holystove

If you're proposing a supra-national type of body that would provide an institutional framework where member-countries could agree common high standards for Food Safety, I'm all for it Paul 😉

UK was in the same place only a couple of weeks ago.  (at one private event at the end of February, Cummings outlined then government’s strategy at the time in a way that was summarised by some present as “herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”)
And now the UK is in semi-lockdown.
US will get there too.. until we find a way to fight this virus, defense is the only option and that means quarantine.

UK was in the same place only a couple of weeks ago.  (at one private event at the end of February, Cummings outlined then government’s strategy at the time in a way that was summarised by some present as “herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad.”)
And now the UK is in semi-lockdown.
US will get there too.. until we find a way to fight this virus, defense is the only option and that means quarantine.

He's implying you have Trump Derangement Syndrome and Trump has done nothing wrong and you can't see straight because of your hatred of him.
It's pretty much the only response to genuine criticism of him now because he's so far gone with the handling of this virus that there's no defence. 
 

Just pointing out it goes against the approach most other countries are taking.   
As I understand it, the UK approach is based on creating a herd immunity. But for that to happen, a lot of people need to get infected, possibly and quite likely, including a lot of vulnerable people.
Herd immunity only works when the virus comes back, when, because a lot of people are immune, it can't spread to the weakest who don't have immunity as they are 'shielded' by the immune ones.    
Is it better to lose more lives than necessary now, in order to be able to better face it in the future?  Why not just wait for a functioning vaccine when it comes back next year?

The UK approach 

Apparently you guys are the 'control group'; good luck.

Seconded. Loved those as someone who doesn't get to watch many Everton games.

no because that's just one state.  the VP needs to stand for something to get people to vote IMO.  A woman, well that's a start and all are.  Black/latino (kamala is indian and african american, abrams is african american) that helps too.  the VP doesn't do anything.  but if they can mobilize a base (like women, or minorities) then that is a positive.  alternatively if there is a political base (none of them differ much from biden, so a no there) like if mccain had gotten liberman that would have helped.
 
abrams and harris make the most sense, but harris is a US senator, abrams only was in the state house of reps in georgia.  
 
at least that's how i see it, i'm sure others will see it differently.

The parallels between Sanders and Corbyn are uncanny (even down to how their supporters hound people on social media who dare question the leader).  If he wins the nomination, my guess is Trump is set for another 4 years because, just like in the UK, the majority will not choose to go with the revolutionary, no matter how much they disdain Trump.
Seems the UK is really ahead of the curve.  They got there first with Brexit (Trump) and Corbyn (Sanders).  Democrats should take note of this and take away the approriate lessons (go for electability, not purity).
Fwiw, I think Klobuchar would stand the best chance of beating Trump.

https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2020/mar/01/british-museum-put-mary-beard-on-the-board-despite-downing-st-veto?__twitter_impression=true&fbclid=IwAR0gleOfnzUsjB2Zu-5btKiv-KTBIHBo9sRdCagsmhOiPcYnOX69YGrjwGk

Whether or not the Tories decide to increase spending or not will only have a marginal effect.  Only a healthy, growing economy can sustain the UK social model.  With an aging domestic population, one necessary element is high immigration numbers, especially in a country with such a low unemployment rate.  
The big fault in your argument is you see the size of the welfare budget as a fixed parameter in your equation.  In reality, less immigration = smaller economy = smaller tax intake = smaller welfare budget. 
Not even taking into account immigrants are over-represented in the social sector providing the services foreseen in the welfare budget.
(and not even taking into account how much smaller the UK economy is, and will be, because of brexit).

Whether or not the Tories decide to increase spending or not will only have a marginal effect.  Only a healthy, growing economy can sustain the UK social model.  With an aging domestic population, one necessary element is high immigration numbers, especially in a country with such a low unemployment rate.  
The big fault in your argument is you see the size of the welfare budget as a fixed parameter in your equation.  In reality, less immigration = smaller economy = smaller tax intake = smaller welfare budget. 
Not even taking into account immigrants are over-represented in the social sector providing the services foreseen in the welfare budget.
(and not even taking into account how much smaller the UK economy is, and will be, because of brexit).

Whether or not the Tories decide to increase spending or not will only have a marginal effect.  Only a healthy, growing economy can sustain the UK social model.  With an aging domestic population, one necessary element is high immigration numbers, especially in a country with such a low unemployment rate.  
The big fault in your argument is you see the size of the welfare budget as a fixed parameter in your equation.  In reality, less immigration = smaller economy = smaller tax intake = smaller welfare budget. 
Not even taking into account immigrants are over-represented in the social sector providing the services foreseen in the welfare budget.
(and not even taking into account how much smaller the UK economy is, and will be, because of brexit).

By 'Democrats' I was referring to the people who vote in the primaries, not the candidates (who I assume are all principled and genuinely believe they are the best person to lead the USA).
If you are voting in the primary, you might prefer Sanders because his agenda is the most 'left' (purity), but you should be aware once the general public get to vote, they might think your candidate too extreme (electability);

The parallels between Sanders and Corbyn are uncanny (even down to how their supporters hound people on social media who dare question the leader).  If he wins the nomination, my guess is Trump is set for another 4 years because, just like in the UK, the majority will not choose to go with the revolutionary, no matter how much they disdain Trump.
Seems the UK is really ahead of the curve.  They got there first with Brexit (Trump) and Corbyn (Sanders).  Democrats should take note of this and take away the approriate lessons (go for electability, not purity).
Fwiw, I think Klobuchar would stand the best chance of beating Trump.

The parallels between Sanders and Corbyn are uncanny (even down to how their supporters hound people on social media who dare question the leader).  If he wins the nomination, my guess is Trump is set for another 4 years because, just like in the UK, the majority will not choose to go with the revolutionary, no matter how much they disdain Trump.
Seems the UK is really ahead of the curve.  They got there first with Brexit (Trump) and Corbyn (Sanders).  Democrats should take note of this and take away the approriate lessons (go for electability, not purity).
Fwiw, I think Klobuchar would stand the best chance of beating Trump.

0,03% last elections. 🤦‍♂️

0,03% last elections. 🤦‍♂️

0,03% last elections. 🤦‍♂️

Sanders represents old style socialism and that is the platform they will fight him on.
Liberalism is the only answer, the sooner the left get that in their head the sooner they'll start winning again.

I must say the reports on the celebrations were indeed framed as nationalism.  EU continentals who only have a passing intrest in brexit, still view it with disbelief.
The next phase will be very interesting.  The project is most definitely now on brexiters and you can already sense the nervousness.  
I see only two outcomes.  Brexit will either be a democratic failure if the UK continues to follow EU rules without a say to protect its economy ; or it will be an economic failure if the UK tries to sever ties to its biggest economic partner.

I must say the reports on the celebrations were indeed framed as nationalism.  EU continentals who only have a passing intrest in brexit, still view it with disbelief.
The next phase will be very interesting.  The project is most definitely now on brexiters and you can already sense the nervousness.  
I see only two outcomes.  Brexit will either be a democratic failure if the UK continues to follow EU rules without a say to protect its economy ; or it will be an economic failure if the UK tries to sever ties to its biggest economic partner.

I must say the reports on the celebrations were indeed framed as nationalism.  EU continentals who only have a passing intrest in brexit, still view it with disbelief.
The next phase will be very interesting.  The project is most definitely now on brexiters and you can already sense the nervousness.  
I see only two outcomes.  Brexit will either be a democratic failure if the UK continues to follow EU rules without a say to protect its economy ; or it will be an economic failure if the UK tries to sever ties to its biggest economic partner.