Search results

To be clear, though, this is the case every single election. Every President, blue or red, is answerable to their Super PAC’s interests.

Ruled out

Nope

Of course the coverage is receives is disproportionate, no doubt. But what follows is pure whataboutery. If we applied this standard to all moral issues we'd never have the right to raise an issue with anything, given we all make use of phones the components of which are in part the product of...

https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/#:~:text=The%20fact%20that%20half%20of,like%20that%20observed%20for%20women. I’d be interested in your reflections. Whilst I agree with most of your post, willingly placing biological males into female-only spaces simply...

No, not everything has been perfect, hence amendments have been made. Yet first principles with respect to restriction of executive power have indeed stood the test of time.

The Framers designed the constitution specifically to safeguard against the ‘yet’. That’s quite literally the whole point. Let’s revisit this in 4 years :-)

There absolutely will not be Democrats (and you'd need about 35% of them) voting to amend the Constitution to allow 3 term Presidencies to enable Trump, no. Obviously not. For the avoidance of doubt, you cannot amend the Constitution with a majority, and the GOP have nothing close to the...

Assassinating people you 'feel' are a real threat is the route forward? I guess we have a wildly different approach to what progress (and anti-fascism) looks like.

There’s no unfounded accusation, there was a question that you’ve answered. I’d have thought supporting assassination would be worthy of a thread ban but it’s not my forum.

No, you're just endorsing 'the rules' instead by claiming an assassination of someone who holds different political views to you would 'suit you'. It's incredibly ironic. I wonder if @Bozza et al would be quite so welcoming of comments claiming a Harris assassination would 'suit them'.

It's not blind faith, it's a written Constitution that would require the opposing party to vote through measures to alter the Constitution. It's not happening.

Yes, I think all democratically elected politicians I disagree with should be assassinated too. Hang on, isn’t there a word for that?

The system has been set up specifically to prevent the rules changing in these scenarios. You’re not going to get Democrat senators voting in large numbers to allow him to change the rules. It’s simply not happening.

There was no offer as such, there was only a few rounds of negotiations (you’d expect 10+ for a deal of this size). It had hit a few red lines (including the one you reference) but it was Biden who effectively suspended talks. Technically they were never suspended so we’ve been in negotiations...

The first Trump administration pursued a trade deal with the UK (I worked on an element of it). It was Biden who shut it down and never revisited it.

If you are legally obliged to pay a yearly tax on your house, the penalty for non-payment would range from financial (including re-possession) to custodial. You’d be taking a compulsory loan to maintain an asset. It’s never going to happen and nor should it. Anyway, the issue with supply won’t...

In other words, nobody will ever truly own their home.

Power, perhaps. But Reform would have had around 90 MPs with PR.

Governments could actually build the houses they say they're going to first, perhaps. Homeowners (of which I am not one) don't have a choice in the fact that population is due to increase by more than 6 million between 2021-36 with nothing like that number of homes set to be built. Yet they're...