If they were competent academics, they'd know the culture wars were manufactured, and to be aware that politicians can shape public discourse then disregard this and assume they must bow to and react to manufactured discourse is weird and illogical.
Absorbing your opponents positions isn't useful, especially when large swathes of your support is resisting the erosion of civil rights. You'd just erode your own support and suppress your own turnout.
It isn't rocket science. You recruit from the market or train your own.
It's painful they do not get this.
Or-der.... Or-derrrrr?
Yup, and for the avoidance of doubt:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg3j131327yo (see graph at bottom)
Labour used to be funded by trade unions. Now it's just a 5th of total funding. Corporate takeover of the Labour party. Of course, businesses will be wanting a return on investment here.
So Tories screwed our economic situations and Keir's Labour will keep us here.
What is the point in a massive majority if you'll do what the predecessors did? Power for power's sake?
Streeting is a Tory with a red rosette. From the right-wing Blairite faction (Progress) and one of the most disloyal and unprofessional politicians when Corbyn was leader.
Expectations of better in this guy would be misplaced.
"B-b-but Brave doesn't have questionable code".
Nuh-uh
We can debate this all day long but we all know torque is cheap.
Very much so, and apologies if my last sentence was a bit heavy. I'm a bit too used to reddit and the astroturfing that goes on there.
I agree with most of what you said here but do take exception to point about the risk not being extensive compared to other things we are exposed to. I think we should not accept hazardous materials because we are subject to them elsewhere. I'm not a hairdresser, but risks to their health should be eradicated. Harmful particulate should be eradicated, and aspartame too. Let's take bullets out of the chambers handed to us in this corporate run game of life Russian Roulette.
My take wasnt that this is bad news. My take is moving from 1 poison to another is not a good thing. There are studies either way, and it's worth considering where the scientists funding came from. Industry do invest in research for a reason which can result in more studies.
The following summarises some of the risks. While my accuracy wasn't great, the conclusion that aspartame is safe is highly questionable. If you're promoting it like it's a great thing, it's a very bizarre take to have.
Sugar is rubbish, but doesn't make artificial sweeteners good. Best things to drink are water, with maybe occasional fruit juice/smoothie. Not artificial rubbish.
Oh and the World Health Organisation considers aspartame a possible carcinogen. https://health.clevelandclinic.org/aspartame-risks
Football season is good and I've always preferred grass to astroturf. Industry are always gonna push the "there is no proof" until the deaths/illness become hard to ignore and the profit already made.
TK likes his blondes.
That poster has a point. I'm a Brit here, so no skin in the game. You're more focussed on being right that trying to comprehend that people look at things differently.
No one thought Biden was good, but he was the candidate and most know that name recognition is key in US elections. Most presential candidates fail on their first run. Kamala, despite having some OK polling numbers still has to get through to disengaged American voters who do not follow politics and probably know little more than the attack lines heropponents will throw at her this campaign. They have to define her before others do. This option is riskier than you realise, the only thing that changed was Biden became a riskier option than before.
Things are less black and white than you want them to be. Nuance and grey area is key, despite being inconvenient.