hypochondriac

Weirdly some people seem to care more about human rights and the law when one party is in power.

Much easier to do when you don't have an army of human rights lawyers ideologically opposed to you tying you up in legal knots.

You're a clinical moron.

Fascists lol. Behave.

Agree with all of that, particularly Alan Whitehead who I knew to be a really good bloke and who I voted for a few times. Glad we could find some common ground at least.

I said comes across as more authentic than Kamala Harris which clearly he did. I wasn't asking about exciting characters necessarily, just intelligent, principled politicians with substance who are able to articulate their ideas clearly and maybe be a bit inspiring as well. Those type of people are in rather short supply in Westminster whereas a few decades ago there were a number across all parties.

His Bajesty DM'd me some of his poetry once to critique.

Yeah I think those views aren't right. His stuff in nutrition though is great and I fully support all of that.

I'm not an expert but I believe he was criticising the high prices that America had to pay for some medications and he was proposing a cap on what can be charged. He's also criticised the fact that certain food additives are banned in most countries but not in America where some of those responsible for banning them have had conflicting industries with some of the big food companies. I believe he claimed not to be anti vaccine but instead claimed there weren't enough trials to check if they are safe or not (can't say I know enough about that myself but I'm not sure I'd agree with that stance.) That all seems reasonable to me but like I said he's also said some mad things about fluoride in the water, MMR vaccine conspiracies and raw milk.

100% agree. People can rightly hate Donald Trump but he isn't scripted and basically says whatever he likes which means he comes across as more authentic. I'd like some more authenticity in UK politics and like you say delete their social media and tell us what you really think.

You could apply that to the majority of MPs. Social media has made everyone scared of having convictions and it's all baiut soundbites and sticking to the party line. Tedious and deeply uninspiring.

Liz truss in particular was total shit and she deservedly got booted out quickly. It was one big reason that the Conservatives were rightly booted out at the last election. I don't get your point.

Perceptions are quickly set and difficult to shake off. At best the budget has gone down neutrally and from some businesses rather poorly. I'll be watching with interest the financial performances of America and the UK given they appear to be on diametrically opposed paths.

I didn't say or think that. Well aware of when the next election will be thanks. Early Tory incompetence at the start of their last election win stored up resentment that contributed to their loss. The same thing will happen with Labour if they can't turn things around.

My mum went to see the panto at the mayflower that Tiss was in before that was officially announced and she was in the audience. She was adamant there was a thing between them and very smug when it came out.

OK then so the first few months of the Labour government has seen lower growth than there were under the Tories. Given they've been talking about going for growth, they better turn things around quickly if they want people to vote for the again in future.

Let's see that Hamas surrender and hostage returns. Really easy way to end things.

I was on Saintslist and saints forever from 2001. Not sure about the time prior to that.

He's said some very ridiculous things and some very sensible things. There's no doubt that some of the shit they put in American foods are contributing to their poor health and life expectancy. Hopefully he leaves vaccines to the states or to personal choice and just goes after the big pharmaceutical companies which is what he says he is going to do.

Given the views Levine espoused after being appointed I would find that incredibly unlikely but we can agree to disagree.

I didn't mention anything about qualifications. Clearly both Democrat and Republican make a number of appointments at least in part for ideological reasons. It's not even a criticism it's just a fact of government.

"The highest ranking transgender official in U.S. history will give a speech in Texas Saturday, urging physicians-in-training to fight political attacks against young trans people and their families." "In Levine's new role, LGBTQ youths have been at the forefront of her mind, she said, as dozens of bills targeting transgender youths have been introduced in statehouses across the country — a reality that she said was "unfortunate and disturbing." "After all, Levine’s central claim – that ‘gender-affirming care… is not in scientific or medical dispute’ – is fundamentally false. ‘Gender-affirming care’, in which clinicians are expected to simply ‘affirm’ a child’s chosen gender identity, has indeed been the norm in recent years across the West. But there is growing criticism of this drastic approach." "Levine declined to comment on the West tweet, but she calls the recent flurry of anti-transgender rhetoric and legislation “disturbing,” including the North Carolina law. “It just fuels my desire to do my job and to advocate,” she said." Plenty of other examples. Like I said, it doesn't necessarily make them unsuitable but it's clear that the political activism was a big reason why they were given the role.

Just looking for a bit of balance really. I wouldn't expect Democrat picks to be castigated for something they haven't been found guilty of. I don't think he's a good choice and happy to have my mind changed should some more evidence come to light but as it stands, I wouldn't exclude him based on something that is not yet proven. Normally you're the first to call something a non story and say that no one cares.

Was he found guilty then?

Didn't jfk appoint his younger brother to the same position?