The truly scary prospect is that if the FBI investigations do actually come to anything (and I accept that is a very big 'if') then the US could be facing a choice between Trump and Sanders and there is a real danger Trump could actually win.
There is a danger that Trump could win even against Hillary. After three months at or near the top of the GOP polling - and so after being subject to plenty of scrutiny - he polls within a few points of her. She is not a strong candidate given her approval ratings and while I'd expect her to beat Trump, it's no slam-dunk.
Just those two words are better than your entire cumulative arguments.
You are wrong, because we wanted to get involved *before* ISIS was a significant power in the conflict. And that was mostly because of Assad's use of chemical weapons (yes, I know you don't believe he used them, but we can't help your utter lack of intellectual rigour).
'The American benefit is clear - they want to get rid of Assad.'
Really? They cared that much about Assad before he started gassing his own civilians in the civil war? What the west wanted was an end to the civil war, and Assad going was the easiest way for that to happen, especially once he used those weapons.
As usual, you apply utterly heinous and evil motives to the Americans, and pure and God-like ones to Putin and the Russians.
Thanks for that lesson in intellectual rigour from someone who thinks repeatedly calling someone a fool, or using 'yeah right' is an intelligent riposte.
Yes 'we' did want to get involved before ISIS was a significant power in the region, against Assad, and it failed to convince Britain's parliament, and as a knock on effect, was never carried through in the States. ISIS provided the opportunity to bung that effort in the microwave and give it another airing.
Entertained by your notion that the US didn't care much about Assad before he 'used chemical weapons'. Not enough to actually dignify it with a response though.
If we are to decarbonise power generation then the only viable option to deal with the issue of matching supply and demand is Carbon Capture and Storage. Without CCS decarbonising not just electricity but the total economy becomes mega expensive.
CCS is a massively expensive boondoggle. There're good reasons why the pilot projects are continuously delayed (I think Drax have pulled out of White Rose), and why it's mainly limited use has been in conjunction with enhanced recovery of oil and gas.
CCS also has a large energy penalty, meaning the plants using it are less efficient.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big appeal in the rust belt, in Florida most hispanics are actually cubans not mexicans, so they react differently about immigration from mexico.
Hispanics of mexican origin are a crucial block in most south western states, however with the exception of Texas and Arizona most of them vote democrat by large margins, only Nevada and perhaps Colorado are hispanic-mexican swing states but they only have 6 & 9 electoral votes respectively, while the industrial states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan each have double that number. Given that in the state polls Hillary is struggling in the industrial states against all republicans I would ditch the hispanic outreach strategy for a blue collar one, and it's not impossible because they all have elected republican governors and senators these past few years in the rust belt.
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White Blue Collar population is now moving Right. There's no reason to think that Hillary would do so well now.
In fact, this trend applies across the Western world. Left wing parties depend on students, ethnic minorities, people in artistic professions, public sector workers, university workers, and the poor. Right wing parties depend on the rest.
Solar is the daftest option in the UK. Maximum output when you don't need it, zero output when you do.
That is true, however during the summer solar power can be used almost all day in scotland due to it being close to the arctic circle, though it only produces 10-20% it's power rating during cloudy days which are very common.
Well thanks goodness that another power station is to close (by the way, from the article it burns wood not coal). Someone is thinking of the polar bears.
However each day something like 25% of our electricity comes from coal burning power stations (and another 25% from filthy nuclear) so we still have a long way to go. Perhaps even higher taxes on electricity might be the right thing to do; those polar bears aren't going to save themselves.
Don't know where those figures meet reality. I just watch the National Grid's site which shows where the power is coming from hour by hour. Nuclear normally has a share of between 20 and 25%
If we are to decarbonise power generation then the only viable option to deal with the issue of matching supply and demand is Carbon Capture and Storage. Without CCS decarbonising not just electricity but the total economy becomes mega expensive.
Super, who has managed to do CCS on an industrial scale? There have been projects and lots of money spent but none of them as far as I know have actually worked.
Yes the wind always blows, somewhere. However, there are times in the UK when over most of the country the air is still, or as close to it as makes no difference. Those periods can last for days at a time. What happens then if we are reliant on wind to generate electricity?
Just those two words are better than your entire cumulative arguments.
You are wrong, because we wanted to get involved *before* ISIS was a significant power in the conflict. And that was mostly because of Assad's use of chemical weapons (yes, I know you don't believe he used them, but we can't help your utter lack of intellectual rigour).
'The American benefit is clear - they want to get rid of Assad.'
Really? They cared that much about Assad before he started gassing his own civilians in the civil war? What the west wanted was an end to the civil war, and Assad going was the easiest way for that to happen, especially once he used those weapons.
As usual, you apply utterly heinous and evil motives to the Americans, and pure and God-like ones to Putin and the Russians.
Thanks for that lesson in intellectual rigour from someone who thinks repeatedly calling someone a fool, or using 'yeah right' is an intelligent riposte.
Yes 'we' did want to get involved before ISIS was a significant power in the region, against Assad, and it failed to convince Britain's parliament, and as a knock on effect, was never carried through in the States. ISIS provided the opportunity to bung that effort in the microwave and give it another airing.
Entertained by your notion that the US didn't care much about Assad before he 'used chemical weapons'. Not enough to actually dignify it with a response though.
It's hard not to call you a fool, given your foolish opinions and lack of intellectual rigour. Your views would be entertaining if they were not so morally deficient and utterly hateful.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big appeal in the rust belt, in Florida most hispanics are actually cubans not mexicans, so they react differently about immigration from mexico.
Hispanics of mexican origin are a crucial block in most south western states, however with the exception of Texas and Arizona most of them vote democrat by large margins, only Nevada and perhaps Colorado are hispanic-mexican swing states but they only have 6 & 9 electoral votes respectively, while the industrial states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan each have double that number. Given that in the state polls Hillary is struggling in the industrial states against all republicans I would ditch the hispanic outreach strategy for a blue collar one, and it's not impossible because they all have elected republican governors and senators these past few years in the rust belt.
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White Blue Collar population is now moving Right. There's no reason to think that Hillary would do so well now.
Since 2008 those states have elected republican governors and senators, so there is a danger that if republicans play the protectionist card they could beat the democrats there in a presidential election too. Hillary is not a shoe in if she leads Trump by 2 in Pennsylvania, by 1 in Ohio and tied in Michigan, those states are big in the electoral college.
If we are to decarbonise power generation then the only viable option to deal with the issue of matching supply and demand is Carbon Capture and Storage. Without CCS decarbonising not just electricity but the total economy becomes mega expensive.
CCS is pretty much a non starter. I have been involved with a number of projects looking at the viability over the last 5 or 6 years and they all run up against basic problems which are pretty much insurmountable at present. The Norwegians are doing much of he work on this but even they are finding it a big problem no matter how much money they throw at it.
While I admit that CCS has its drawbacks, and progress to commercialisation has been slower than desired (partly due to the EU), the question is what other options do we have to decarbonise? Reputable studies show that without CCS the costs will rocket.
Well thanks goodness that another power station is to close (by the way, from the article it burns wood not coal). Someone is thinking of the polar bears.
However each day something like 25% of our electricity comes from coal burning power stations (and another 25% from filthy nuclear) so we still have a long way to go. Perhaps even higher taxes on electricity might be the right thing to do; those polar bears aren't going to save themselves.
Not sure about 'nowhere near'. According to that chart in 2011 (the last year the chart covers) Nuclear accounted for around 18%, down from nearly 30% in 1998.
Given the number of coal fired power stations that have been closed it certainly wouldn't surprise me to find that nuclear share is now back up around 25%.
"UK wind farms top 80 per cent of their potential output for less than a week every year. It gets worse as, according to the study, wind turbines are only able to produce 90 per cent or more of their potential power output for a meagre 17 hours a year."
Again, picking the windiest point in the year is not exactly a great way to make a measured assessment. Look at the research.
While I admit that CCS has its drawbacks, and progress to commercialisation has been slower than desired (partly due to the EU), the question is what other options do we have to decarbonise? Reputable studies show that without CCS the costs will rocket.
While I admit that CCS has its drawbacks, and progress to commercialisation has been slower than desired (partly due to the EU), the question is what other options do we have to decarbonise? Reputable studies show that without CCS the costs will rocket.
My answer to that of course is why bother?
Of course, the CCS case rests on an assumed need to decarbonise - and I know we won't agree on that one. Anyway, look at Canada for commercial projects - Boundary Dam and Quest, with more to follow.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big appeal in the rust belt, in Florida most hispanics are actually cubans not mexicans, so they react differently about immigration from mexico.
Hispanics of mexican origin are a crucial block in most south western states, however with the exception of Texas and Arizona most of them vote democrat by large margins, only Nevada and perhaps Colorado are hispanic-mexican swing states but they only have 6 & 9 electoral votes respectively, while the industrial states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan each have double that number. Given that in the state polls Hillary is struggling in the industrial states against all republicans I would ditch the hispanic outreach strategy for a blue collar one, and it's not impossible because they all have elected republican governors and senators these past few years in the rust belt.
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White Blue Collar population is now moving Right. There's no reason to think that Hillary would do so well now.
Since 2008 those states have elected republican governors and senators, so there is a danger that if republicans play the protectionist card they could beat the democrats there in a presidential election too. Hillary is not a shoe in if she leads Trump by 2 in Pennsylvania, by 1 in Ohio and tied in Michigan, those states are big in the electoral college.
Over 30 states have Republican governors, but that does not mean they would vote GOP in the presidential election.
One final comment on this topic - CCS is the only way to decarbonise industries such as cement and iron & steel. Except for shutting them down, but that just results in Carbon Leakage.
So wind power (15.03%) produces almost the same amount as nuclear (17.59%), but nuclear power costs 7 billion pounds per reactor and they tend to explode leaving large areas uninhabited for decades.
Simply because nuclear power is old fashioned, dangerous and incredibly expensive, does not mean conservatives should support it.
I may support nuclear weapons but I'm not an idiot to support nuclear power, if even the japanese failed to master it then it's way too dangerous.
Great if the wind keeps blowing. What do you do when it doesn't. We regularly have days where wind power produces around 1% of our power needs. The idea it is a reliable alternative is just nuts.
The wind really will keep blowing.
Often yes. Constantly no. There is actually a mathematical equation for percentage of energy derived from wind that you cannot go beyond to avoid too much power at some points and power outages at others - without a method of storing that power.
The wind will blow always. I'm quite curious as to your equation. Please provide a link.
If we are to decarbonise power generation then the only viable option to deal with the issue of matching supply and demand is Carbon Capture and Storage. Without CCS decarbonising not just electricity but the total economy becomes mega expensive.
Super, who has managed to do CCS on an industrial scale? There have been projects and lots of money spent but none of them as far as I know have actually worked.
Yes the wind always blows, somewhere. However, there are times in the UK when over most of the country the air is still, or as close to it as makes no difference. Those periods can last for days at a time. What happens then if we are reliant on wind to generate electricity?
I get wind regularly depending on diet, but have not found a way to keep the lights on. I just drive with the window down.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big appeal in the rust belt, in Florida most hispanics are actually cubans not mexicans, so they react differently about immigration from mexico.
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White Blue Collar population is now moving Right. There's no reason to think that Hillary would do so well now.
In fact, this trend applies across the Western world. Left wing parties depend on students, ethnic minorities, people in artistic professions, public sector workers, university workers, and the poor. Right wing parties depend on the rest.
Is it? From 1980 to 1988 the Republicans won Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania at three consecutive presidential elections. From 2008 to 2012 the Democrats won all those three states twice and 2/3 of them in the previous presidential election in 2004.
Justin Trudeau has just won a landslide victory in Canada beating their conservatives, France and Italy have centre left presidents so it depends entirely where you look. You are talking about the centre lefts base (and ignoring the rising ethnic minority population) you could equally make the case conservatives, especially in the US, depend on ageing white males and the left is perfectly capable of winning the rest. Elections are won, as ever, by middle class voters in the suburbs
Harder. They have a higher surface area to mass ratio and so lose heat more quickly...
...sorry I thought you were being serious for a moment :-)
I am of course now wiser.
No, just better informed.
who rattled your cage? That time of the month?
I apologise, Mr. Cide, your comment, "I am now wiser" was just too tempting. No offence meant.
The whole post was jokey and not meant as fodder for a pedant
Oh, dear. The "wiser no just better informed" line was itself a joke (A.P. Herbert, I think, circa 1930), and I have apologised. However, if you insist on taking offence where none was meant I can't help you.
Since 2008 those states have elected republican governors and senators, so there is a danger that if republicans play the protectionist card they could beat the democrats there in a presidential election too. Hillary is not a shoe in if she leads Trump by 2 in Pennsylvania, by 1 in Ohio and tied in Michigan, those states are big in the electoral college.
Indeed, for Hillary to be leading Trump by only 2 in PA is shocking. Remember, this is the State that rekindled her hope of winning the nomination in 2008. And the GOP have not won the state in a Presidential election since 1988.
While I admit that CCS has its drawbacks, and progress to commercialisation has been slower than desired (partly due to the EU), the question is what other options do we have to decarbonise? Reputable studies show that without CCS the costs will rocket.
My answer to that of course is why bother?
Of course, the CCS case rests on an assumed need to decarbonise - and I know we won't agree on that one. Anyway, look at Canada for commercial projects - Boundary Dam and Quest, with more to follow.
I've just checked, and Boundary Dam is part of an EOR project. Quest's CCS is part of an oil-creation system. This massively skews the economics away from what we're planning to do.
Peter Allen @peterallenparis 11m11 minutes ago Shooting incident in the 10th arrondissement of Paris ongoing - there are fatalities and at least seven wounded, say police.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big appeal in the rust belt, in Florida most hispanics are actually cubans not mexicans, so they react differently about immigration from mexico.
Hispanics of mexican origin are a crucial block in most south western states, however with the exc
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White Blue Collar population is now moving Right. There's no reason to think that Hillary would do so well now.
Since 2008 those states have elected republican governors and senators, so there is a danger that if republicans play the protectionist card they could beat the democrats there in a presidential election too. Hillary is not a shoe in if she leads Trump by 2 in Pennsylvania, by 1 in Ohio and tied in Michigan, those states are big in the electoral college.
So what, predicting where a state will vote in a presidential election based on who won it at a mid term election is about as useful as predicting who will win a UK parliamentary seat based on which party won the local council at the local elections. Obama lost the 2010 midterms and won re-election comfortably. Hillary also leads Trump by 7% in Virginia, 6% in Nevada and 5% in Florida in the latest polls in those states. If she won those 3 plus Colorado she would win the EC 278-260 even if she lost Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan to Trump and there are plenty of Hispanics in Nevada and Florida and a fair number in Virginia too
The truly scary prospect is that if the FBI investigations do actually come to anything (and I accept that is a very big 'if') then the US could be facing a choice between Trump and Sanders and there is a real danger Trump could actually win.
There is a danger that Trump could win even against Hillary. After three months at or near the top of the GOP polling - and so after being subject to plenty of scrutiny - he polls within a few points of her. She is not a strong candidate given her approval ratings and while I'd expect her to beat Trump, it's no slam-dunk.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big appeal in the rust belt, in Florida most hispanics are actually cubans not mexicans, so they react differently about immigration from mexico.
Hispanics of mexican origin are a crucial block in most south western states, however with the exception of Texas and Arizona most of them vote democrat by large margins, only Nevada and perhaps Colorado are hispanic-mexican swing states but they only have 6 & 9 electoral votes respectively, while the industrial states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan each have double that number. Given that in the state polls Hillary is struggling in the industrial states against all republicans I would ditch the hispanic outreach strategy for a blue collar one, and it's not impossible because they all have elected republican governors and senators these past few years in the rust belt.
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White Blue Collar population is now moving Right. There's no reason to think that Hillary would do so well now.
In fact, this trend applies across the Western world. Left wing parties depend on students, ethnic minorities, people in artistic professions, public sector workers, university workers, and the poor. Right wing parties depend on the rest.
Yes, but aren't the Republicans fighting a losing battle against unstoppable demographic trends?
Since 2008 those states have elected republican governors and senators, so there is a danger that if republicans play the protectionist card they could beat the democrats there in a presidential election too. Hillary is not a shoe in if she leads Trump by 2 in Pennsylvania, by 1 in Ohio and tied in Michigan, those states are big in the electoral college.
Indeed, for Hillary to be leading Trump by only 2 in PA is shocking. Remember, this is the State that rekindled her hope of winning the nomination in 2008. And the GOP have not won the state in a Presidential election since 1988.
Since 2008 those states have elected republican governors and senators, so there is a danger that if republicans play the protectionist card they could beat the democrats there in a presidential election too. Hillary is not a shoe in if she leads Trump by 2 in Pennsylvania, by 1 in Ohio and tied in Michigan, those states are big in the electoral college.
Indeed, for Hillary to be leading Trump by only 2 in PA is shocking. Remember, this is the State that rekindled her hope of winning the nomination in 2008. And the GOP have not won the state in a Presidential election since 1988.
Trump went to the University of Pennsylvania
Be fair to the man. He went to the Wharton School of Business at Penn. It's very prestigious.
If we are to decarbonise power generation then the only viable option to deal with the issue of matching supply and demand is Carbon Capture and Storage. Without CCS decarbonising not just electricity but the total economy becomes mega expensive.
Super, who has managed to do CCS on an industrial scale? There have been projects and lots of money spent but none of them as far as I know have actually worked.
Yes the wind always blows, somewhere. However, there are times in the UK when over most of the country the air is still, or as close to it as makes no difference. Those periods can last for days at a time. What happens then if we are reliant on wind to generate electricity?
There's been some interesting work on flow batteries. Renewables are fairly pointless without cheap, scaleable, sustainable storage.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big Hispanics of mexican origin are a crucial block in most south western states, however with the exception of Texas and Arizona most of them vote democrat by large margins, only Nevada and perhaps Colorado are hispanic-mexican swing states but they only have 6 & 9 electoral votes respectively, while the industrial states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan each have double that number. Given that in the state polls Hillary is struggling in the industrial states against all republicans I would ditch the hispanic outreach strategy for a blue collar one, and it's not impossible because they all have elected republican governors and senators these past few years in the rust belt.
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White Blue Collar population is now moving Right. There's no reason to think that Hillary would do so well now.
In fact, this trend applies across the Western world. Left wing parties depend on students, ethnic minorities, people in artistic professions, public sector workers, university workers, and the poor. Right wing parties depend on the rest.
Yes, but aren't the Republicans fighting a losing battle against unstoppable demographic trends?
Could the polls be predicting another SNP landslide because people in Scotland have rumbled people like you. Your claims about doom and disaster are totally unfounded eg the Health Service A&E figures are the best in the UK and have been for the last FIVE months running or crime is at a 41 year low. People are long past caring about the Scot Ps of this world or the unionist press who are losing circulation as fast as Labour are losing credibility.
The reality is the SNP are going to win the Scottish elections in a canter as they won the Westminster ones. It must be a great sorry to Scot P that Ruthy Davidson is unknown to most folk in Scpotland and the few who do recognise her don't like her much. Labour are a busted flush and the tax credit Tories are going no-where. It's time to get used to it because that is the way it is going to be.
@NextDoorArab: #France #Paris multiple casualties reported in the 10th district after a man opened fire with an ak in a restaurant https://t.co/R0iRMKHfPM
If we are to decarbonise power generation then the only viable option to deal with the issue of matching supply and demand is Carbon Capture and Storage. Without CCS decarbonising not just electricity but the total economy becomes mega expensive.
Super, who has managed to do CCS on an industrial scale? There have been projects and lots of money spent but none of them as far as I know have actually worked.
Yes the wind always blows, somewhere. However, there are times in the UK when over most of the country the air is still, or as close to it as makes no difference. Those periods can last for days at a time. What happens then if we are reliant on wind to generate electricity?
There's been some interesting work on flow batteries. Renewables are fairly pointless without cheap, scaleable, sustainable storage.
Yup, I know and some of the projects look very interesting. However, batteries that can store enough energy to supply a city for hours on end? Might be a long way off.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White Blue Collar population is now moving Right. There's no reason to think that Hillary would do so well now.
In fact, this trend applies across the Western world. Left wing parties depend on students, ethnic minorities, people in artistic professions, public sector workers, university workers, and the poor. Right wing parties depend on the rest.
Yes, but aren't the Republicans fighting a losing battle against unstoppable demographic trends?
For some reason, they keep winning.
Eh? They have just lost two consecutive presidential elections and have lost the popular vote in 5/6 of the last general elections. Yes they won some mid-terms but you may as well say Ed Miliband was a winner because he won the 2012 local elections by a landslide
Since 2008 those states have elected republican governors and senators, so there is a danger that if republicans play the protectionist card they could beat the democrats there in a presidential election too. Hillary is not a shoe in if she leads Trump by 2 in Pennsylvania, by 1 in Ohio and tied in Michigan, those states are big in the electoral college.
Indeed, for Hillary to be leading Trump by only 2 in PA is shocking. Remember, this is the State that rekindled her hope of winning the nomination in 2008. And the GOP have not won the state in a Presidential election since 1988.
Trump went to the University of Pennsylvania
Be fair to the man. He went to the Wharton School of Business at Penn. It's very prestigious.
If we are to decarbonise power generation then the only viable option to deal with the issue of matching supply and demand is Carbon Capture and Storage. Without CCS decarbonising not just electricity but the total economy becomes mega expensive.
Super, who has managed to do CCS on an industrial scale? There have been projects and lots of money spent but none of them as far as I know have actually worked.
Yes the wind always blows, somewhere. However, there are times in the UK when over most of the country the air is still, or as close to it as makes no difference. Those periods can last for days at a time. What happens then if we are reliant on wind to generate electricity?
There's been some interesting work on flow batteries. Renewables are fairly pointless without cheap, scaleable, sustainable storage.
Yup, I know and some of the projects look very interesting. However, batteries that can store enough energy to supply a city for hours on end? Might be a long way off.
Sodium Sulphur batteries will do the job, but at a price. I would like renewable plus batteries to be the answer, but I don't think it is.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White Blue Collar population is now moving Right. There's no reason to think that Hillary would do so well now.
In fact, this trend applies across the Western world. Left wing parties depend on students, ethnic minorities, people in artistic professions, public sector workers, university workers, and the poor. Right wing parties depend on the rest.
Yes, but aren't the Republicans fighting a losing battle against unstoppable demographic trends?
For some reason, they keep winning.
Eh? They have just lost two consecutive presidential elections and have lost the popular vote in 5/6 of the last general elections. Yes they won some mid-terms but you may as well say Ed Miliband was a winner because he won the 2012 local elections by a landslide
The US House, Senate, State Governorships, State Legislatures are a hell of a lot more significant than the average British borough council.
Outside the US, there's this weird belief that the President controls everything.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White Blue Collar population is now moving Right. There's no reason to think that Hillary would do so well now.
In fact, this trend applies across the Western world. Left wing parties depend on students, ethnic minorities, people in artistic professions, public sector workers, university workers, and the poor. Right wing parties depend on the rest.
Yes, but aren't the Republicans fighting a losing battle against unstoppable demographic trends?
For some reason, they keep winning.
Eh? They have just lost two consecutive presidential elections and have lost the popular vote in 5/6 of the last general elections. Yes they won some mid-terms but you may as well say Ed Miliband was a winner because he won the 2012 local elections by a landslide
The mid-terms are not analogous to our own local elections!
Harder. They have a higher surface area to mass ratio and so lose heat more quickly...
...sorry I thought you were being serious for a moment :-)
I am of course now wiser.
No, just better informed.
who rattled your cage? That time of the month?
I apologise, Mr. Cide, your comment, "I am now wiser" was just too tempting. No offence meant.
The whole post was jokey and not meant as fodder for a pedant
Oh, dear. The "wiser no just better informed" line was itself a joke (A.P. Herbert, I think, circa 1930), and I have apologised. However, if you insist on taking offence where none was meant I can't help you.
Surely the taking of offence has nothing to do with a judgment of the intention of the giver of offence. I was certainly not looking for help nor can I help you if you're incapable of realising when you're likely to give offence.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White
Yes, but aren't the Republicans fighting a losing battle against unstoppable demographic trends?
For some reason, they keep winning.
Eh? They have just lost two consecutive presidential elections and have lost the popular vote in 5/6 of the last general elections. Yes they won some mid-terms but you may as well say Ed Miliband was a winner because he won the 2012 local elections by a landslide
The US House, Senate, State Governorships, State Legislatures are a hell of a lot more significant than the average British borough council.
Outside the US, there's this weird belief that the President controls everything.
Most presidents normally face opposing parties in Congress, US mid-terms are the equivalent of our local elections, if we had a president and elected Parliament in mid-term too Labour may even have a majority in the House of Commons with Cameron as President. Yet it is the general election and the presidential election which is clearly the major US national election and which has the highest turnout
Since 2008 those states have elected republican governors and senators, so there is a danger that if republicans play the protectionist card they could beat the democrats there in a presidential election too. Hillary is not a shoe in if she leads Trump by 2 in Pennsylvania, by 1 in Ohio and tied in Michigan, those states are big in the electoral college.
Indeed, for Hillary to be leading Trump by only 2 in PA is shocking. Remember, this is the State that rekindled her hope of winning the nomination in 2008. And the GOP have not won the state in a Presidential election since 1988.
Trump went to the University of Pennsylvania
Be fair to the man. He went to the Wharton School of Business at Penn. It's very prestigious.
As I am sure he would not fail to remind you!
We don't talk that often
Penn is a very good school, the Wharton School of Business even more so.
Say what you like about Trump and his utterances - and frankly they are getting tedious - he is a very intelligent and clever man. Wharton don't take no dummies. His business success speaks for itself.
Most presidents normally face opposing parties in Congress, US mid-terms are the equivalent of our local elections, if we had a president and elected Parliament in mid-term too Labour may even have a majority in the House of Commons with Cameron as President. Yet it is the general election and the presidential election which is clearly the major US national election and which has the highest turnout
You do realise that the mid-terms are simply "general elections" (as you put it) which don't happen on the same day as a presidential election. They are no different.
It's because the police are too incompetent to record crime, such as the M9 debacle
Isolated incident...
THE delayed response to a crash on the M9 which claimed the lives of John Yuill and Lamara Bell was “not an isolated incident”, according to frontline staff.
A report published earlier this week by HMICS found Police Scotland had “inadequate” oversight of controversial changes to its control rooms.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White Blue Collar population is now moving Right. There's no reason to think that Hillary would do so well now.
In fact, this trend applies across the Western world. Left wing parties depend on students, ethnic minorities, people in artistic professions, public sector workers, university workers, and the poor. Right wing parties depend on the rest.
Yes, but aren't the Republicans fighting a losing battle against unstoppable demographic trends?
For some reason, they keep winning.
Eh? They have just lost two consecutive presidential elections and have lost the popular vote in 5/6 of the last general elections. Yes they won some mid-terms but you may as well say Ed Miliband was a winner because he won the 2012 local elections by a landslide
The US House, Senate, State Governorships, State Legislatures are a hell of a lot more significant than the average British borough council.
Outside the US, there's this weird belief that the President controls everything.
Going back to the Don Brind article.It seems clear Jeremy Corbyn has given clear warning to those appointed around him who are employed by him must behave in a professional manner from now on.It seems too that Osborne's trick of introducing an early debate on Trident renewal isn't going to work either,a free vote and a unifying Labour amendment calling for a public debate should do the trick.
Most presidents normally face opposing parties in Congress, US mid-terms are the equivalent of our local elections, if we had a president and elected Parliament in mid-term too Labour may even have a majority in the House of Commons with Cameron as President. Yet it is the general election and the presidential election which is clearly the major US national election and which has the highest turnout
You do realise that the mid-terms are simply "general elections" (as you put it) which don't happen on the same day as a presidential election. They are no different.
Most presidents normally face opposing parties in Congress, US mid-terms are the equivalent of our local elections, if we had a president and elected Parliament in mid-term too Labour may even have a majority in the House of Commons with Cameron as President. Yet it is the general election and the presidential election which is clearly the major US national election and which has the highest turnout
You do realise that the mid-terms are simply "general elections" (as you put it) which don't happen on the same day as a presidential election. They are no different.
Actually they do - but different years.
- pedant who was in remission.
The entire house is re-elected, plus a third of the senate. This happens every two years, the only difference is what class of senator are being elected
Harder. They have a higher surface area to mass ratio and so lose heat more quickly...
...sorry I thought you were being serious for a moment :-)
I am of course now wiser.
No, just better informed.
who rattled your cage? That time of the month?
I apologise, Mr. Cide, your comment, "I am now wiser" was just too tempting. No offence meant.
The whole post was jokey and not meant as fodder for a pedant
Oh, dear. The "wiser no just better informed" line was itself a joke (A.P. Herbert, I think, circa 1930), and I have apologised. However, if you insist on taking offence where none was meant I can't help you.
Surely the taking of offence has nothing to do with a judgment of the intention of the giver of offence. I was certainly not looking for help nor can I help you if you're incapable of realising when you're likely to give offence.
I made a joke, you took offence. I have apologised. You won't accept my apology. So can I suggest you go .... yourself.
Most presidents normally face opposing parties in Congress, US mid-terms are the equivalent of our local elections, if we had a president and elected Parliament in mid-term too Labour may even have a majority in the House of Commons with Cameron as President. Yet it is the general election and the presidential election which is clearly the major US national election and which has the highest turnout
You do realise that the mid-terms are simply "general elections" (as you put it) which don't happen on the same day as a presidential election. They are no different.
Actually, they are significantly different - although in theory they should be the same, they end up with very different electorates, much more favorable to the GOP.
But don't take my word for it, see the Cook Report:
Most presidents normally face opposing parties in Congress, US mid-terms are the equivalent of our local elections, if we had a president and elected Parliament in mid-term too Labour may even have a majority in the House of Commons with Cameron as President. Yet it is the general election and the presidential election which is clearly the major US national election and which has the highest turnout
You do realise that the mid-terms are simply "general elections" (as you put it) which don't happen on the same day as a presidential election. They are no different.
Actually they do - but different years.
- pedant who was in remission.
The entire house is re-elected, plus a third of the senate. This happens every two years, the only difference is what class of senator are being elected
Most presidents normally face opposing parties in Congress, US mid-terms are the equivalent of our local elections, if we had a president and elected Parliament in mid-term too Labour may even have a majority in the House of Commons with Cameron as President. Yet it is the general election and the presidential election which is clearly the major US national election and which has the highest turnout
You do realise that the mid-terms are simply "general elections" (as you put it) which don't happen on the same day as a presidential election. They are no different.
Actually, they are significantly different - although in theory they should be the same, they end up with very different electorates, much more favorable to the GOP.
But don't take my word for it, see the Cook Report:
Harder. They have a higher surface area to mass ratio and so lose heat more quickly...
...sorry I thought you were being serious for a moment :-)
I am of course now wiser.
No, just better informed.
who rattled your cage? That time of the month?
I apologise, Mr. Cide, your comment, "I am now wiser" was just too tempting. No offence meant.
The whole post was jokey and not meant as fodder for a pedant
Oh, dear. The "wiser no just better informed" line was itself a joke (A.P. Herbert, I think, circa 1930), and I have apologised. However, if you insist on taking offence where none was meant I can't help you.
Surely the taking of offence has nothing to do with a judgment of the intention of the giver of offence. I was certainly not looking for help nor can I help you if you're incapable of realising when you're likely to give offence.
I made a joke, you took offence. I have apologised. You won't accept my apology. So can I suggest you go .... yourself.
I quite realise why a pompous prat like you would expect that an apology, however given, makes everything alright.
President Hollande was at the stadium near where the shootings And bombings took place and was removed to a safe location.
Germany playing France apparently.
The match seems to be going on at the moment. I thought maybe it would have been suspended.
Probably chaos enough outside I guess. Someone probably figured out they don't need thousands of fans flooding down the streets at the moment. Might be a wise decision unless they have a specific threat against the stadium.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White Blue Collar population is now moving Right. There's no reason to think that Hillary would do so well now.
In fact, this trend applies across the Western world. Left wing parties depend on students, ethnic minorities, people in artistic professions, public sector workers, university workers, and the poor. Right wing parties depend on the rest.
Yes, but aren't the Republicans fighting a losing battle against unstoppable demographic trends?
For some reason, they keep winning.
Eh? They have just lost two consecutive presidential elections and have lost the popular vote in 5/6 of the last general elections. Yes they won some mid-terms but you may as well say Ed Miliband was a winner because he won the 2012 local elections by a landslide
The mid-terms are not analogous to our own local elections!
They are, just we have a monarch not a President as our Head of State, both elections are normally mid-term protests where only a third of voters turnout
Most presidents normally face opposing parties in Congress, US mid-terms are the equivalent of our local elections, if we had a president and elected Parliament in mid-term too Labour may even have a majority in the House of Commons with Cameron as President. Yet it is the general election and the presidential election which is clearly the major US national election and which has the highest turnout
You do realise that the mid-terms are simply "general elections" (as you put it) which don't happen on the same day as a presidential election. They are no different.
No, as TimT has already pointed out general elections have double the turnout of mid-terms and the president is not up for election at mid-term. If we had a US Federal System the last election would have been Cameron v Miliband but Labour may already have won a majority in the House of Commons in 2012 as I already pointed out, politically mid-terms in both the US and UK are a chance to protest the government of the day
Since 2008 those states have elected republican governors and senators, so there is a danger that if republicans play the protectionist card they could beat the democrats there in a presidential election too. Hillary is not a shoe in if she leads Trump by 2 in Pennsylvania, by 1 in Ohio and tied in Michigan, those states are big in the electoral college.
Indeed, for Hillary to be leading Trump by only 2 in PA is shocking. Remember, this is the State that rekindled her hope of winning the nomination in 2008. And the GOP have not won the state in a Presidential election since 1988.
Trump went to the University of Pennsylvania
Be fair to the man. He went to the Wharton School of Business at Penn. It's very prestigious.
As I am sure he would not fail to remind you!
We don't talk that often
Penn is a very good school, the Wharton School of Business even more so.
Say what you like about Trump and his utterances - and frankly they are getting tedious - he is a very intelligent and clever man. Wharton don't take no dummies. His business success speaks for itself.
It is an Ivy League School and I don't deny he is sharp but he is also a populist rabble rouser who should not have his finger on the nuclear button, judgement and temperament are even more important than IQ
BBC saying 18 dead. What's up with France and terrorism.
They have a long history in the middle east and north africa, they have a greater percentage of people from their ex-colonies and they are in an economic stagnation since the euro was created.
If you can't accept an apology honestly given and sincerely meant over the reuse of an old joke at not even your expense, then maybe you should look at yourself rather than call the person who has apologised a pompous prat.
BBC saying 18 dead. What's up with France and terrorism.
They have a long history in the middle east and north africa, they have a greater percentage of people from their ex-colonies and they are in an economic stagnation since the euro was created.
Bit of a coincidence that this happened on the same day that Jihadi John was killed.
Unconfirmed reports of Grenades at Stade De France
21:34 'Several dead' at Stade de France Several grenade explosions reportedly went off at Stade de France at France vs Germany match with BFMTV citing “several dead”.
To be honest, on those sorts of figures, mad as it is it might be worth backing Trump on the markets.
As I suspected Trump's anti immigration rhetoric bombed with the GOP establishment but went down a storm with the GOP base
I think you're right. But unfortunately an extended conversation on a deportation force to deport 10 + million illegals, splitting up families and invoking memories of Operation Wetback is going to cost Republicans the hispanic vote and the election if they keep it up.
Republicans need to reach out to hispanics, and this won't do it.
I think that they can replace that with protectionism that has a big
Hillary had her best results in the 2008 primaries in the rusybelt and if she adds Nevada and Colorado she is almost unstoppable. Pennsylvania and Michigan even voted for Kerry they are not going to vote for Trump
But, any State with a large White Blue Collar population is now moving Right. There's no reason to think that Hillary would do so well now.
In fact, this trend applies across the Western world. Left wing parties depend on students, ethnic minorities, people in artistic professions, public sector workers, university workers, and the poor. Right wing parties depend on the rest.
Yes, but aren't the Republicans fighting a losing battle against unstoppable demographic trends?
For some reason, they keep winning.
Eh? They have just lost two consecutive presidential elections and have lost the popular vote in 5/6 of the last general elections. Yes they won some mid-terms but you may as well say Ed Miliband was a winner because he won the 2012 local elections by a landslide
The Republicans comfortably won the House election 234-201 in 2012, with the same electorate that chose Obama. It's true that the Democrats polled slightly more votes (48.8% to 47.6%) but then as in any FPTP system, it's where you score the votes that matters.
It remains to be seen whether that was indicative of split voting, was a personal vote for Obama or has real significance for 2016.
BBC saying 18 dead. What's up with France and terrorism.
They have a long history in the middle east and north africa, they have a greater percentage of people from their ex-colonies and they are in an economic stagnation since the euro was created.
Bit of a coincidence that this happened on the same day that Jihadi John was killed.
BBC saying 18 dead. What's up with France and terrorism.
They have a long history in the middle east and north africa, they have a greater percentage of people from their ex-colonies and they are in an economic stagnation since the euro was created.
Bit of a coincidence that this happened on the same day that Jihadi John was killed.
A cell that decided to get revenge, or acting on orders from IS HQ?
BBC saying 18 dead. What's up with France and terrorism.
They have a long history in the middle east and north africa, they have a greater percentage of people from their ex-colonies and they are in an economic stagnation since the euro was created.
Bit of a coincidence that this happened on the same day that Jihadi John was killed.
A cell that decided to get revenge, or acting on orders from IS HQ?
BBC saying 18 dead. What's up with France and terrorism.
They have a long history in the middle east and north africa, they have a greater percentage of people from their ex-colonies and they are in an economic stagnation since the euro was created.
Bit of a coincidence that this happened on the same day that Jihadi John was killed.
A cell that decided to get revenge, or acting on orders from IS HQ?
Oh come on, this takes weeks to plan.
Particularly a coordinated attack.
Well, you can have a plan ready to execute, and wait for the go ahead. I wasn't saying it was planned in the last 12 hours!
BBC saying 18 dead. What's up with France and terrorism.
They have a long history in the middle east and north africa, they have a greater percentage of people from their ex-colonies and they are in an economic stagnation since the euro was created.
Bit of a coincidence that this happened on the same day that Jihadi John was killed.
A cell that decided to get revenge, or acting on orders from IS HQ?
Not impossible I suppose. I guess to ISIS the UK and France are pretty much the same.
Most presidents normally face opposing parties in Congress, US mid-terms are the equivalent of our local elections, if we had a president and elected Parliament in mid-term too Labour may even have a majority in the House of Commons with Cameron as President. Yet it is the general election and the presidential election which is clearly the major US national election and which has the highest turnout
You do realise that the mid-terms are simply "general elections" (as you put it) which don't happen on the same day as a presidential election. They are no different.
No, as TimT has already pointed out general elections have double the turnout of mid-terms and the president is not up for election at mid-term. If we had a US Federal System the last election would have been Cameron v Miliband but Labour may already have won a majority in the House of Commons in 2012 as I already pointed out, politically mid-terms in both the US and UK are a chance to protest the government of the day
Let's be quite clear - the only difference between a presidential election and mid-terms is that POTUS is not on the ballot. Otherwise they are identical. Mid-term turnout is much lower. They are NOT like local council elections in the UK. We have those too. In fact we had them last week, much to my surprise. There is no UK equivalent to the mid-terms.
BBC saying 18 dead. What's up with France and terrorism.
They have a long history in the middle east and north africa, they have a greater percentage of people from their ex-colonies and they are in an economic stagnation since the euro was created.
Bit of a coincidence that this happened on the same day that Jihadi John was killed.
Nah this in response to french warplanes attacking isis in september. This took a bit of planning.
Comments
Yes 'we' did want to get involved before ISIS was a significant power in the region, against Assad, and it failed to convince Britain's parliament, and as a knock on effect, was never carried through in the States. ISIS provided the opportunity to bung that effort in the microwave and give it another airing.
Entertained by your notion that the US didn't care much about Assad before he 'used chemical weapons'. Not enough to actually dignify it with a response though.
CCS also has a large energy penalty, meaning the plants using it are less efficient.
In fact, this trend applies across the Western world. Left wing parties depend on students, ethnic minorities, people in artistic professions, public sector workers, university workers, and the poor. Right wing parties depend on the rest.
@Omnium
Yes the wind always blows, somewhere. However, there are times in the UK when over most of the country the air is still, or as close to it as makes no difference. Those periods can last for days at a time. What happens then if we are reliant on wind to generate electricity?
Hillary is not a shoe in if she leads Trump by 2 in Pennsylvania, by 1 in Ohio and tied in Michigan, those states are big in the electoral college.
Nicola Sturgeon has admitted that the SNP overestimated its North Sea oil projections for independence.
I'll try to find it. In the meantime, here's a piece on the oversupply aspect: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/windpower/11323685/Wind-farms-paid-1m-a-week-to-switch-off.html
Justin Trudeau has just won a landslide victory in Canada beating their conservatives, France and Italy have centre left presidents so it depends entirely where you look. You are talking about the centre lefts base (and ignoring the rising ethnic minority population) you could equally make the case conservatives, especially in the US, depend on ageing white males and the left is perfectly capable of winning the rest. Elections are won, as ever, by middle class voters in the suburbs
'SHOPPERS queued in the street to be among the first customers of a new Poundworld store which opened at Newton Aycliffe Shopping Centre on Thursday.'
Shooting incident in the 10th arrondissement of Paris ongoing - there are fatalities and at least seven wounded, say police.
http://www.270towin.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34814203?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central
What makes him think the two are mutually exclusive?
Could the polls be predicting another SNP landslide because people in Scotland have rumbled people like you. Your claims about doom and disaster are totally unfounded eg the Health Service A&E figures are the best in the UK and have been for the last FIVE months running or crime is at a 41 year low. People are long past caring about the Scot Ps of this world or the unionist press who are losing circulation as fast as Labour are losing credibility.
The reality is the SNP are going to win the Scottish elections in a canter as they won the Westminster ones. It must be a great sorry to Scot P that Ruthy Davidson is unknown to most folk in Scpotland and the few who do recognise her don't like her much. Labour are a busted flush and the tax credit Tories are going no-where. It's time to get used to it because that is the way it is going to be.
It's because the police are too incompetent to record crime, such as the M9 debacle
Outside the US, there's this weird belief that the President controls everything.
BBC news
Penn is a very good school, the Wharton School of Business even more so.
Say what you like about Trump and his utterances - and frankly they are getting tedious - he is a very intelligent and clever man. Wharton don't take no dummies. His business success speaks for itself.
Germany playing France apparently.
- pedant who was in remission.
But don't take my word for it, see the Cook Report:
http://cookpolitical.com/story/5776
In case you don't know, Charlie Cook is (along with Stuart Rothenberg and Larry Sabato) one of the three top independent political commentators.
And here is another from Rothenberg
http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/a-traditional-midterm-headache-for-democrats/
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/665282387840999424
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-34810806
Just in time for winter. We are ruled by pygmies.
Do they find it easier to keep warm?
Harder. They have a higher surface area to mass ratio and so lose heat more quickly...
...sorry I thought you were being serious for a moment :-)
I am of course now wiser.
No, just better informed.
who rattled your cage? That time of the month?
I apologise, Mr. Cide, your comment, "I am now wiser" was just too tempting. No offence meant.
The whole post was jokey and not meant as fodder for a pedant
Oh, dear. The "wiser no just better informed" line was itself a joke (A.P. Herbert, I think, circa 1930), and I have apologised. However, if you insist on taking offence where none was meant I can't help you.
Surely the taking of offence has nothing to do with a judgment of the intention of the giver of offence. I was certainly not looking for help nor can I help you if you're incapable of realising when you're likely to give offence.
I made a joke, you took offence. I have apologised. You won't accept my apology. So can I suggest you go .... yourself.
I quite realise why a pompous prat like you would expect that an apology, however given, makes everything alright.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKEk1YCOz8Q
'OMG. 18 dead... I feel so sorry for the French.'
Must be getting near the tipping point in France, how long should the citizens of any city put up with this?
If you can't accept an apology honestly given and sincerely meant over the reuse of an old joke at not even your expense, then maybe you should look at yourself rather than call the person who has apologised a pompous prat.
21:34
'Several dead' at Stade de France
Several grenade explosions reportedly went off at Stade de France at France vs Germany match with BFMTV citing “several dead”.
It remains to be seen whether that was indicative of split voting, was a personal vote for Obama or has real significance for 2016.
'BBC saying 18 dead. What's up with France and terrorism'
The European country with the largest Muslim population.
Particularly a coordinated attack.
This took a bit of planning.
U.K yet to be targeted fot today, unfortunatley.