Soy Adrián

States also have a disproportionate representation in the Senate, as every state has two senators. Imagine the fuss if our upper house had 50 English representatives, 50 Scots, 50 Welsh and 50 NI.

Only someone who considers the Mail fair and balanced could possibly perceive the BBC as being pro-Corbyn... (not that it's inherently anti, before you know who starts spouting off about the "BBTory". It's timid and led by newspaper headlines and a bit royalist, but it's by far the best we've got)

It's already done for TV. That's the point. It's been a while since I've trusted Cameron's judgement on anything related to the EU.

Heaven forbid they try and encourage under-represented groups to go to events.

Meanwhile City look likely to bring in Aymeric Laporte, the centre back from Athletic Bilbao. Not seen much of him but he has a very good reputation, and will be a useful alternative to Stones and Otamendi given how busy their schedule will be. Don't know about wages, but even with a £65m release clause he'll probably end up being cheaper (and younger, and less disruptive) than Sanchez.

How is this anything to do with political correctness?

It was discussed generally at the time. It's of course technically true, although her share of the vote was lower than quite a few white male candidates since the voting franchise expanded to (in theory) ensure the same voting rights for different sexes and ethnicities. The fact that it was higher than Trump's should, in any functioning 21st century democracy, have ensured that she'd become president.

They have the highest name recognition, that's what is by far the biggest factor in polls that are taken this early. Senators like Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand may not be particularly known in the country as a whole outside of those who are interested in politics. When the race starts to build next year then we'll have a better idea of who you could call a frontrunner.

Which papers are pro-EU, then? And as we've tried to explain before, if 'The Establishment' doesn't include the major newspaper owners then the term is effectively meaningless.

Bush was nowhere near as unpopular early in his presidency. By this point in his 9/11 had made his approval ratings shoot up, but even before then he wasn't especially unpopular as presidents go. Last time kind of put to bed the idea that the establishments of both parties can handpick their candidate and they'll win easily. Clinton still got 20% more votes than Bernie, the superdelegates didn't end up making a difference. It's likely to be a more crowded field next time as well. Speculating about a Bernie vs Biden face off / ticket at this stage is about as instructive as anticipating a Republican ticket of Jeb! and Marco Rubio four years ago. Things change.

They don't cover the whole range of opinion, though. As Suedey said, no major paper is anywhere near as pro-EU as the Mail and Express are against it. They completely warp the entire argument. How many pro-EU major papers can you name? Of course when in your head the Guardian is comparable to Breitbart, this is probably a futile exercise but we can try.

That's interesting. In some ways the runner up from the previous time always starts as the favourite if it looks like they'll run again, and Democratic insiders will be aware of the extent to which their base has generally shifted leftwards in the last couple of years. On the other hand... It's still a complete joke to assert that he is definitely going to be the nominee, or that he's the only one who is capable of beating Trump. It should be obvious why the former is a load of balls - a million and one things can change between now and 2020, and there are serious candidates throughout the Democratic field who are lining up for a run and are sufficiently lefty to appeal to the new base. It's far from a done deal that the left will coalesce around Sanders. As for the latter, as others have pointed out - Trump is less popular at this stage than any other postwar President. Numerous more popular Presidents have sought a second term and lost, so he's immensely vulnerable to all sorts of challenges. Sanders and Clinton were both seriously flawed in terms of winning an election in their own ways.

Link please.

We need one or two midfielders in January otherwise we could easily get dragged back into it. Lanzini is out for a month and we have zero creativity without him.

Liverpool have done a Liverpool. Six points between 10th and 20th now. Almost as if the whole bottom half of the table is load of interchangeable mediocre teams with interchangeable mediocre managers.

Good deal for both teams and both players. Arsenal are seemingly in for Aubameyang as well, which does beg the question of what on earth they're going to do with Lacazette. He must have been quite excited at the prospect of playing behind Mkhitaryan, Oezil and Wilshere.

As this is when their MEPs will no longer be able to sponge a salary for not turning up?

I completely agree. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01...acist.html?_r=0

I have actually, I try and listen most weeks. I think it reiterated to me how ambitious UBI will have to be to succeed, as like you say it will require a complete overhaul of our welfare system and more besides.

I'd be interested to see figures on how many gun deaths were caused by people who were already violent offenders.

Killing someone with a gun does tend to be a criminal offence, yes.

What effect could 'profligacy' have when the terms of exit have already been set? I'm no Marxist (or communist), but you both do Marx a disservice.

At some point it will probably become inevitable, but there are obvious teething problems that will have to be ironed out first. I voted 'Unsure' as that's basically where I stand on current proposals.

Why could they blame Labour? If the election is called after we leave, the Tories will have negotiated the deal.

You found one study supporting your viewpoint, and someone pointed out that it had been debunked months ago. If you can find debunkings of every report stating that Brexit will negatively affect the economy, then yes, I suppose it's back to 'wait and see'. Setting aside the use of 'slight risk' for a second - how do you propose we exercise our economic freedom when writing trade deals with larger economies like the US and China? How do you think we should go about protecting our interests?