placeholder

In her own way, she's unifying the nation.

Anyway, given the big turnout in Kansas, Did you actually read what the vote was about? A "Yes" vote would have allowed the legislature to do as it pleased on the question of abortion. It wasn't about imposing a ban or severe restrictions. And the only reason that the status quo exists is that Kansas Supreme Court justices ruled that the the Kansas Constitution protects the right to abortion up to 22 weeks because it specifically references the Declaration of Independence.

Tell that to poor women in those states where abortions are banned or severely restricted https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/02/texas-abortion-out-of-state-people-of-color/ And of course in the state of Texas, and other states that have followed its example, private citizens are now empowered to sue not only abortion providers but those who help women in any way to get an abortion. Like driving them to a clinic. Or calling a cab for them. Or even telling them how to contact a clinic. And if these loons win their case, Texas guarantees them a minimum $10,000 payday. Which goes a long way towards explaining why health care providers there are increasingly reluctant to help women having a troubled miscarriage via a D&C which is exactly the same procedure used for an abortion. Lots of unqualified fanatics available to institute those lawsuits. And not only that, so far 5 of the 6 extreme right wing justices on the Supreme Court have allowed that law to stand. https://www.foxnews.com/us/supreme-court-votes-5-4-to-leave-texas-abortion-law-in-place

Not all the votes have been tallied yet.

Not really. Congress could vote to outlaw abortion nationwide. Or to protect the right to abortion nationwide.

And it turns out Kansas have voted to reject the abortion ban. Voters turned out in huge numbers for a vote of this kind. Kansas is a very conservative state. Clearly, the issue mobilized voters to turn out. It does raise some hope (at least in some of us) that the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade will also mobilize voters to vote against candidates who supported that decision.

If anyone is clueless, it's someone who remembers that the Brexit vote was supposed to be a landslide for remainers. The polls showed the race to be very close. Online surveys, on average, predicted a "leave" win with a 1.2% margin, whereas those with a phone methodology had "remain" win with a 2.6% margin.[12] All in all, 63% of online polls predicted a Leave victory, while 78% of phone polls predicted that Remain would win.[13] Kantar TNS and Opinium, both pollsters with online methodologies, were the two groups that forecast a Leave victory just ahead of the vote.[13] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#:~:text=Online surveys%2C on average%2C predicted,predicted that Remain would win. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-closer-uk-gets-to-brexit-the-more-the-country-regrets-it-polls-show-2019-1

No, you don't seem to remember. You actually misremember and there's no seeming about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

But it says nothing about whether these fines were part of that package.

I wrote that someone should inform the BBC that Truss is not a zombie. Who could possibly believe that this was actual news or that the BBC believed otherwise? You don't think that were it to tout that a candidate for PM is a zombie it might draw a modicum of attention from other media?

But the EU economy is still growing on average, unlike the UK's. Euro zone economy grows 0.7% in the second quarter despite gas crisis and inflation surge https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/29/euro-area-gdp-q2-2022-growth-accelerates-for-euro-zone.html

Or that Liz Truss is a zombie needs to be flagged? Is every day Halloween for you?

You think a comment that the BBC has an all zombie channel needs to be flagged as a joke? Seriously?

For the Senate, yes, it could be. I think Roe v Wade could lessen the Republicans' margin of victory in the House.

Really? You got some evidence for that? His programs seems quite definite. But lets say it might be 21,000 or 19,000? But how would that address the thousands additional officers who have since been lost? Maybe you should claim that Jonhson is so mathematically inept that the he rounded 25,000 or 30,000 down to 20,000. Boris Johnson's drive to hire 20,000 police officers will 'start within weeks' Boris Johnson's leadership election pledge to recruit 20,000 extra police officers over the next three years will be put into action within weeks, he is claiming. The prime minister says his drive to deliver more frontline officers - which he has made a top priority - will start in September with the launch of a national campaign led by the Home Office. https://news.sky.com/story/boris-johnsons-drive-to-hire-20-000-police-officers-to-start-within-weeks-11770690

As to be expected, you post an kind of all purpose comment that offers no analysis nor any evidence of other than a Pavlovian reflexive response. You've got nothing.

I wasn't aware that someone had to be an authority on anything to post here. How exactly would one establish credentials given that we are all anonymous? But the subject of the thread is a candidate with a remarkable lack of affect.

Once again, the same old nonsense. How to criticize any government for failing to do enough if someone invokes the claims that since they may have further undiscloded plans it's invalid to criticize them for the current disclosed plan's failings. Why is it so difficult for you to understand this?

But this thread is about a particular zombie named Liz Truss. Whatever the zombie status of Labor or Tory backbenchers may be, it's irrelevant.

Once again, the govt has said nothing about any greater nymber. if they planned for more, why not aim for 30,000 instead of 20,000? Your claim is still ridiculous and is the kind that allows for any govt to make itself bulletproof against any criticism.

I've got some news for you that will clearly come as a surprise. Neither is running for Prime Minister. But clearly invoking the names of backbenchers is your go-to response when you've got nothing.

So a plan was set out, the govt claims it is on the way to fulfilling that plan, but, according to you that doesn't mean that they don't have another plan? Do you realize how ridiculous such a claim is? It allows for an all purpose defense of any govt by positing that they may have other plans we don't know about because they haven't released them.

I, too, am rooting for the zombie version of Margaret Thatcher. I mean zombies are still popular, right?

Johnson set an actual goal of 20,000. Not 20,000+. 20,000 is not enough to make up for all the cops lost. What about that fact don't you understand?

Information in the article noted the not only did the total number of illegals in the US decline but the percentage of Mexicans out of all illegals remaining declined as well. What does that tell you? Did you even read the article?