    Mr. B, you'll be deriding phrenology next.

    On a more serious note, would you abolish all racial quotas, targets, etc?

    I'm not unsympathetic to your view, but the practicalities of declaring race irrelevant/non-existent would be... interesting.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    viewcode said:

    Nigelb said:

    viewcode said:

    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either way, I'm not going to fight on this semantic hill. What I am saying is that there is an agenda on the left (whether it be cultural Marxist, anarcho-surrealist, post-nationalist Boasian fruitlooper, whatever) which asserts that races do not exist, biologically, and cannot be scientifically proven to exist.

    Except race is clearly a social construct. The way the Irish went from "basically inseparable from the Negro" to "white" in America over the years clearly shows race is a social construct.


    If someone's genes are more than 50% western European (which covers a massive amount of African Americans) but they have a high melanin count I bet you fuck loads of money you would call them black despite their scientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    Of course within and between these divisions there is an immense amount of blurring, overlapping, and fuzziness - a Japanese man may share more DNA with a Welsh guy from Cardiff than he does a fellow Japanese man from Osaka - leading to all kinds of confusion, and allowing less scrupulous types, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft....
    As a scientific category, it doesn’t. Genetic population groups have only the vaguest correspondence to the far less defined (and constantly redefined) categories which constitute ideas of ‘race’.

    Fair point, but if we can use an objective test that can be defined numerically (the genetic clusters that @SeanT propounds) instead of subjective tests ("he looks black/white/whateva") then we have something that's tractable.
    There is no single ‘objective test’.
    It’s complicated.

    I accept that it's complicated, but it's something that should be sorted out IMHO. The original post was on this article (h ttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6350675/White-theatre-director-classes-born-African.html ). If there is no objective test then Mr Lennon's claim may be as legitimate as anybody elses's.
    Indeed it might. And if you’re looking for scientific help in devising some sort of DNA profiling to determine government grants, it could be rather a long wait.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,739
    As ever, be careful about citing media reporting of an individual scientific paper. Especially when it backs up your views ...
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 21,326
    edited November 4
    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    Nigelb said:

    SeanT said:

    notme said:

    SeanT said:

    Alistair said:

    SeanT said:



    Either wato exist.

    Excepientific DNA telling rationalist you otherwise.

    This iss, with an agenda, to go too far, and claim that race does not exist at all, which is blatantly daft.




    The presence of Neanderthal dna in European ancestry never really gets brought up as part of the debate about races. Interesting in its absence across the rest of the human populations.
    Australian

    This surely marks them out as a different "race", though I accept that some will never permit
    this word in polite circles.
    In pretty well the same way that aether and phlogiston aren’t talked about much in science anymore.
    Though with added poliitical overtones.

    We basically agree, you're just angrier and have a smaller cranial size, because of your race.
    I’m just less wedded to antique terms, or genial abuse.
    Not angry with you at all, Sean.

    Good, I'm not angry at you either, just chillaxing on a Sunday.

    You might find this interesting, a scholarly paper analysing interbreeding with other hominid species might have then led to the differentiation of - shudder - human races.

    It's published by those well known Nazis and Klansmen at.... *checks notes*..... the US National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4947341/

    And now I must do a spot of work. Later.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,898

    Mr. B, you'll be deriding phrenology next.

    On a more serious note, would you abolish all racial quotas, targets, etc?

    I'm not unsympathetic to your view, but the practicalities of declaring race irrelevant/non-existent would be... interesting.

    I apologise for banging on about it, but if you don't have an objective test...how do you know if the quotas have been met?
  • SeanTSeanT Posts: 21,326

    I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

    When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.

    Except the margin you are mocking by which New Caledonia has voted to stay part of France is remarkably similar to the margin actual Caledonia voted to remain in the United Kingdom.

    So apart from by far the biggest and most recent example utterly refuting your jingoistic point you are correct.
    In addition, like the indy vote in Scotland, the final result was much closer than many had expected at the outset. Initial polls were suggesting 60/40 or even 70/30 for staying with
    France.

    And now I MUST work. Tsk.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203

    Mr. B, you'll be deriding phrenology next.

    On a more serious note, would you abolish all racial quotas, targets, etc?

    I'm not unsympathetic to your view, but the practicalities of declaring race irrelevant/non-existent would be... interesting.

    Are they defined as racial ?
    I would be delighted with a society without either negative or positive discrimination on grounds of colour or place of origin, but I suspect that’s a little ways off yet.

    For now, I have to shoulder the progressive burden, and go cook dinner.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,833

    I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

    When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.

    Except the margin you are mocking by which New Caledonia has voted to stay part of France is remarkably similar to the margin actual Caledonia voted to remain in the United Kingdom.

    So apart from by far the biggest and most recent example utterly refuting your jingoistic point you are correct.
    Delicious.

    Bait, reel and release.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,325
    US elections. Things starting to really get going:

  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,565

    I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

    When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.

    Just half a step away from “Gallic twats” mode again I see, Casino. How odd life must look, viewed from your crusty Union Jack y-fronts.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,565
    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too :p
    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 2,565
    If O’Rourke can win TX, he can take the White House, should he run.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,474
    There was an independence referendum today in New Caledonia today. 56% voted to remain part of France.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/04/new-caledonians-vote-stay-french-tense-referendum/
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 17,325
    :lol:

    "We have great news for everyone. In just six days, the 2020 presidential campaign will begin!

    (No, we’re really not kidding.)

    But before then, we have the small matter of the 2018 midterm to settle."


    http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 45,978
    Mr. Borough, hope it comes off. I backed him at shorter odds.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,898
    Anazina said:

    If O’Rourke can win TX, he can take the White House, should he run.
    If the polls are wrong in Texas, then they are wrong in the same direction and have been wrong all along. Looking at the curves, something is going to have be seriously wrong for Beto to win.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/senate/tx/texas_senate_cruz_vs_orourke-6310.html
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 25,833
    Anazina said:

    I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

    When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.

    Just half a step away from “Gallic twats” mode again I see, Casino. How odd life must look, viewed from your crusty Union Jack y-fronts.
    Hey, all my Union Jack underwear is well laundered. You have to respect our nation's flag.

    I don't know why you're so curious about seeing the world from my crotch, but I'm taken thanks xxx
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,739
    Anazina said:


    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

    On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

    The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

    And I am no fan of Banks.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,474
    edited November 4
    27% of the population of New Caledonia is European and I assume they voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining part of France. The non-Europeans probably voted in favour independence given the rather close 56/44 result.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,370

    Anazina said:


    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

    On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

    The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

    And I am no fan of Banks.
    Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,659
    Anazina said:

    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too :p
    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
    Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,739
    ydoethur said:

    Anazina said:


    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

    On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

    The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

    And I am no fan of Banks.
    Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.
    I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???

    (*) aside from the obvious ... ;)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,370

    ydoethur said:

    Anazina said:


    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

    On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

    The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

    And I am no fan of Banks.
    Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.
    I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???

    (*) aside from the obvious ... ;)
    It was a feeble attempt at humour.

    I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 23,659
    MaxPB said:

    Anazina said:

    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too :p
    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
    Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
    Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 21,739
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anazina said:


    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

    On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

    The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

    And I am no fan of Banks.
    Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.
    I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???

    (*) aside from the obvious ... ;)
    It was a feeble attempt at humour.

    I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.
    I daresay my feebleness at understanding is far greater than your feebleness at attempting humour. ;)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 15,659
    edited November 4
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anazina said:

    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too :p
    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
    Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
    Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.
    True, but given that it's publicly owned it should have some kind of remit for balance rather than being a stupidly right on "progressive" anti-leave propaganda channel.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 6,099
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anazina said:

    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too :p
    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
    Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
    Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.
    Well, I used to watch CH4 news daily - now I never go anywhere near it.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 12,587

    I see the French continue to be as popular as the pox.

    When British territories like Gibraltar and the Falklands hold referendums to stay British they lead to overwhelming results in favour that'd make Vladimir Putin blush.

    Except the margin you are mocking by which New Caledonia has voted to stay part of France is remarkably similar to the margin actual Caledonia voted to remain in the United Kingdom.

    So apart from by far the biggest and most recent example utterly refuting your jingoistic point you are correct.
    Delicious.

    Bait, reel and release.
    As far as I remember YS is English and approximately in favour of the Union. Still, you coarse fisherman are happy catching anything.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 23,474
    Floater said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anazina said:

    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too :p
    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
    Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
    Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.
    Well, I used to watch CH4 news daily - now I never go anywhere near it.
    It used to be the best and most in-depth news programme on TV, slightly better than Newsnight.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 5,898
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anazina said:

    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too :p
    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
    Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
    Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.
    True, but given that it's publicly owned it should have some kind of remit for balance rather than being a stupidly right on "progressive" anti-leave propaganda channel.
    Leaving the vitriol aside for a moment, you see this when organisations contract. Those who remain (pun not intended) are convinced that their way is the good way, and it becomes a feedback loop.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,370
    viewcode said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Anazina said:

    Pulpstar said:

    notme said:

    Fantastic. He might be an utter rogue. But he totally burnt her.
    Faisal Islam will probably be most upset by that interview too :p
    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.
    Only pb lefties think Channel 4 isn't a remainer propaganda station.
    Channel 4 produces what its viewers want to watch.
    True, but given that it's publicly owned it should have some kind of remit for balance rather than being a stupidly right on "progressive" anti-leave propaganda channel.
    Leaving the vitriol aside for a moment, you see this when organisations contract. Those who remain (pun not intended) are convinced that their way is the good way, and it becomes a feedback loop.
    They also tend to be the weakest people as the ablest ones are best placed to get out.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 27,791
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anazina said:


    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

    On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

    The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

    And I am no fan of Banks.
    Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.
    I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???

    (*) aside from the obvious ... ;)
    It was a feeble attempt at humour.

    I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.
    You were always a punny guy :lol:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,370
    edited November 4

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anazina said:


    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

    On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

    The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

    And I am no fan of Banks.
    Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.
    I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???

    (*) aside from the obvious ... ;)
    It was a feeble attempt at humour.

    I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.
    You were always a punny guy :lol:
    Oh, Fawkes off :wink:

    Edit - doesn't work. Let's try, Oh, for Fawkes' sake...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anazina said:


    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

    On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

    The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

    And I am no fan of Banks.
    Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.
    I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???

    (*) aside from the obvious ... ;)
    It was a feeble attempt at humour.

    I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.
    You were always a punny guy :lol:
    Oh, Fawkes off :wink:

    Edit - doesn't work. Let's try, Oh, for Fawkes' sake...
    He was only guying you.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 13,370
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anazina said:


    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

    On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

    The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

    And I am no fan of Banks.
    Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.
    I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???

    (*) aside from the obvious ... ;)
    It was a feeble attempt at humour.

    I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.
    You were always a punny guy :lol:
    Oh, Fawkes off :wink:

    Edit - doesn't work. Let's try, Oh, for Fawkes' sake...
    He was only guying you.
    I think I'm getting burned, actually.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 8,203
    ydoethur said:

    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Anazina said:


    Banks came across in that film as smug, shifty, deluded twat. Only on PB could that be considered ‘burning’ the reporter. It’s an alternative universe on here. The UKIP sycophants’ echo chamber.

    On the contrary, I really dislike this sort of drive-by interviewing, shouting questions to someone. It's not as bad as doorstepping, but it's still sh*t journalism by journalists more keen on their careers than the truth.

    The journalist comes across worse than Banks.

    And I am no fan of Banks.
    Ever since the great crash ten years ago I've gone off them myself.
    I'm obviously missing something (*) - what did the 08 crash have to do with my comment???

    (*) aside from the obvious ... ;)
    It was a feeble attempt at humour.

    I shall stick to making awesome puns directly in future.
    You were always a punny guy :lol:
    Oh, Fawkes off :wink:

    Edit - doesn't work. Let's try, Oh, for Fawkes' sake...
    He was only guying you.
    I think I'm getting burned, actually.
    Just a light roasting.
This discussion has been closed.