politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg launches his latest ad attacking Trump during the Pr

System · January 2020

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg launches his latest ad attacking Trump during the President’s favourite TV show

Inevitably this led to a Twitter explosion from Trump who has now dubbed the multi-billionaire as “Mini Mike Bloomberg”. According to Politico this is part of a deliberate strategy by Bloomberg who is benefiting in the polls as a result

Read the full story here

gettingbetter · January 2020

well done

IshmaelZ · January 2020

He is, in a word, trolling Trump. Which with someone as unbalanced as Trump is arguably an irresponsible thing to do.

Theuniondivvie · January 2020

Mini Mike is hardly one of Trump's zingers.

IshmaelZ · January 2020

gettingbetter said:
well done

bleu

rcs1000 · January 2020

I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)

speedy2 · January 2020

Out of topic.

I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184

justin124 · January 2020

'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

TOPPING · January 2020

rcs1000 said:
I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)

A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.

Anabobazina · January 2020

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.

Theuniondivvie · January 2020

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.

justin124 · January 2020

Anabobazina said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.

It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.

HYUFD · January 2020

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.

More than voted Brexit Party or Green at the last general election

HYUFD · January 2020

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

3% of women think it is acceptable to have sex on a first date, 9% of men at the other extreme

TheScreamingEagles · January 2020

Honestly sex before marriage should be the law.

Can you imagine marrying someone then finding out they are crap in the sack, that's very good grounds for divorce.

HYUFD · January 2020

Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote

TheScreamingEagles · January 2020

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

Except I am fairly certain many Christians, including the ones I know would never call a child born out of wedlock a bastard as you do.

They have much better manners and class than you.

TOPPING · January 2020

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.

Yeah I would think that 1 out of 20 or 25 people is close to the definition of exceptional.

kicorse · January 2020

Anabobazina said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.

In fairness, you don't have any moral high ground here:

Anabobazina said:

kinabalu said:

I think it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage.

Just in case.
Correct. The theistic pressure to avoid sex before marriage has undoubtably ruined several marriages. More evidence that religion wrecks human lives!

I'm fine with people having consensual sex whenever they want, and I'm fine with people getting married whenever they want. Other people are welcome to reach different conclusions, but when someone on one extreme ridicules someone on the other extreme, I'm inclined to call out the hypocrisy!

TheScreamingEagles · January 2020

On topic I wonder if Bloomberg's role in this election will be the role of fluffer/heel winding up Trump and forcing him into doing/saying stupid stuff which plays into the hands of the Dem nominee.

NickPalmer · January 2020

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:
I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)
A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.

Sanders+Bloomberg as Treasury Sec might be quite a good combination, reassuring folk worried by the socialism. Sanders accelerating away in NH according to this:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html

Nigelb · January 2020

speedy2 said:
Out of topic.

I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184

Apparently it’s so bad few have made it to the end.

kinabalu · January 2020

Which do we think there is more of on any given day - sex without marriage or marriage without sex?

HYUFD · January 2020

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1220415200383381506?s=20

Nigelb · January 2020

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!

Exceptionally silly.

justin124 · January 2020

TheScreamingEagles said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
Except I am fairly certain many Christians, including the ones I know would never call a child born out of wedlock a bastard as you do.

They have much better manners and class than you.

I would never discriminate against or look down on such a child.Drawing attention to the legal position is a separate issue.

TheScreamingEagles · January 2020

Nigelb said:

speedy2 said:
Out of topic.

I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184
Apparently it’s so bad few have made it to the end.

Hell of a comedown for Robert Downey Jr after Endgame.

IshmaelZ · January 2020

justin124 said:

Anabobazina said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.

Why the fascination with what other adults consensually do with their and each others' genitals?

I note btw that 4% was the number of respondents who said Yes to "have you ever been decapitated?" in a much cited American survey.

HYUFD · January 2020

NickPalmer said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:
I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)
A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
Sanders+Bloomberg as Treasury Sec might be quite a good combination, reassuring folk worried by the socialism. Sanders accelerating away in NH according to this:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_presidential_primary-6276.html

Bloomberg would not accept it, as he would have to implement policies he disagreed with, like hammering Wall Street with tax and cancelling student debt and universal healthcare

TheScreamingEagles · January 2020

IshmaelZ said:

justin124 said:

Anabobazina said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.
Why the fascination with what other adults consensually do with their and each others' genitals?

I note btw that 4% was the number of respondents who said Yes to "have you ever been decapitated?" in a much cited American survey.

Justin reminds me of one those Televangelists that rail against homosexuality but then gets caught well you know...

Nigelb · January 2020

justin124 said:

Anabobazina said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.

Why ?
Seems a most unChristian attitude,

rcs1000 · January 2020

HYUFD said:
Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote

That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)

ydoethur · January 2020

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.

While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...

ydoethur · January 2020

IshmaelZ said:

justin124 said:

Anabobazina said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.
Why the fascination with what other adults consensually do with their and each others' genitals?

I note btw that 4% was the number of respondents who said Yes to "have you ever been decapitated?" in a much cited American survey.

Although you must admit, it’s more fun talking about fucking extramaritally than fucking Brexit.

Sablon · January 2020

I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.

justin124 · January 2020

Nigelb said:

justin124 said:

Anabobazina said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.
Why ?
Seems a most unChristian attitude,

Because by their conduct they have rejected the Church teachings on the subject.There would be the possibility of repentance - but how often does that happen in a formal setting?

Nigelb · January 2020

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

speedy2 said:
Out of topic.

I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184
Apparently it’s so bad few have made it to the end.
Hell of a comedown for Robert Downey Jr after Endgame.

It’s not as though he hasn’t had his ups and down before.

This was probably the best review: “ transfixing at times, if only because it’s such a disaster...”

HYUFD · January 2020

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:
Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote
That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)

Maybe later on but Sanders could have built up enough momentum to win by then.

Sanders is over 10% ahead in New Hampshire in a new poll today

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220365392994062337?s=20

justin124 · January 2020

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...

Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!

ydoethur · January 2020

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!

Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

Other things that were mainstream:
Global cooling
Communism
The Beatles
The hippie movement
Black and white TV
The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.

justin124 · January 2020

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

Indeed - but the point is that such views are hardly Victorian - as some come close to implying. By 1970 we had been through the 'swinging 60s', the Wilson Government and reforms from Roy Jenkins , Women's Lib, the contraceptive pill et al. To a large extent , the sexual revolution had already taken place.

ydoethur · January 2020

More pressure on the government to go ahead with HS2:

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/hs2-what-lost-boris-johnson-17616741

rcs1000 · January 2020

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:
Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote
That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)
Maybe later on but Sanders could have built up enough momentum to win by then.

Sanders is over 10% ahead in New Hampshire in a new poll today

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220365392994062337?s=20

That's an excellent poll for him, although it's worth remembering that just two days ago Suffolk (an A-rated pollster) had him on just 16% in New Hampshire.

I struggle with the volatility of some of these polls. So, in the last ten days, we've had Biden on 26% in first place in New Hampshire, with Buttigieg in fourth on just 7%. And we've had Buttigieg in second on 17%, with Biden on just 14%. Sanders range hasn't been much less 29% to 16%.

I don't believe that underlying support swings around that much, so someone's likely to end up with egg on their face.

Nigelb · January 2020

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

Other things that were mainstream:
Global cooling
Communism
The Beatles
The hippie movement
Black and white TV
The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.

Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

Society has, thankfully, moved on.

rcs1000 · January 2020

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:
Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote
That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)
Maybe later on but Sanders could have built up enough momentum to win by then.

Sanders is over 10% ahead in New Hampshire in a new poll today

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220365392994062337?s=20

Re momentum.

I think it's worth remembering that the last insurgent left wing candidate was Obama.

And while he was insurgent and left wing, he was all establishment enough to get the opening speech at the Democratic National Convention and to headline John Kerry's Presidential nomination. In other words, he might have been insurgent relative to Ms H Clinton, but he was still very much an establishment Democrat.

If Sanders does win Iowa and New Hampshire, it's equally likely it forces a rapid consolidation of the establishment candidates: probably to just Biden, but maybe to Klobuchar or Buttigieg or Bloomberg.

tlg86 · January 2020

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

Other things that were mainstream:
Global cooling
Communism
The Beatles
The hippie movement
Black and white TV
The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

Society has, thankfully, moved on.

Glad that global cooling/warming is considered a social issue, rather than a scientific one.

Anabobazina · January 2020

justin124 said:

Anabobazina said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.

How would you have any idea if you were sexually compatible were you unable to have sex before marriage?

Did you extend these restrictions to gay people prior to gay marriage being legal? You would have rendered them involuntarily celibate!

rcs1000 · January 2020

Sablon said:
I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.

Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.

He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.

The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.

Alistair · January 2020

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:
I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)
A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.

I would like ot confirm I am not Topping's friend.

However my Girl Liz is gonna take this.

Anabobazina · January 2020

kicorse said:

Anabobazina said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
In fairness, you don't have any moral high ground here:
Anabobazina said:

kinabalu said:

I think it's far more common these days to believe that couples should wait until sex before having marriage.

Just in case.
Correct. The theistic pressure to avoid sex before marriage has undoubtably ruined several marriages. More evidence that religion wrecks human lives!
I'm fine with people having consensual sex whenever they want, and I'm fine with people getting married whenever they want. Other people are welcome to reach different conclusions, but when someone on one extreme ridicules someone on the other extreme, I'm inclined to call out the hypocrisy!

? I’m on the extreme on this issue, how exactly?

Nigelb · January 2020

tlg86 said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

Other things that were mainstream:
Global cooling
Communism
The Beatles
The hippie movement
Black and white TV
The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

Society has, thankfully, moved on.
Glad that global cooling/warming is considered a social issue, rather than a scientific one.

A societal issue.

Nigelb · January 2020

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:
Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote
That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)
Maybe later on but Sanders could have built up enough momentum to win by then.

Sanders is over 10% ahead in New Hampshire in a new poll today

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220365392994062337?s=20
Re momentum.

I think it's worth remembering that the last insurgent left wing candidate was Obama.

And while he was insurgent and left wing, he was all establishment enough to get the opening speech at the Democratic National Convention and to headline John Kerry's Presidential nomination. In other words, he might have been insurgent relative to Ms H Clinton, but he was still very much an establishment Democrat.

If Sanders does win Iowa and New Hampshire, it's equally likely it forces a rapid consolidation of the establishment candidates: probably to just Biden, but maybe to Klobuchar or Buttigieg or Bloomberg.

Of course - and depends on who comes second/third, and how close they are.

Alistair · January 2020

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:
Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote
That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)
Maybe later on but Sanders could have built up enough momentum to win by then.

Sanders is over 10% ahead in New Hampshire in a new poll today

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220365392994062337?s=20
That's an excellent poll for him, although it's worth remembering that just two days ago Suffolk (an A-rated pollster) had him on just 16% in New Hampshire.

I struggle with the volatility of some of these polls. So, in the last ten days, we've had Biden on 26% in first place in New Hampshire, with Buttigieg in fourth on just 7%. And we've had Buttigieg in second on 17%, with Biden on just 14%. Sanders range hasn't been much less 29% to 16%.

I don't believe that underlying support swings around that much, so someone's likely to end up with egg on their face.

Primary polling is simply vastly more volatile than Presidential polling.

In 2016 the Iowa Republican polls within 10 days of the caucus gave ranges

Trump 20-39 (Actual 24.3)
Cruz 19-34 (Actual 27.6)
Rubio 11-22 (Actual 23.1)

Nigelb · January 2020

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.
Indeed - but the point is that such views are hardly Victorian - as some come close to implying. By 1970 we had been through the 'swinging 60s', the Wilson Government and reforms from Roy Jenkins , Women's Lib, the contraceptive pill et al. To a large extent , the sexual revolution had already taken place.

Not if you talked to my parents back then, it hadn’t.

rcs1000 · January 2020

Alistair said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:
I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)
A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
I would like ot confirm I am not Topping's friend.

However my Girl Liz is gonna take this.

So long as none of Clinton, Yang and Bloomberg grab the nomination, I'm a happy man.

Warren is in a statistical tie with Biden, Buttigieg and Sanders in Iowa. She has an excellent campaign infrastructure there.

It is far from impossible that she wins it. And even if she doesn't win, she may leapfrog Sanders and become the first choice of the left of the party.

My view - and it's a minority one - is that Warren would find it easier to win the nomination than Sanders. Firstly, all Sanders votes go to her if he's knocked out, which is not the case the other way around. Secondly, I think a substantial minority of Klobuchar and even Buttigieg voters prefer her to Biden or Sanders. I therefore think that she might well benefit from a narrowing of the field

But, and it's a big but, she has to perform in Iowa. If she's fourth, then it's pretty much all over for her.

HYUFD · January 2020

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:
Bloomberg's main effect had been to boost Sanders by eating into the Biden and Buttigieg vote
That's right: he's split the moderate vote, and that's helping Sanders.

That being said, that's also Sanders problem. If Bloomberg and Buttigieg drop out, their supporters ain't going to Sanders. (And, by the way, that's probably also largely true of Steyer. More interesting is Klobuchar, which will, I feel be more evenly split and Yang.)
Maybe later on but Sanders could have built up enough momentum to win by then.

Sanders is over 10% ahead in New Hampshire in a new poll today

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220365392994062337?s=20
Re momentum.

I think it's worth remembering that the last insurgent left wing candidate was Obama.

And while he was insurgent and left wing, he was all establishment enough to get the opening speech at the Democratic National Convention and to headline John Kerry's Presidential nomination. In other words, he might have been insurgent relative to Ms H Clinton, but he was still very much an establishment Democrat.

If Sanders does win Iowa and New Hampshire, it's equally likely it forces a rapid consolidation of the establishment candidates: probably to just Biden, but maybe to Klobuchar or Buttigieg or Bloomberg.

Most likely it rapidly narrows to Biden and Sanders by Super Tuesday

HYUFD · January 2020

rcs1000 said:

Sablon said:
I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.
Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.

He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.

The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.

I think Biden still tends to do best v Trump in most polls but Bloomberg is not far behind

Fishing · January 2020

As we are talking about extra-marital sex, here is a minor but I think revealing anecdote about changing mores.

In about '99, I went to see my great aunt a few years before she died. She told me that, back in the early 70s, she had been shocked when my then-courting father and mother had asked to borrow her flat while she was on holiday. Of course as a child of a more recent vintage, I was shocked that she had been shocked.

Nowadays, of course, it's surprising if young couples DON'T take advantage of empty properties owned by relatives to have some privacy. House prices have soared and pointless moral shackles have fallen away.

Anyway, my great aunt can't have been too revolted as she lent them the flat in the end.

tlg86 · January 2020

Anyone else triple captain Mane?

Nigelb · January 2020

justin124 said:

Nigelb said:

justin124 said:

Anabobazina said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I didn’t realise it extended to sex, I thought your views were limited to having children outside wedlock. Good grief.
It is not unreasonable to assume that if 4%/5% find fornication unacceptable , the number disapproving of having children out of wedlock is likely to be substantially higher. Re-premarital sex , my objection there would relate to such people subsequently engaging in the hypocrisy of a church wedding.
Why ?
Seems a most unChristian attitude,
Because by their conduct they have rejected the Church teachings on the subject.There would be the possibility of repentance - but how often does that happen in a formal setting?

I said unChristian, not un-churchlike.

TOPPING · January 2020

Alistair said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:
I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)
A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
I would like ot confirm I am not Topping's friend.

However my Girl Liz is gonna take this.

But....I thought you were my friend...

*sob*

viewcode · January 2020

speedy2 said:
Out of topic.

I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184

I don't see the problem. Iron Man plays a Victorian gentleman with a Welsh[1] accent who fists a dragon to get the bagpipes out of the dragon's arse. The dragon has the voice of Miss Jones from Rising Damp. What's wrong with that? An entirely unexceptional plot if you ask mOMIGOD DOMNEY FISTED A DRAGON! WHAT IN THE NAME OF THANOS WAS HE ON THIS WEEK? BLACK BEETLE ICHOR???

[1] Yes, really. Really. Pause. Really. (sobs briefly)

Nigelb · January 2020

TOPPING said:

Alistair said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:
I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)
A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
I would like ot confirm I am not Topping's friend.

However my Girl Liz is gonna take this.
But....I thought you were my friend...

*sob*

I think he mean he’s not your particular friend...

Otherwise, we are all friends of Topping. Except Byronic ?

kle4 · January 2020

viewcode said:

speedy2 said:
Out of topic.

I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184
I don't see the problem. Iron Man plays a Victorian gentleman with a Welsh[1] accent who fists a dragon to get the bagpipes out of the dragon's arse. The dragon has the voice of Miss Jones from Rising Damp. What's wrong with that? An entirely unexceptional plot if you ask mOMIGOD DOMNEY FISTED A DRAGON! WHAT IN THE NAME OF THANOS WAS HE ON THIS WEEK? BLACK BEETLE ICHOR???

[1] Yes, really. Really. Pause. Really. (sobs briefly)

Well you've sold me on the movie.

Nigelb · January 2020

kle4 said:

viewcode said:

speedy2 said:
Out of topic.

I was planning to go to the cinema this weekend, is this really the ending of Dolittle ?

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/1220422046175453184
I don't see the problem. Iron Man plays a Victorian gentleman with a Welsh[1] accent who fists a dragon to get the bagpipes out of the dragon's arse. The dragon has the voice of Miss Jones from Rising Damp. What's wrong with that? An entirely unexceptional plot if you ask mOMIGOD DOMNEY FISTED A DRAGON! WHAT IN THE NAME OF THANOS WAS HE ON THIS WEEK? BLACK BEETLE ICHOR???

[1] Yes, really. Really. Pause. Really. (sobs briefly)
Well you've sold me on the movie.

I think it’s what you have to go through to get there, though....

OldKingCole · January 2020

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
3% of women think it is acceptable to have sex on a first date, 9% of men at the other extreme

60 odd years ago the figure for women was much lower . Sadly!

TOPPING · January 2020

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Alistair said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:
I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)
A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
I would like ot confirm I am not Topping's friend.

However my Girl Liz is gonna take this.
But....I thought you were my friend...

*sob*
I think he mean he’s not your particular friend...

Otherwise, we are all friends of Topping. Except Byronic ?

Is that like being a friend of Dorothy?

DecrepiterJohnL · January 2020

Fishing said:
As we are talking about extra-marital sex, here is a minor but I think revealing anecdote about changing mores.

In about '99, I went to see my great aunt a few years before she died. She told me that, back in the early 70s, she had been shocked when my then-courting father and mother had asked to borrow her flat while she was on holiday. Of course as a child of a more recent vintage, I was shocked that she had been shocked.

Nowadays, of course, it's surprising if young couples DON'T take advantage of empty properties owned by relatives to have some privacy. House prices have soared and pointless moral shackles have fallen away.

Anyway, my great aunt can't have been too revolted as she lent them the flat in the end.

Extra-marital sex, generational differences and politics. For many older people it was true that President Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman. Sex could lead to pregnancy. What Bill and Monica did with the cigar was heavy petting, not sex.

Nigelb · January 2020

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
3% of women think it is acceptable to have sex on a first date, 9% of men at the other extreme

Does “at the other extreme” mean ‘not acceptable not to have sex on a first date’ ?
It otherwise seems a redundant phrase.

AndreaParma_82 · January 2020

Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
Enfield Southgate: Starmer
Ilford North: Starmer
Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner

Nigelb · January 2020

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

TOPPING said:

Alistair said:

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:
I personally think that the Dems win by making Trump crazy.

This means it's all about personally needling him and making him angry. "Trump disrespects our troops" from the former Republican Mayor of New York is exactly the kind of thing that drives Trump to apoplexy.

And when he's apoplectic, he's ineffective. He stares and he tweets and

I think Bloomberg's best role is to be a one man anti-Trump machine with unlimited resources. He can do this in the context of running for the Democratic nomination. And his payoff for doing this is the Treasury Secretary role for a Democratic President.

Could he win the Democratic nomination? Well, my book certainly hopes not! He's not as bad a loser for me as Ms Clinton or Mr Yang, but he's definitely a loser.

To win, Mr Bloomberg needs all the moderates - Biden, Buttigeg and Klobuchar - to flop before Super Tuesday. That's not impossible. Sanders could win the first two states, Biden could have a health issue, and Klobuchar and Buttigieg could end up with some (but not many) delegates from the early states. In that case, it's possible, he got the Democratic mantle.

But it's not very likely. Bloomberg's popularity with rank and file Democrats is not that high. While I think Biden wins a fight with Sanders for the nomination, I think Sanders would probably beat Bloomberg. (Although, for the record, I still think it's more likely - although far from certain - a moderate wins the nomination.)
A very New York New York friend of mine said there would be all kinds of shenanigans and then Warren would get the nomination.

As I have zero feel for it I set some store by his words. And have backed accordingly.
I would like ot confirm I am not Topping's friend.

However my Girl Liz is gonna take this.
But....I thought you were my friend...

*sob*
I think he mean he’s not your particular friend...

Otherwise, we are all friends of Topping. Except Byronic ?
Is that like being a friend of Dorothy?

Given the average PB poster, it seems unlikely.
Analogous, perhaps ?

dr_spyn · January 2020

I was surprised how many limericks were about the sex lives of vicars, vicar's daughters, choirboys, bishops and camels.

DavidL · January 2020

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

Other things that were mainstream:
Global cooling
Communism
The Beatles
The hippie movement
Black and white TV
The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

Society has, thankfully, moved on.

I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.

ydoethur · January 2020

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Fishing said:
As we are talking about extra-marital sex, here is a minor but I think revealing anecdote about changing mores.

In about '99, I went to see my great aunt a few years before she died. She told me that, back in the early 70s, she had been shocked when my then-courting father and mother had asked to borrow her flat while she was on holiday. Of course as a child of a more recent vintage, I was shocked that she had been shocked.

Nowadays, of course, it's surprising if young couples DON'T take advantage of empty properties owned by relatives to have some privacy. House prices have soared and pointless moral shackles have fallen away.

Anyway, my great aunt can't have been too revolted as she lent them the flat in the end.
Extra-marital sex, generational differences and politics. For many older people it was true that President Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman. Sex could lead to pregnancy. What Bill and Monica did with the cigar was heavy petting, not sex.

They were just Havana good time.

ydoethur · January 2020

AndreaParma_82 said:
Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
Enfield Southgate: Starmer
Ilford North: Starmer
Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner

The Deputy Leader race is starting to look less and less like a race.

tyson · January 2020

ydoethur said:

AndreaParma_82 said:
Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
Enfield Southgate: Starmer
Ilford North: Starmer
Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner
The Deputy Leader race is starting to look less and less like a race.

Come on Nandy

DavidL · January 2020

rcs1000 said:

Sablon said:
I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.
Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.

He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.

The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.

And that is why he would win. He would get a disproportionate number of the Independents, peel off republicans and the Dems just want rid of Trump. Not even close.

But the Dems want to indulge themselves. Just as Labour did.

Nigelb · January 2020

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

Other things that were mainstream:
Global cooling
Communism
The Beatles
The hippie movement
Black and white TV
The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

Society has, thankfully, moved on.
I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.

Yes, I can remember thinking what is now so much more succinctly expressed as WTF when I first saw it.
A great deal of 70s TV was just ... embarrassingly awful (even without the benefit of hindsight).

DavidL · January 2020

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

Other things that were mainstream:
Global cooling
Communism
The Beatles
The hippie movement
Black and white TV
The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

Society has, thankfully, moved on.
I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
Yes, I can remember thinking what is now so much more succinctly expressed as WTF when I first saw it.
A great deal of 70s TV was just ... embarrassingly awful (even without the benefit of hindsight).

I wasn't allowed to watch Till Death us do part. I don't regret this. For all the brilliance of Leonard Rossiter some parts of Rising Damp were just painful, even at the time. A different country indeed.

AramintaMoonbeamQC · January 2020

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

Other things that were mainstream:
Global cooling
Communism
The Beatles
The hippie movement
Black and white TV
The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

Society has, thankfully, moved on.
I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.

Are you watching 'Ed Balls in Euroland'? He is covering the Dutch tradition of blacking up as a character called Black Peter.

It is a bit awkward, to say the least.

HYUFD · January 2020

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

Other things that were mainstream:
Global cooling
Communism
The Beatles
The hippie movement
Black and white TV
The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

Society has, thankfully, moved on.
I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
Are you watching 'Ed Balls in Euroland'? He is covering the Dutch tradition of blacking up as a character called Black Peter.

It is a bit awkward, to say the least.

Yes, watching it now, eerily fascinating

justin124 · January 2020

Nigelb said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.
Indeed - but the point is that such views are hardly Victorian - as some come close to implying. By 1970 we had been through the 'swinging 60s', the Wilson Government and reforms from Roy Jenkins , Women's Lib, the contraceptive pill et al. To a large extent , the sexual revolution had already taken place.
Not if you talked to my parents back then, it hadn’t.

In what way would they have suggested it had not happened? Were they older people who disapproved of changing moral standards?

DavidL · January 2020

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

Other things that were mainstream:
Global cooling
Communism
The Beatles
The hippie movement
Black and white TV
The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

Society has, thankfully, moved on.
I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
Are you watching 'Ed Balls in Euroland'? He is covering the Dutch tradition of blacking up as a character called Black Peter.

It is a bit awkward, to say the least.

No, not seen that. I like Ed Balls. I will have a look.

HYUFD · January 2020

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
3% of women think it is acceptable to have sex on a first date, 9% of men at the other extreme
60 odd years ago the figure for women was much lower . Sadly!

You can't get much lower than 3%, showing that while women are more open to pre marital sex than 50 years ago, they are still not going to do it straight away with every man they meet

HYUFD · January 2020

DavidL said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

Other things that were mainstream:
Global cooling
Communism
The Beatles
The hippie movement
Black and white TV
The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

Society has, thankfully, moved on.
I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
Are you watching 'Ed Balls in Euroland'? He is covering the Dutch tradition of blacking up as a character called Black Peter.

It is a bit awkward, to say the least.
No, not seen that. I like Ed Balls. I will have a look.

It is on BBC2

Benpointer · January 2020

AndreaParma_82 said:
Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
Enfield Southgate: Starmer
Ilford North: Starmer
Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner

Is there a site which shows what nominations each candidate has got - ideally versus the threshold to be in the members' ballot?

Nigelb · January 2020

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Sablon said:
I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.
Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.

He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.

The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.
And that is why he would win. He would get a disproportionate number of the Independents, peel off republicans and the Dems just want rid of Trump. Not even close.

But the Dems want to indulge themselves. Just as Labour did.

Bloomberg is not a Democrat, though. Even less so than Sanders.

So it’s really Mike who’s indulging himself, even more so than Sanders.

dr_spyn · January 2020

Ed Bulls.

Benpointer · January 2020

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Sablon said:
I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.
Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.

He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.

The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.
And that is why he would win. He would get a disproportionate number of the Independents, peel off republicans and the Dems just want rid of Trump. Not even close.

But the Dems want to indulge themselves. Just as Labour did.

You're suggesting that the Dems should pick a multi-billionaire Republican as their candidate in order to guarantee defeating Trump?

Seems a bit self-defeating to me.

rottenborough · January 2020

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

Sablon said:
I'm doubtful that Bloomberg's hundreds of millions spent attacking Trump will have much impact on Trump (as opposed to boosting Bloomberg himself in the Dem primaries). Television, including both news and entertainment, has been saturated for years with anti-Trump content that must be valued at countless billions of dollars. We're well beyond diminishing returns, especially given that Bloomberg's content is straight-up campaign ads. But if the goal is for Bloomberg to elevate his own profile vis a vis the Dem field, that's obviously having some impact.
Bloomberg, it should be noted, does better than any other Democrat against Trump in head-to-heads.

He's not particularly popular with Democrats, but he peels off a few Republican voters.

The impact of these adverts is to enrage Trump. To send him into a Tweet frenzy. And when Trump's doing that, then the Democrats are winning. Because a lot of what Trump does policy-wise is pretty popular. But crazy tweets against Mike Bloomberg, I don't think that does him any good.
And that is why he would win. He would get a disproportionate number of the Independents, peel off republicans and the Dems just want rid of Trump. Not even close.

But the Dems want to indulge themselves. Just as Labour did.
Bloomberg is not a Democrat, though. Even less so than Sanders.

So it’s really Mike who’s indulging himself, even more so than Sanders.

I believe Bloomberg has also massively invested in a social media team.

Nigelb · January 2020

HYUFD said:

OldKingCole said:

HYUFD said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
3% of women think it is acceptable to have sex on a first date, 9% of men at the other extreme
60 odd years ago the figure for women was much lower . Sadly!
You can't get much lower than 3%, showing that while women are more open to pre marital sex than 50 years ago, they are still not going to do it straight away with every man they meet

Classic HYUFD to need a poll to recognise that !

kinabalu · January 2020

DavidL said:
I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.

Nice one. Ahead of your time. Bet you got lots of "superwoke prick" insults too.

Nigelb · January 2020

justin124 said:

Nigelb said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.
Indeed - but the point is that such views are hardly Victorian - as some come close to implying. By 1970 we had been through the 'swinging 60s', the Wilson Government and reforms from Roy Jenkins , Women's Lib, the contraceptive pill et al. To a large extent , the sexual revolution had already taken place.
Not if you talked to my parents back then, it hadn’t.
In what way would they have suggested it had not happened? Were they older people who disapproved of changing moral standards?

One’s parents generally are older people...

rottenborough · January 2020

Benpointer said:

AndreaParma_82 said:
Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
Enfield Southgate: Starmer
Ilford North: Starmer
Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner
Is there a site which shows what nominations each candidate has got - ideally versus the threshold to be in the members' ballot?

RBL nothing?

rottenborough · January 2020

rottenborough said:

Benpointer said:

AndreaParma_82 said:
Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
Enfield Southgate: Starmer
Ilford North: Starmer
Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner
Is there a site which shows what nominations each candidate has got - ideally versus the threshold to be in the members' ballot?
RBL nothing?

https://twitter.com/CLPNominations/status/1220459219943657473

rottenborough · January 2020

ydoethur said:

AndreaParma_82 said:
Lots of CLPs nominating tonight

Dewsbury: Starmer/Rayner
Wolverhampton North East : Nandy/Rayner
Coventry South:Nandy/Rayner
Dagenham and Rainham:Nandy/Rayner
Wigan: Nandy/Rayner
Blaenau Gwent: Starmer/Rayner
Hertsmere: Starmer/Rayner
Bristol East: Starmer/Rayner
Enfield Southgate: Starmer
Ilford North: Starmer
Southampton Test: Starmer/Rayner
The Deputy Leader race is starting to look less and less like a race.

As I posted a week or two ago, she will win a landslide.

justin124 · January 2020

Nigelb said:

justin124 said:

Nigelb said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.
Indeed - but the point is that such views are hardly Victorian - as some come close to implying. By 1970 we had been through the 'swinging 60s', the Wilson Government and reforms from Roy Jenkins , Women's Lib, the contraceptive pill et al. To a large extent , the sexual revolution had already taken place.
Not if you talked to my parents back then, it hadn’t.
In what way would they have suggested it had not happened? Were they older people who disapproved of changing moral standards?
One’s parents generally are older people...

Is that so? It may have made a difference were they 55 rather than 40ish.

MarqueeMark · January 2020

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

ydoethur said:

justin124 said:

ydoethur said:

Theuniondivvie said:

justin124 said:
'The Church of England has reaffirmed today that sex is only acceptable within marriage. Just 4% of Britons think couples should wait until marriage before having sex - that figure is 5% among those identifying as CofE themselves https://yougov.co.uk/topics/relatio'

I see that my views are not so exceptional after all!
I hesitate to describe your views as exceptional, but 4% is a tiny number of the population to support anything really.
While I hesitate to defend Justin’s ummmmm, remarkable personal views, it is slightly unfortunate you say that given at the last election it’s about the percentage that voted for the SNP and ergo independence...
Circa 1970 my views would have been seen as pretty mainstream on this!
Just in case you hadn’t noticed, that was fifty years ago.

Other things that were mainstream:
Global cooling
Communism
The Beatles
The hippie movement
Black and white TV
The idea of imminent manned missions to Mars.

Edit - and of course, the Labour Party.
Not to mention the Black and White Minstrel Show....

Society has, thankfully, moved on.
I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.

You should have held out for Benny Hill.....

rottenborough · January 2020

Is Rayner lying in the bath tonight wondering whether she should have run for the Big One?

Nigelb · January 2020

kinabalu said:

DavidL said:
I remember being taken by my parents (who had really been looking forward to it) to the Black and White Minstrel Show in Southampton in about 1972. We came out and looked at each other and just thought.....no. I was 11 and it was just uncomfortable.
Nice one. Ahead of your time. Bet you got lots "superwoke prick" insults too.

LOL. It was really not like that, though.

‘Racist’ and ‘misogynist’ weren’t even in the vocabulary of children in the 60s/early70s - it was more thinking things inexplicable/embarrassing/wrong.

HYUFD · January 2020

rottenborough said:
Is Rayner lying in the bath tonight wondering whether she should have run for the Big One?

No, she is ideally suited to do the Prescott role to Starmer's attempt to do Blair

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Bloomberg launches his latest ad attacking Trump during the Pr

Comments