Jenny1

...aside from the obvious political difference of course.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I agree, it's another form of 'populism', just not > the far right-wing/nationalistic type that was > forecast. In some ways agreed. But I think the differences between Trump/Brexit and Macron are more striking than the similarities. Both have an 'expect the unexpected' quality for sure - but Trump/Brexit is almost defined by being 'anti-expert', whereas Macron is the archetypal intellectual.

Dogkennelhillbilly Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > May has the opposite tack: profess religion but > don't evidence it in any appreciable political > sense. But you see I think she does 'evidence' it - in a very concerning (if not at all 'moral') way. As I said before I grew up attending a C of E church. I now see the Church (like most things) as having good and not so good aspects to it. Some of the most admirable people I know are active Christians (of various different denominations) who put their moral values into practise. They help out where they see need, make a positive difference to the communities they live in and are open to the views and experiences of others. Of course I also know practising Muslims and Hindus who achieve precisely that as well. But - as I said before - there's a reason why the Church of England has often been called 'The Tory Party at prayer'. As a child I also saw the much less attractive establishment, feudal side of it. Special pews were still reserved, even in the 1970s, for the grandees of the community. There was an understanding that you would be accepted if you followed the rules, didn't question anything and 'fitted in' - which usually meant 'knowing your place' socially. That's the side of the C of E I'm reminded of when Mrs May invokes it. The side that says 'it's not up to you to have any ideas of your own - simply to follow blindly the man (or in this case woman) who's in charge'. 'Pack your poor little brain away and relax in the knowledge that I'm 'all knowing' and can be left to make all the decisions'. That's what I mean when I say I believe Mrs May has delusions of being the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury - but with an added political edge of course. In one breath she invokes the Church of England - in the next she says anyone who opposes her must be weeded out - in fact that that very dissent is in itself a 'bad' thing ('heresy' in fact). She's using established religion as a powerful tool in her authoritarian political armoury. That's dangerous.

It's good to know there's support for people out there. On a personal note do try cutting out sugar completely Karen S. It reduced my pains greatly. One theory is that some people experience pain because the body has ceased to be able to properly process refined sugars. There is, of course, no 'one size fits all'.

I don't share your concerns Otta. I think his words and actions make it clear he's a proper social and cultural liberal - good enough for me. The inner workings of people's souls should remain their own business.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > He is anti faith school, and has > called for disestablishment of the church. > > He is much more of a secularist than Theresa May, > who is actually giving faith schools MORE freedom > to discriminate based on faith. Agreed. Theresa May's use of 'religion' in politics concerns me much more than Tim Farron's private Christianity. She needs to follow his example and keep the two things separate. I don't think anyone's faith is anyone else's business - until the person professing religious belief chooses to make it so. So since Mrs M has brought her own Christianity up I feel free to comment on it. I was brought up in the C of E myself and it strikes me that she represents the unattractive side of the Church. Remember when it was called 'The Tory Party at prayer'? She's part of that inherently establishment, feudal part of the C of E tradition. She does not, I'm afraid, show the natural compassion and open mindedness that I admire in my sincere Christian friends. I'm very happy to vote for a Lib Dem party led by someone who tries to 'live' by ethical values rather than make speeches that suggests he has delusions of being the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I'd heard that 'Signor Pomodoro' is an Italian nickname for someone who inveigles their way into everything.

Helpfully my wartime edition of 'farmhouse fare' states that two tablespoons of vinegar and a teaspoon of bicarb should be used to replace every 2 eggs required in a cake recipe.

I don't think she's particularly interested in achieving anything, just consolidating her 'brand'.

That article seems to sum up a large part of the problem, IlonaM.

What a fine business card that would be! On Gorsuch. While he's clearly conservative he's got professional respect that means many Democrats wouldn't normally oppose him. The sticking point is that the Republican dominated Congress actively blocked Obama from filling the Supreme Court seat during his final year in office, even though it was vacant.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Who else can save us > from this madness? Good point. Though I think Farron speaks well when he gets the chance, and Nicola Sturgeon is exceptionally sharp - though of course limited in her potential impact. > > For all his > faults over the Iraq war, he was actually a pretty > good PM up to that point. Couldn't agree more. That was part of the tragedy. He was very good in many ways.

Ha Ha. V good. Maybe a hybrid of the two?

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > seems to muddle democracy with autocracy. Yep. That's the scary thing.

...I've just thought of someone else Trump reminds me of. Chairman Mao. It's that endless anger thing he's got going on. ...edited to add ....and that unshakeable belief in himself as the sole fount of all wisdom. That's very Mao.

I think Tony Blair is absolutely right on this. But the sad thing is that he's unlikely to advance the cause of those who, like me, agree with him on this matter. He's now so associated with the incredibly damaging idiocy of the Iraq War that that taints any opinion he offers on anything.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > after today's rant he allowed CNN and BBC > (and he abused them a bit). ...well done Jon Sopel* Edited to add....*That's the kind of thing that makes me proud to be British.

Hi intexas. On Gorsuch I think Trump just meant that Democrats may oppose his appointment, and Republicans may then change the rules of that appointment to get Gorsuch into the job anyway. Trump has encouraged them do this, the so-called 'nuclear option'. There's a NYT article about that here. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate-hearing.html?_r=0

Yes - the uranium bit is a corker. Hi jaywalker. I did read the LRB article - it's really interesting. I particularly liked the thoughts on how the current structure of Russian society, business and government appeals to Trump. The part about the worrying creep of the 'national security state' sounds highly plausible, certainly in the wake of the measures George W took post 9/11. And of course such an apparatus is more dangerous in some hands than others. But I still think that the main concern right now is the Presidency - and how the other arms of government exert 'checks and balances' on it....or indeed fail to do so. Trump may be in post for some time. And even if he were impeached tomorrow the fallout would be considerable.

Interesting article JohnL. The historical context is really useful. I agree intexas. That comment about Trump liking the relationship between money and power in Russia is a great one. It gets to the root of how he sees the world, doesn't it? I fear Pence too. But sitting in Europe I think we have more to fear from Trump. I may be wrong but Pence looks less likely to start a war - by accident anyway.

Hi intexas. I had a read of your Kos articles. They're interesting. But I would see them as adding to the general somewhat confused picture of what Russia/Putin/White House links might exist - and which of those might be of concern. I think that's why we need a proper Congressional inquiry. It seems that that looks more possible as the days go on - as this Boston Globe article suggests. http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2017/02/15/something-rotten-white-house/cQe5866sEqGmR55RzOGzPI/story.html?event=event25?event=event25 And please see the same article jaywalker and rahrahrah for why I think the 'leaks' aren't the story. The intelligence community monitor ambassadors calls (that's why they knew Flynn had spoken to the Russian ambassador). They told the justice department what they'd heard (not a worry as far as I'm concerned). This then led the acting attorney general to raise concerns with the White House that Flynn, having broken the law, could be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians. Not a sequence of events that I regard as sinister.

Hi jaywalker. Thanks for the lrb link - I'll have a read when I get a chance later. I disagree with your concerns about the 'secret state' though. The 'intelligence community' isn't perfect and requires oversight and regulation - but given the way the world functions it is needed. I should think both the FBI and CIA are deeply concerned about Trump's own lax approach to security - as demonstrated by his antics at Mar-a-Lago at the weekend. The way he does business makes him a considerable risk to national security.

They're now talking about deploying ground forces in Syria. It looks horribly like that classic tactic of sending troops into combat to provide a distraction from your own mess up.

Hi intexasatthemoment. I think that's just his standard response to most questions - no matter what the subject matter. I won. I'm great. Everything used to be bad. Now everything will be great. There seems to be a strong push among American activists to get Congressional Republicans to step up to do some real oversight ....but as discussed previously most are happy with the status quo. It'll need a powerful movement indeed to change their minds.

I think there are lots of confusing and tangled threads in the whole 'too close to Putin' story. I would say the point now is to get Congress to properly investigate the things we already know about. Any thorough investigation into the Flynn affair might well start to turn up other links. I'll have a thorough read of the articles you've linked to a bit later intexas. Thanks for keeping a thought provoking conversation going!