Board Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About mormont

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 05/10/1972

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    St Andrews, Scotland

Recent Profile Visitors

28,410 profile views
  1. I think Cameron has to take full blame for the referendum. I'd like to think that in a coalition someone in the Lib Dems would have at least said 'whoa, we can't rush into this without a clue what Brexit would actually look like just because you're in a hurry to buy off your backbenchers' but that may be wishful thinking. As things stand, that was Cameron's call, one that historians will be genuinely perplexed by.
  2. I will bet you that if you asked any voter which of the latter two policies was a 'major manifesto pledge' they'd have gone with tuition fees. I can't fathom what criteria you're using to say that tuition fees wasn't a major manifesto pledge. Voters, the Lib Dem leadership, the media, the other parties, everyone treated it as a major pledge.
  3. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    Here's the thing: if identity politics is inherently, hopelessly divisive, how come black voters and female voters and LGBTQ+ voters and Latinx voters and Muslim voters can all unite behind one candidate? Why aren't they divided? According to Altherion, if their interests don't align they should be divided. Maybe because their interests do align? But then, if the interests of black voters and LGBTQ+ voters can align, why can't the interests of working class voters and minority voters also align? They can, and in fact they do. So not for the first time, he's talking out of his hat. The real agenda here is revealed by this comment: Some of their issues may be addressed incidentally. They might get something but it'll be more or less by accident. There's a rallying cry. This kind of paternalistic nonsense has, unfortunately, had wide currency in the progressive movement in the past and it seems to be making a comeback now. Women and minorities are told they have to work for the cause, but at the same time, get in line and shut up. That's not acceptable.
  4. Into the Badlands, Thoughts?

    I've certainly not heard that they've lost cast, and the core cast all appear in the trailers so far as I can see.
  5. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    But there's copious evidence that it does. When that changes, get back to us. In the meantime, that closes the discussion as far as I'm concerned.
  6. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    Again, it isn't discriminatory when you don't get something if you wouldn't have got it without discrimination in your favour. That's the absence of discrimination. No, it doesn't. It enforces that principle by removing the bias in favour of other qualities, such as being white.
  7. Football: fixture congestion

    Fantastic stuff. Well done to Lincoln.
  8. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    It counters discrimination: by definition, it is an anti-discrimination measure.
  9. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    How else does one 'stop discriminating on the basis of race', other than by implementing anti-discrimination measures?
  10. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    I think Republicans can see the advantages to them in cowing the press.
  11. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    You do seem to have a peculiar understanding of some important concepts, yes.
  12. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    I have news: it isn't and there is. The purpose of affirmative action is to correct discrimination. The beneficiaries are the subjects of discrimination. The effects are anti-discriminatory. It ceases the moment its own effects become discriminatory: in fact, before that. It ceases when the discriminatory effect is eliminated, and fairness is established. The idea that AA, then, is in fact discrimination is pretty hard to stand up. It rests on the idea that being given a proportionate slice of the pie, instead of a disproportionately large one, is discrimination. And that's bollocks. There is absolutely and utterly no doubt about that. If one individual white kid who would otherwise have had a place at university that he shouldn't have got, doesn't get it because of AA, then there is no discrimination taking place, whatever that poor kid feels about it. I understand that the feelings of white people are the basis of your support for Trump, but there it is.
  13. US Politics: Deep State Solution

    This is a classic example of cherry-picking an outlying data point (in this case a poll) in order to suggest a controversy where there is none. It does depend on who you ask: Rasmussen, or everyone else. Now, it's not impossible that Rasmussen's methodology is producing a different but also much more accurate result. But they are undoubtedly an outlier. And even Rasmussen have Trump as scoring much lower approval and much higher disapproval than Obama at the same point in his presidency, and marginally lower approval and much higher disapproval than Bush in his. Approval ratings, though, shouldn't be the focus. Motivating the Democrat base, that's what matters.
  14. US Politics: Opening Pandora's Box

    Opinion varies on this, and on reflection I think Prof Frances here has some good points. I think it's the degree of Trump's narcissism and, crucially, his abnormally poor empathy and people skills that set him apart from the likes of Bill Clinton: not a pathological difference. I don't think 'the Brexiters' have one single view on the topic.
  15. US Politics: Opening Pandora's Box

    This is flatly untrue. I'm not interested in derailing the thread by litigating the same windy, tendentious crap you regularly get into over this, but it can't pass unchallenged. I'm not saying that Trump is or isn't anti-Semitic - he likely isn't - but this argument is fallacious. Trump's married: he has a sister: he has daughters: he had a mother. Those facts don't stop him holding some deeply offensive views about women. Being related to someone does not mean you can't be prejudiced about them. It's a big issue when people who very definitely are anti-Semitic are openly saying that they see Trump's election as a plus for them. It's incumbent on Trump, in that scenario, to publicly and clearly distance himself from that and condemn it, not make remarks that are such a mush of self-praise and non-sequiturs that it's unclear. I'll also note that you can't have it both ways. Trump, in his remarks, directly attributes his election (with 306 EC votes) to the country being divided, so he can't be citing that same win and those same votes as proof that he has unified it. He can only be referring to that to boast about it. The context (derogating those who predicted he couldn't win) makes it 100% clear that this is what he was doing. No doubt about it.