If only labour were a credible opposition.
Indeed this is political gold dust for a credible opposition.
If only labour were a credible opposition.
The petition has had a great effect. MPs due to debate the issue. Downing Street sources admitting to journalists that revoking the invitation would undo all the work done during her visit to the White House. In other words the trade deal is far more important than taking a stand on principles and human rights. History is repeating itself. Mrs May knows she has burnt her bridges with the EU so has backed herself into a corner and is relying on Trump, and I'm sure the Trump administration is well aware of that.
cosying up with dictators and madmen. Thatcher will be spinning in her grave.
I fear progressively more fascist USA.
The theme of this mornings news updates from Washington is additional clarity emerging, rather than meaningful changes in the field. But this clarity is enough to give us a sense of what we just saw happen, and why it happened the way it did.
Interesting that you say that. I just found this:
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.4sm2x1h74
Not sure I agree with everything the piece says, but there are some compelling - and worrying - synergies, particularly around the centralisation of power.
if you were a member of the Royal family, what would be your reaction to this tweet from Donald Trump?The liberals are so desperate they're now trying to throw out fake news stories about what even the royals are supposed to be thinking. All from nameless, unattributable sources of course....
The liberals are so desperate they're now trying to throw out fake news stories about what even the royals are supposed to be thinking. All from nameless, unattributable sources of course....
Breaking News: 63 million didn't sign the petition.
The liberals are so desperate they're now trying to throw out fake news stories about what even the royals are supposed to be thinking. All from nameless, unattributable sources of course....
Prince Charles is very serious about climate change. Trump thinks it was made up by China and all the scientific articles about it, even by NASA and US scientists are faked to promote Chinese business. Not hard to see why people think there will be a clash of ideas there.
Interesting that you say that. I just found this:
https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a-coup-e024990891d5#.4sm2x1h74
(The article is long so I have not copied it all here, but do read it!)
Not sure I agree with everything the piece says, but there are some compelling - and worrying - synergies, particularly around the centralisation of power.
Prince Charles is very serious about climate change. Trump thinks it was made up by China and all the scientific articles about it, even by NASA and US scientists are faked to promote Chinese business. Not hard to see why people think there will be a clash of ideas there.
Evidence?
Do you mean like a Sun journalist saying The Queen disapproved of the EU when no-one else who was in the same room at the time as she allegedly made the comment said it was true, or do you mean someone posted something on Twitter?
Yesterday's Sunday Times. I tend not to bother with nonsense such as Twitter.
Yesterday's Sunday Times. I tend not to bother with nonsense such as Twitter.
Ahh, yes, that liberal stronghold :roll:
Clearly, your struggling with the definition. Let me help: Margaret Thatcher was an economic liberal...
I think the term liberal gets misused, because the Liberal Democrats are not necessary a liberal party. The left wing is not necessarily a liberal concept - often it is quite the opposite.
Mind you, the Conservatives are similarly not always conservative in their approach.
I think the term liberal gets misused, because the Liberal Democrats are not necessary a liberal party. The left wing is not necessarily a liberal concept - often it is quite the opposite.
Mind you, the Conservatives are similarly not always conservative in their approach.
The Collins dictionary has 8 meanings for the word liberal, the first of which is "having social and political views that favour progress or reform", the third of which is "tolerant of other people." So under the first definition a liberal would oppose Donald Trump's ideas but under the third definition a liberal would welcome the chance to talk to Donald Trump even if they don't personally agree with him.
The Collins dictionary has 8 meanings for the word liberal, the first of which is "having social and political views that favour progress or reform", the third of which is "tolerant of other people." So under the first definition a liberal would oppose Donald Trump's ideas but under the third definition a liberal would welcome the chance to talk to Donald Trump even if they don't personally agree with him.
Of course the name Liberal Democrats comes from the merger of two parties while Liberal and Social Democratic aren't two terms meaning the same thing.
Surely under the first definition, a liberal would support Trump, since he is certainly reforming everything about US Government.
Not if you consider him to be reversing useful reforms put in place by the previous administration and undoing progress.
If 50% of a new hospital was built and someone said "Hey let's get a giant wrecking ball and knock down the partly built hospital and build something less useful there as we don't need hospitals" it wouldn't be progress even if it would be reform.
Where were these million signatories when Obama halted the Iraqi refugee programme in 2011?
Where were these million signatories when Ken Bigley had his head sliced off?
Where were these million signatories when Lee Rigby was murdered on the streets of London?
Where were these signatories when the Tube - and a bus - was bombed in 2005?
Where were these signatories when the Finsbury Park mosque was allowed to become a breeding ground for radical Islamic indoctrination and terrorism?
Where are these million signatories when ISIS behead their fellow citizens, set fire to them, fire missiles at them, and throw gay men from the top of high-rise buildings?
When Chilcot was published, where were those million signatories demanding that Blair and Bush face war crime charges?
At least we can be thankful that these million signatories come nowhere near close to representing a majority view of the British people.
Obama's state visit was 5 years later, it wasn't announced the day that he banned UK citizens from flying home from holiday.
Demanding that the queen did not meet with the "people" that did that?
Demanding that the queen did not meet with the "people" that did that?
Demanding that the queen did not meet with the "people" that did that?
Demanding that the queen did not meet with the "people" that did that?
Demanding that the queen did not meet with the "people" that did that?
Ones like this? https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108495
I suspect most people felt unqualified to determine if there was a criminal case to answer, so left it to the courts to decide.
Glad we agree that 3 million isn't a majority view of the British people.
I suspect most educated people will understand the broad point.
Ah the laziest dig, someone disagrees with you so they must be dumb.
They are entirely unrelated things.
I suspect most educated people will understand the broad point.