That just seems to be a lot of chaps scragging chaps and kicking one another in the shins.
:homer: Of course; hounds too.
Best of Breed, Best in Group (a group is several breeds of the same type) and Best in Show in which all the Group winners compete for the top prize. Each of these also include a Reserve Best, which is awarded to the best loser from the opposite sex.
I agree, but his objection to Trump is not rooted in political partisanship. Well that's what he claims, anyway.
He's actually just released a podcast with a Trump supporter - the creator of Dilbert, no less. Only listened to half an hour so far, but covers some interesting ground.
Yes, I haven't listened to that one precisely because it deals with Trump, on which subject I find Mr Harris fearfully po-faced.
I believe his antipathy isn not party-political. However, the impression I get is that his objection is quasi-aesthetic. - that he finds the mere idea of Trump offensive to his middle-class, liberal intellectual sensibilities. He doesn't seem to grasp that offending people like him on those grounds is precisely the point of Donald Trump.
As the man said.
And if the fight is to be dirty, well then, the Donald is prepared for that too. For far too long, conservative leaders haven't been prepared to win ugly. His opponents seem to be upset that they've found an adversary who is every bit as dirty and ugly as they are.
I agree to a point. But I don't think it's quite right to lump Harris in with the middle class liberal intelligentsia, as he would be chucked out of your average Hamptons dinner party within 5 seconds of opening his mouth on most subjects. He is, after all, pro-racial profiling, pro-torture (in some instances), and pro-immigration control, among other things.
The podcast is worth listening to, I think. The fella interviewed is non-political, and stays well away from the usual political talking points around Trump and instead attempts to defend his character in a thought-provoking way.
Lots of thoughts.
He asked Harris what he'd prefer, the far right moving to the centre or the far left moving to the centre, and pointed out that no-one has done more in living memory to move more people from the far right to the centre than Trump.
Provoked my thought, anyhoo.
But he's never suggested that he isn't a legitimate president, I don't think. And he also begrudgingly praised his recent speech in Poland.
But yes, his main problem with Trump is aesthetic. But bear in mind Harris is a man who is pathologically obsessed with ethical human behaviour, to the extent that he even wrote a book saying that lying is ALWAYS ethically wrong (except in cases where lying would keep someone out of danger). AND he's a vegan!
Basically, he's a proper weirdo. But I do love him.
Yeah. He's wrong. History demonstrates pretty clearly that mankind does not willingly forego sources of physical pleasure on ethical grounds. Prostitution has been going strong since time immemorial despite the fact that it effectively commoditises human beings to satisfy a physical craving. Given which, it seems unlikely to me that as a species we're going to get around to *actually* being bothered about dead animals any time soon.
Oh, sure. But this is about what those labels had come to mean before him. He's redefined the centre as somewhere that the people who had been marginalised as 'deplorable' could feel they belonged again.
All regimes normalise their policy positions as the centre. In other words, the 'far right' was only called that by the left, who had also spent a lot of time defining the left as being the centre.
He is rather difficult to define in this sense. The link between policy and rhetoric is not always straightforward with him and, quite frankly, he talks a lot of nonsensical *******s. Many of his moves are indistinguishable from most Republican Presidents but the way he goes about it is rather different. Or at least the way he describes it is.
His 'unconventional' approach is what people admire. Even if it leads to conventional actions.
I said if I had lived in Ohio for 30 years and been unemployed I would have voted for him. For obvious reasons. He didn't come around promising generic investment, high tech jobs, the usual garbage. He spoke to them in a way they could understand and promised them what they actually wanted. As I say, highly unconventional.
If its a choice between Hillary and the lunatic, he is well worth a punt.
I think the feeling of being politically ignored in the States is totally off the charts in terms of our understanding.
Yeah, but 'scandals' didn't touch Trump because he'd already said the media was out to get him. So every time they went for him, it vindicated and strengthened him in his supporters' eyes. Equally, being prepared to say shocking and offensive things was very much part of his appeal, so that inoculated him against the danger of gaffes. It was a very clever bit of stupidity.
I'm not sure Bernie Sanders would've been able to survive those sorts of bumps in the road as easily.
If you look at where Trump won the election, Sanders would have given him a far tougher ride. He also would have been a very different proposition in debate where Hillary was beyond useless.
Also, the American public don't universally despise him. Always a good start.