Leave a comment

Comments 6

seraphicwing July 16 2016, 14:31:16 UTC

The RNC doesn't surprise me any more, like, at all.

Trump is running for president, they can only do worse if he actually becomes president.

Reply


kalimac July 16 2016, 18:17:05 UTC
I have already suggested the possibility that, by appointing all the Brexiters to clean up the mess they made, that May is setting them up to fail. Because negotiation is impossible on the terms they want to set, stalemate and chaos will result, and (at least in theory) they'll get the blame. Then there's Scotland to deal with. Hammond's speech claiming that Scotland didn't have a "Remain" vote because Scotland didn't hold a separate election, it's just part of the UK which voted "Leave", is just asking for trouble. No doubt the May-Sturgeon meeting was set to get around that impasse, but Sturgeon would be right to be intransigent: either find a way for Scotland to stay in both the EU and the UK, or else it picks the former and not the latter. May's best course is to be soothing to the Scots and hope that Brexit breaks down of its own weight and its ministers' incompetence. (The fact that Gove, who has a modicum of ministerial competence, was not appointed, is a further suggestion that "Let the buffoons fall over their own ( ... )

Reply

skington July 16 2016, 20:15:40 UTC
Northern Ireland is arguably even more of a problem. The Good Friday Agreement explicitly requires the UK government to incorporate the European Court of Human Rights into Northern Irish law; and while that's not actually explicitly connected to the EU, the ECHR is another of the supranational bodies that Brexiteers hate ( ... )

Reply

momentsmusicaux July 16 2016, 20:59:12 UTC
Interesting theory...

I've just watched the video of Boris Johnson at the French embassy last week, and he is just so incompetent at speaking in public that it's hard to believe May would actually think he could do the job.

Reply


momentsmusicaux July 21 2016, 12:28:00 UTC
Apart from the statistics involved, I'm not seeing how the Andrea Leadsom story is different from the blog post you linked to a week or so ago where the writer said she considers all men to be potential rapists.

At the time, people commenting here seemed to think that was a reasonable stance to take. But your tag on this story implies you don't think that's the case here.

If I'm right in my interpretation here, does that mean there's a cut-off point at which this sort of thing is ok?

Reply

andrewducker July 21 2016, 12:42:20 UTC
I think there's a difference between "I am aware that there is a potential for rape, and the odds are around X%, so I bear this potential in mind when maintaining my safety around men I don't know" and "We should all avoid letting men near children, because a tiny percentage of them are paedophiles, and frankly only weird ones would want to work with kids anyway."

Reply


Leave a comment

Up