Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
For the love of god I am NOT a he. I am a SHE.
Yeah, so you say.
Yeah, and you've in the past claimed that the right have been the barons of equality all along, and have been playing a joke on the Left, and I'm supposed to believe that. @watford30 So I need a blatantly feminine username in order for you to identify as a woman? How about just not seeing PBers as defaulty male all the time? After all, the right's all about equality/tolerance these days....
Should 16-year-olds get a referendum vote? YES 82% NO 18%
If the morning after the night before is never a good look, the morning after the day before is even worse. Fed up, lacklustre and sleep-deprived didn’t begin to cover how wretched Jeremy Corbyn looked: just about everything that could go wrong for the man who had never really wanted the top job in the first place had gone wrong in the past 24 hours. That much of the trouble was of his own making only added to the sense of despair.
When you’re in the middle of an existential crisis, the last thing you need is another outing under the spotlight, but the Labour leader had no choice but to return to the Commons for the weekly bunfight of prime minister’s questions. As he took his place on the front bench, Jezza looked a man diminished, as if the beating he has received had taken it out of him physically as well as mentally.
He's quickly heading for 'Sit down man you're a tragedy' territory. And ripping the party to pieces over unilateralism, that most members (even his supporters) don't care about and which the unions oppose, is just insane. Looking forward to my latest update from planet NPexMP
Jeremey Corbyn @jeremeycorbyn 8h8 hours ago Sarah of Skegness would like to know "how many hours away is the Labour Party from complete meltdown?" #PMQs
My point is that the concept of Christianity (and any other stupid supernatural belief) is as equally ridiculous as Islam. Christianity is actually more ridiculous because Christianity believes that Jesus was the biological child of a supernatural god; the virgin birth and all that. At least Mohammed was a human entity- slightly more rational IMO. FFS- when I was a kid, I used to say prayers to the father, the son and the holy ghost- weird shit.
My point is until we can all actually say that religion of any kind is stupid- it leads to stupid divisions, it leads to people doing stupid things, it leads to stupid feelings of superiority and inferiority. It leads to horrible brainwashing and erratic behaviours.
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
Regarding the doctrine about global jihad, ISIS, Mohammed etc.. can we at least put that into some context, and say that any supernatural faith, whether it be Islam, christianity, paganism, scientology, father christmas, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny are all as utterly ludicrous as the other and anyone believing in such is stupid.
Or are there people around who are happy to come out and say that their supernatural belief is right and the others are stupid?
What do you believe in, o wise one?
My point is until we can all actually say that religion of any kind is stupid- it leads to stupid divisions, it leads to people doing stupid things, it leads to stupid feelings of superiority and inferiority. It leads to horrible brainwashing and erratic behaviours.
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
That Channel4 spat is the new definition of car crash telly.
Couldn't bear to watch it. Was Livingstone sober?
An "apology" turned into an even bigger row. I think if they had been in the same studio there would have been blows, especially when Red Ken tried to justify his comments by saying he was offended by what Kevan Jones had said (which was basically nowt).
If the morning after the night before is never a good look, the morning after the day before is even worse. Fed up, lacklustre and sleep-deprived didn’t begin to cover how wretched Jeremy Corbyn looked: just about everything that could go wrong for the man who had never really wanted the top job in the first place had gone wrong in the past 24 hours. That much of the trouble was of his own making only added to the sense of despair.
When you’re in the middle of an existential crisis, the last thing you need is another outing under the spotlight, but the Labour leader had no choice but to return to the Commons for the weekly bunfight of prime minister’s questions. As he took his place on the front bench, Jezza looked a man diminished, as if the beating he has received had taken it out of him physically as well as mentally.
He's quickly heading for 'Sit down man you're a tragedy' territory. And ripping the party to pieces over unilateralism, that most members (even his supporters) don't care about and which the unions oppose, is just insane. Looking forward to my latest update from planet NPexMP
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
If you have taxable income when you're born, you're taxed on it. Checking on girls, they need parental consent to join at under 18.
Belgian authorities seem rather confident that terrorist, mastermind, Jihadi minor legend and all round Bond level villian, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, is dead.
The French have yet to confirm.
What though has the sudden burst of activity come from that resulted in a series of actions in Germany, Belgium and France in the space of about 12 or so hours? The raid in St Denis in particular, thats a lot of people on one location to arrest/kill given the situation. Either someone forgot their terrorist tradecraft or people were readying to commit some kind of act.
Critically, very good source of information has emerged. Singular.
Wonder what the plod will make of the owner of the apartment trying to claim with a straight face that he just let some friends of friends come over and stay. That would be 8 Jahadi's complete with explosives and 5000+ rounds of ammunition...oh and the guys flat had reinforced security doors. You know as you do...
I know near neighbours in Belfast who used to have regular wood doors with security roller shutter doors behind them and if their excuses were anything to go by it'd just be a variation on a theme.
Protection against racist attacks would be a good one.
On a side note, if you think the press are kicking the shins of John McDonnell, there is a lot more about that guy that might just see the light of day. It will finish him in the eyes of all but the most zealous of leftists if it does.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
For the love of god I am NOT a he. I am a SHE.
Yeah, so you say.
Yeah, and you've in the past claimed that the right have been the barons of equality all along, and have been playing a joke on the Left, and I'm supposed to believe that. @watford30 So I need a blatantly feminine username in order for you to identify as a woman? How about just not seeing PBers as defaulty male all the time? After all, the right's all about equality/tolerance these days....
Should 16-year-olds get a referendum vote? YES 82% NO 18%
I'm actually shocked at those figures. Do you know what poll they came from?
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
For the love of god I am NOT a he. I am a SHE.
Yeah, so you say.
Yeah, and you've in the past claimed that the right have been the barons of equality all along, and have been playing a joke on the Left, and I'm supposed to believe that. @watford30 So I need a blatantly feminine username in order for you to identify me as a woman? How about just not seeing PBers as by default male all the time? After all, the right's all about equality/tolerance these days....
The ability to take a joke really does help on here, The_Apocalypse
I can take a joke, I just didn't find that one particularly funny, tbh.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Voyagers are already configured to carry passengers under the air tanker contract. When they're not refuelling, the aircraft are used for military transport and are fitted with self defence equipment for that role. It's a complete non story whipped into something it isn't by frothing Kippers.
If the morning after the night before is never a good look, the morning after the day before is even worse. Fed up, lacklustre and sleep-deprived didn’t begin to cover how wretched Jeremy Corbyn looked: just about everything that could go wrong for the man who had never really wanted the top job in the first place had gone wrong in the past 24 hours. That much of the trouble was of his own making only added to the sense of despair.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
You think 16 years olds can understand complex political matters. Well it's a POV, I suppose. Mind you there are 66 year olds who can't, as we are seeing.
That wasn't the basis for you saying that they should get the vote though, was it. It was based o the fact that they would have to live longest with the consequences. Should that principle be extended elsewhere in relation to the franchise?
If mental maturity and capability are the basis for granting the vote, how is this to be measured? Should those who don't have it not get the vote?
On your second point; well I never claimed it was the basis for saying they should get the vote. It was in response to criticism made of my argument, in regards to how far you should take the franchise if you are assessing it on long-term impact. Ergo, I replied that obviously you have to balance this with the ability of a vote to actually understand how decisions will affect them, complex political matters etc. While a 16 year olds certainly can in my experience, those younger generally can't; and that's why the franchise should not be extended to those group. As for your third point; well surely part the basis of granting the vote is mental maturity and capability. After all, there is a reason why we deem those 18+ as those who can pay mortgages, get married (without parental permission) and so on. It's not for nothing. It's because we believe they have the mental maturity and capability to make those decisions. Likewise with voting.
If you have no comprehension of grammar then I think that calls into question your ability to judge complex issues like understanding those that surround determining a suitable age of responsibility.
Corbyn is funny, but in an incredibly sad way. He's pretty much making a mockery of the Labour party right now. We may as well not have an opposition.
Look on the bright side. You have many more years ahead of you to live in a better time for the left leaning party. May take 10 years but, that will fly past.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
Again - girls need parental consent to join army under 18
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
Join yes, fight no. It's not difficult, why do people not understand this, it gets explained often enough.
I didn't say they could fight though. I said join.
My point is that the concept of Christianity (and any other stupid supernatural belief) is as equally ridiculous as Islam. Christianity is actually more ridiculous because Christianity believes that Jesus was the biological child of a supernatural god; the virgin birth and all that. At least Mohammed was a human entity- slightly more rational IMO. FFS- when I was a kid, I used to say prayers to the father, the son and the holy ghost- weird shit.
My point is until we can all actually say that religion of any kind is stupid- it leads to stupid divisions, it leads to people doing stupid things, it leads to stupid feelings of superiority and inferiority. It leads to horrible brainwashing and erratic behaviours.
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
Regarding the doctrine about global jihad, ISIS, Mohammed etc.. can we at least put that into some context, and say that any supernatural faith, whether it be Islam, christianity, paganism, scientology, father christmas, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny are all as utterly ludicrous as the other and anyone believing in such is stupid.
Or are there people around who are happy to come out and say that their supernatural belief is right and the others are stupid?
What do you believe in, o wise one?
My point is until we can all actually say that religion of any kind is stupid- it leads to stupid divisions, it leads to people doing stupid things, it leads to stupid feelings of superiority and inferiority. It leads to horrible brainwashing and erratic behaviours.
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
In my opinion it is really bad. Some big name people have been mentioned. I doubt the truth will ever emerge though...
Is it as bad a Ken Livingstone openly mocking someone for being 'mentally ill' across a number of national broadcast media sources today? Because that's the new benchmark for bullying in politics.
My real frustration, as a Lib Dem hoping for change, was that there was no real debate on the function of the Lords. It just went straight on to composition, and no surprise it floundered. Big strategic mistake, this was a once in a generation opportunity, and the Lib Dems (and reformers from other parties) weren't up to it when the chance came.
This was exactly the reason that the AV ref failed too.
In my opinion it is really bad. Some big name people have been mentioned. I doubt the truth will ever emerge though...
Is it as bad a Ken Livingstone openly mocking someone for being 'mentally ill' across a number of national broadcast media sources today? Because that's the new benchmark for bullying in politics.
Two parties. Allegations of harrassment about one chap. Conservatives = Booted out with a permanent ban. Lib Dems = Backed for a slot on its ruling body.
I do remember the Conservatives under Major defining the political adjective 'beleaguered'. I remember the general sense of uselessness under IDS. Perhaps I've selectively erased the worst of the memories but really, was it ever as bad as Labour under Corbyn is now?
And Corbyn's only two months in. Four and a half years to go.
On topic. Obviously this has been voted through on the expectation that the young are more likely to vote remain and is symptomatic of the Europhiles being dragged hissing and spitting to the ballot box. May I just mention one measure of maturity additional to the usual already referred to and relevant to the Conservative and Liberal Democratic parties (the then parties of govt). The police are to regard persons under 17 when arrested as juvenile needing the presence of an adult preferably a parent. Persons over 17 are to be treated as adult. Or rather that was the situation until the government 2010 - 2015 changed it (following public campaign). The Conservative and Liberal Democrats then directed that persons under 18 are to be regarded as juvenile and only over 18s are to be regarded as adult.
My point is that they can join the army. I thought that was evident. They need parental permission
And? That wasn't something I denied either. and are deemed not mature enough to carry out the roles that an 18 year old can. Which pretty much says 18 is the age of maturity. Again; I've never said 18 years old isn't the age of maturity in regard to the law. I said that 16 and 17 year olds can be mentally mature and understand how decisions affect them. That sixteen and seventeen year olds can begin making important decisions (yes, with parental permission but even so) recognises this coming of age into maturity. Otherwise, these kinds of decisions would not at all be available to this age group.
Stop digging, you only make yourself look more foolish
That's not fair, in all likelihood Cameron's been told it is necessary. The cost saving argument makes no sense if the aircraft will have defensive systems like infrared countermeasures added. Somebody is probably seriously concerned that groups like ISIS are talking about taking shots at the aircraft carrying the PM and other British VIPs.
Voyagers are already configured to carry passengers under the air tanker contract. When they're not refuelling, the aircraft are used for military transport and are fitted with self defence equipment for that role. It's a complete non story whipped into something it isn't by frothing Kippers.
The MoD hide all this secret information in plain sight on the web.
Two parties. Allegations of harrassment about one chap. Conservatives = Booted out with a permanent ban. Lib Dems = Backed for a slot on its ruling body.
What I want to know is what happened to all those complaints being made to CCHQ which they now have no record of.
My point is that the concept of Christianity (and any other stupid supernatural belief) is as equally ridiculous as Islam. Christianity is actually more ridiculous because Christianity believes that Jesus was the biological child of a supernatural god; the virgin birth and all that. At least Mohammed was a human entity- slightly more rational IMO. FFS- when I was a kid, I used to say prayers to the father, the son and the holy ghost- weird shit.
My point is until we can all actually say that religion of any kind is stupid- it leads to stupid divisions, it leads to people doing stupid things, it leads to stupid feelings of superiority and inferiority. It leads to horrible brainwashing and erratic behaviours.
Until then, we have to put up with these ridiculous people doing stupid things.
Regarding the doctrine about global jihad, ISIS, Mohammed etc.. can we at least put that into some context, and say that any supernatural faith, whether it be Islam, christianity, paganism, scientology, father christmas, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny are all as utterly ludicrous as the other and anyone believing in such is stupid.
Or are there people around who are happy to come out and say that their supernatural belief is right and the others are stupid?
What do you believe in, o wise one?
I'm with you. All religion is shit, always has been , always will be.
Again Mr Livingstone reminds us of the sort of man he is.
An irrelevant, bitter, yesterday's man.
Corbyn and Livingstone are both products of the 1970s in their politics, their behaviour and mind-set – the world has moved on and they are as out of place in it as a Goblin’s tea maid.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
For the love of god I am NOT a he. I am a SHE.
Yeah, so you say.
Yeah, and you've in the past claimed that the right have been the barons of equality all along, and have been playing a joke on the Left, and I'm supposed to believe that. @watford30 So I need a blatantly feminine username in order for you to identify me as a woman? How about just not seeing PBers as by default male all the time? After all, the right's all about equality/tolerance these days....
With an asexual monicker would you be happy with "it"?
My point is that they can join the army. I thought that was evident. They need parental permission
And? That wasn't something I denied either. and are deemed not mature enough to carry out the roles that an 18 year old can. Which pretty much says 18 is the age of maturity.
Again; I've never said 18 years old isn't the age of maturity in regard to the law. I said that 16 and 17 year olds can be mentally mature and understand how decisions affect them. That sixteen and seventeen year olds can begin making important decisions (yes, with parental permission but even so) recognises this coming of age into maturity. Otherwise, these kinds of decisions would not at all be available to this age group.
Stop digging, you only make yourself look more foolish
And from flightpath..... It's a gormless idea to allow 16 year olds the vote. Anyone pretending otherwise is a pillock. The Lords should be abolished.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
Again - girls need parental consent to join army under 18
At 16 girls are considered old enough to have sex, give birth and raise their babies. They do not need parental permission for any of it. If they are old enough to do that they are old enough to vote.
I do remember the Conservatives under Major defining the political adjective 'beleaguered'. I remember the general sense of uselessness under IDS. Perhaps I've selectively erased the worst of the memories but really, was it ever as bad as Labour under Corbyn is now?
And Corbyn's only two months in. Four and a half years to go.
No, it was never this bad. But compared to Corbyn IDS was Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill and Nelson Mandela rolled into one.
But NickP and 250,000 other Labour members chose this for their party. They were warned, but went for Jezza anyway. So presumably they are getting exactly what they wanted.
I guess it's time for Mcdonnell to take his turn in the news cycle soon in the corbynista newsgrid, what with jezza, Diane and Ken taking the lead so far this week? Or perhaps young Burgon should be given another outing, I know he's busy but it's good to blood the youngsters...
@ReggieCide On an online political form, I've only thought about getting my ideas/views across in a coherent way. If you're interested in a grammatically correct thesis, check my uni essays. On the army situation, I'm not wrong; girls can join the army. Needing parental consent still means you can join the army. And as for 'looking foolish', tbqh, given your diatribes at me in recently, I don't really think I could care less if whatever you thought of me. @SouthamObserver, good point.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
They can join with parental permission at 16, they can't fight until 18. What does that have to do with your argument?
He seems to be backing up the claim that 16 year olds aren't yet mature, since they're not allowed to fight and need parental permission to join up.
For the love of god I am NOT a he. I am a SHE.
Yeah, so you say.
Yeah, and you've in the past claimed that the right have been the barons of equality all along, and have been playing a joke on the Left, and I'm supposed to believe that. @watford30 So I need a blatantly feminine username in order for you to identify me as a woman? How about just not seeing PBers as by default male all the time? After all, the right's all about equality/tolerance these days....
With an asexual monicker would you be happy with "it"?
WOMEN
On PB, be feminine or be objects
I should add, for clarity, that this is criticial satire of male presumption and not a directive
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
Again - girls need parental consent to join army under 18
At 16 girls are considered old enough to have sex, give birth and raise their babies. They do not need parental permission for any of it. If they are old enough to do that they are old enough to vote.
But not smoke, drink, watch or appear in pornography, watch 18 rated films, why not?
I see the very strong possibility that Cameron will be forced to accept the fact of a UN resolution even if he doesn't like it, the French are by-passing him and are going to table one with the support of the americans and the russians. Cameron will get stuck between accepting the UN or vetoing an anti-ISIS resolution by France, he will of course be forced to let it pass.
Once a UN resolution passes Corbyn and the MP's will be on board and Cameron would not be able to milk the issue for political reasons anymore.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
Again - girls need parental consent to join army under 18
At 16 girls are considered old enough to have sex, give birth and raise their babies. They do not need parental permission for any of it. If they are old enough to do that they are old enough to vote.
But not smoke, drink, watch or appear in pornography, watch 18 rated films, why not?
No idea. But there is no greater responsibility than raising a child. If we believe 16 year olds can do that then they are old enough to vote.
I don't think the HoL has been criticised on this site anywhere near as much in the past.
Of course not. It hasn't been acting so irresponsibly in the past.
But your definition of "acting irresponsibly" is "doing things that I personally don't like".
In reality, the Lords has caused trouble for many governments in the past, quite rightly. Did you object when they blocked the 42-day detention proposal by the last Labour government, for example?
You seem a bit confused. The 42- (and before that 90-) day detention was the government trying to introduce something new (and not in the manifesto). Of course it was proper for the upper house to say, hang on, what are you doing here?
The proposal to give votes to children is about the Lords trying to introduce something new.
I do remember the Conservatives under Major defining the political adjective 'beleaguered'. I remember the general sense of uselessness under IDS. Perhaps I've selectively erased the worst of the memories but really, was it ever as bad as Labour under Corbyn is now?
And Corbyn's only two months in. Four and a half years to go.
No, it was never this bad. But compared to Corbyn IDS was Martin Luther King, Winston Churchill and Nelson Mandela rolled into one.
But NickP and 250,000 other Labour members chose this for their party. They were warned, but went for Jezza anyway. So presumably they are getting exactly what they wanted.
You have to remember (and it was pointed out in the campaign) that a very large proportion of his voters weren't around in the 1980s and therefore the 'it'll be like going back to the 1980s' line didn't have any traction. No excuses though for those who do remember the 1980s and had seen Corbyn in action at close hand.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
Again - girls need parental consent to join army under 18
At 16 girls are considered old enough to have sex, give birth and raise their babies. They do not need parental permission for any of it. If they are old enough to do that they are old enough to vote.
An interesting definition of what constitutes a demonstration of personal responsibility.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
Again - girls need parental consent to join army under 18
At 16 girls are considered old enough to have sex, give birth and raise their babies. They do not need parental permission for any of it. If they are old enough to do that they are old enough to vote.
But not smoke, drink, watch or appear in pornography, watch 18 rated films, why not?
ISTR reading a remark by one young actor that she was old enough to make a particular film but not old enough to go & see it.
@ReggieCide On an online political form, I've only thought about getting my ideas/views across in a coherent way. If you're interested in a grammatically correct thesis, check my uni essays. On the army situation, I'm not wrong; girls can join the army. Needing parental consent still means you can join the army. And as for 'looking foolish', tbqh, given your diatribes at me in recently, I don't really think I could care less if whatever you thought of me. @SouthamObserver, good point.
The grammar on the particular post made it virtually intelligible. If your "uni" essays are of the same standard then, in the spirit of being helpful, I would suggest that you try harder.
In today's polls Carson's fall varies from region to region with the N.East the greatest but it has benefited all candidates a little, they haven't gone to anyone in particular. As a result Trump's lead is much higher even though he doesn't rise that much.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
Again - girls need parental consent to join army under 18
At 16 girls are considered old enough to have sex, give birth and raise their babies. They do not need parental permission for any of it. If they are old enough to do that they are old enough to vote.
But not smoke, drink, watch or appear in pornography, watch 18 rated films, why not?
No idea. But there is no greater responsibility than raising a child. If we believe 16 year olds can do that then they are old enough to vote.
You think the purpose of the sex in your example is to procreate? A few years back it used to sometimes be for procreation, thus getting you a council house. I'm not sure that that still applies.
@ReggieCide On an online political form, I've only thought about getting my ideas/views across in a coherent way. If you're interested in a grammatically correct thesis, check my uni essays. On the army situation, I'm not wrong; girls can join the army. Needing parental consent still means you can join the army. And as for 'looking foolish', tbqh, given your diatribes at me in recently, I don't really think I could care less if whatever you thought of me. @SouthamObserver, good point.
The grammar on the particular post made it virtually intelligible. If your "uni" essays are of the same standard then, in the spirit of being helpful, I would suggest that you try harder.
This is why it's always foolish to criticise someone else's grammar/spelling on an internet message board.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
Again - girls need parental consent to join army under 18
At 16 girls are considered old enough to have sex, give birth and raise their babies. They do not need parental permission for any of it. If they are old enough to do that they are old enough to vote.
As to the giving birth & raising babies, 16 & 17 year olds are pretty carefully monitored, in my (admittedly limited) experience.
@ReggieCide On an online political form, I've only thought about getting my ideas/views across in a coherent way. If you're interested in a grammatically correct thesis, check my uni essays. On the army situation, I'm not wrong; girls can join the army. Needing parental consent still means you can join the army. And as for 'looking foolish', tbqh, given your diatribes at me in recently, I don't really think I could care less if whatever you thought of me. @SouthamObserver, good point.
The grammar on the particular post made it virtually intelligible. If your "uni" essays are of the same standard then, in the spirit of being helpful, I would suggest that you try harder.
That I'm in my third year now, should give you an answer in regard to the standard of my essays, and whether they are intelligible or not.
If the argument is that 16 should be the age of majority, then let's debate it. Are we agreed that 16 year olds can become prostitutes and take part in pornographic films? Fight on the front line? Marry without parental consent? Buy and sell land? Serve on juries? Act as company directors and trustees? Buy alcohol and cigarettes? Drive?
Bizarrely, in one of those wonderful anomalies that makes you proud to be British, 16 year olds can be company directors. In fact, until the 2006 Companies Act, even younger children could be.
There is some legal doubt, however, as to whether a company director under the age of 18 can commit the company to a contract, which he or she couldn't do as an individual on his or her own behalf.
Rubio doing worse in Nevada than Trump against Hillary? That place is supposedly full of mexicans, however Rubio is cuban so he's not very popular with those.
@ReggieCide On an online political form, I've only thought about getting my ideas/views across in a coherent way. If you're interested in a grammatically correct thesis, check my uni essays. On the army situation, I'm not wrong; girls can join the army. Needing parental consent still means you can join the army. And as for 'looking foolish', tbqh, given your diatribes at me in recently, I don't really think I could care less if whatever you thought of me. @SouthamObserver, good point.
The grammar on the particular post made it virtually intelligible. If your "uni" essays are of the same standard then, in the spirit of being helpful, I would suggest that you try harder.
This is why it's always foolish to criticise someone else's grammar/spelling on an internet message board.
Unless it's for fun. I'm sorry grammar nerds, but it can be too amusing not to troll you, particularly with the small, fairly inconsequential rules.
Rubio doing worse in Nevada than Trump against Hillary? That place is supposedly full of mexicans, however Rubio is cuban so he's not very popular with those.
Indeed, though Trump International Hotel is in Vegas don't forget
@ReggieCide On an online political form, I've only thought about getting my ideas/views across in a coherent way. If you're interested in a grammatically correct thesis, check my uni essays. On the army situation, I'm not wrong; girls can join the army. Needing parental consent still means you can join the army. And as for 'looking foolish', tbqh, given your diatribes at me in recently, I don't really think I could care less if whatever you thought of me. @SouthamObserver, good point.
The grammar on the particular post made it virtually intelligible. If your "uni" essays are of the same standard then, in the spirit of being helpful, I would suggest that you try harder.
This is why it's always foolish to criticise someone else's grammar/spelling on an internet message board.
I'm happy to take the point given my intention. Had I been inclined I might have tried to argue that "virtually intelligible" meant "nearly intelligible" which is probably not as bad as "virtually unintelligible" but certainly not "intelligible". Again I'm happy to admit an error, unlike some.
Rubio doing worse in Nevada than Trump against Hillary? That place is supposedly full of mexicans, however Rubio is cuban so he's not very popular with those.
Indeed, though Trump International Hotel is in Vegas don't forget
Local factors of course, Trump is also a casino magnate and Nevada is just Reno and Las Vegas, so ok that might explain why he's the only republican beating Hillary there.
In today's polls Carson's fall varies from region to region with the N.East the greatest but it has benefited all candidates a little, they haven't gone to anyone in particular. As a result Trump's lead is much higher even though he doesn't rise that much.
Indeed, Carson, Cruz and Rubio all close together now, with Bush a little back from them
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
Again - girls need parental consent to join army under 18
At 16 girls are considered old enough to have sex, give birth and raise their babies. They do not need parental permission for any of it. If they are old enough to do that they are old enough to vote.
But not smoke, drink, watch or appear in pornography, watch 18 rated films, why not?
No idea. But there is no greater responsibility than raising a child. If we believe 16 year olds can do that then they are old enough to vote.
You think the purpose of the sex in your example is to procreate? A few years back it used to sometimes be for procreation, thus getting you a council house. I'm not sure that that still applies.
No, I think that people considered legally old enough to create human life and to take full responsibility for raising a child are old enough to vote.
Yes, but obviously you have to balance it with mental maturity and capability to understand complex political matters. That's why is understandable to want to allow 16-17 year olds to vote in the EU ref, because they can understand complex political matters, and why it's not understandable to want, say a nine year old to have the vote, as obviously they will be unable to do this.
Only adults should be allowed to vote. If 16 and 17 year olds are given the vote they should also be allowed to drink, smoke, gamble, etc. They are clearly not mature enough to do any of those things.
Mature enough to join the army, though.
What makes voting more like joining the army than being sent to the front line? Or indeed vice versa?
These sorts of comparisons can only go so far.
I have more sympathy for "well I pay NI at 16" - but is tax not just one sort of effect the government of the day could have?
A 12 year old feels the effect of plenty of legislation.
I didn't claim voting was like joining the army, though. Just that if we say 16 year olds' can't drink/smoke as a reason for saying they can't vote, then we can equally counter that in that they can join the army. As for your point; I've already addressed that point in two previous posts within this thread.
Again - girls need parental consent to join army under 18
At 16 girls are considered old enough to have sex, give birth and raise their babies. They do not need parental permission for any of it. If they are old enough to do that they are old enough to vote.
But not smoke, drink, watch or appear in pornography, watch 18 rated films, why not?
No idea. But there is no greater responsibility than raising a child. If we believe 16 year olds can do that then they are old enough to vote.
You think the purpose of the sex in your example is to procreate? A few years back it used to sometimes be for procreation, thus getting you a council house. I'm not sure that that still applies.
No, I think that people considered legally old enough to create human life and to take full responsibility for raising a child are old enough to vote.
Thats a fair position - but would you also agree that its the job of the democratically elected house to change the franchise?
@ReggieCide On an online political form, I've only thought about getting my ideas/views across in a coherent way. If you're interested in a grammatically correct thesis, check my uni essays. On the army situation, I'm not wrong; girls can join the army. Needing parental consent still means you can join the army. And as for 'looking foolish', tbqh, given your diatribes at me in recently, I don't really think I could care less if whatever you thought of me. @SouthamObserver, good point.
The grammar on the particular post made it virtually intelligible. If your "uni" essays are of the same standard then, in the spirit of being helpful, I would suggest that you try harder.
That I'm in my third year now, should give you an answer in regard to the standard of my essays, and whether they are intelligible or not.
Well, that depends on whether you're on a reasonably decent course at a good university, or one of the rebadged ones that was formerly something hopeless such as the 'Spunkbridge College of Metalwork'.
@ReggieCide On an online political form, I've only thought about getting my ideas/views across in a coherent way. If you're interested in a grammatically correct thesis, check my uni essays. On the army situation, I'm not wrong; girls can join the army. Needing parental consent still means you can join the army. And as for 'looking foolish', tbqh, given your diatribes at me in recently, I don't really think I could care less if whatever you thought of me. @SouthamObserver, good point.
The grammar on the particular post made it virtually intelligible. If your "uni" essays are of the same standard then, in the spirit of being helpful, I would suggest that you try harder.
This is why it's always foolish to criticise someone else's grammar/spelling on an internet message board.
I'm happy to take the point given my intention. Had I been inclined I might have tried to argue that "virtually intelligible" meant "nearly intelligible" which is probably not as bad as "virtually unintelligible" but certainly not "intelligible". Again I'm happy to admit an error, unlike some.
Surely it's "so inclined" or "inclined to do so". And you don't need the tried, so: "Had I been so inclined I might have argued that ... " And "meant" should actually be "means".
Rubio doing worse in Nevada than Trump against Hillary? That place is supposedly full of mexicans, however Rubio is cuban so he's not very popular with those.
Indeed, though Trump International Hotel is in Vegas don't forget
Local factors of course, Trump is also a casino magnate and Nevada is just Reno and Las Vegas, so ok that might explain why he's the only republican beating Hillary there.
Comments
YES 82%
NO 18%
He's quickly heading for 'Sit down man you're a tragedy' territory. And ripping the party to pieces over unilateralism, that most members (even his supporters) don't care about and which the unions oppose, is just insane. Looking forward to my latest update from planet NPexMP
Sarah of Skegness would like to know "how many hours away is the Labour Party from complete meltdown?" #PMQs
And on that high note I am off to bed
Again Mr Livingstone reminds us of the sort of man he is.
For clarity I don't really like our way of life, hence I'm not keen on protecting it.
It's ever more obvious why he's Ex MP times 2.
Protection against racist attacks would be a good one.
On a side note, if you think the press are kicking the shins of John McDonnell, there is a lot more about that guy that might just see the light of day. It will finish him in the eyes of all but the most zealous of leftists if it does.
4 years of this could put him in an early grave. I can see him standing down soon.
Here comes Red Ken again on Newsnight.
Allegations of harrassment about one chap.
Conservatives = Booted out with a permanent ban.
Lib Dems = Backed for a slot on its ruling body.
And Corbyn's only two months in. Four and a half years to go.
Oh and he has been caught out lying.
and are deemed not mature enough to carry out the roles that an 18 year old can. Which pretty much says 18 is the age of maturity.
Again; I've never said 18 years old isn't the age of maturity in regard to the law. I said that 16 and 17 year olds can be mentally mature and understand how decisions affect them. That sixteen and seventeen year olds can begin making important decisions (yes, with parental permission but even so) recognises this coming of age into maturity. Otherwise, these kinds of decisions would not at all be available to this age group.
Stop digging, you only make yourself look more foolish
Stop digging, you only make yourself look more foolish
And from flightpath..... It's a gormless idea to allow 16 year olds the vote. Anyone pretending otherwise is a pillock. The Lords should be abolished.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/667079922784083969
But NickP and 250,000 other Labour members chose this for their party. They were warned, but went for Jezza anyway. So presumably they are getting exactly what they wanted.
On an online political form, I've only thought about getting my ideas/views across in a coherent way. If you're interested in a grammatically correct thesis, check my uni essays. On the army situation, I'm not wrong; girls can join the army. Needing parental consent still means you can join the army. And as for 'looking foolish', tbqh, given your diatribes at me in recently, I don't really think I could care less if whatever you thought of me. @SouthamObserver, good point.
On PB, be feminine or be objects
I should add, for clarity, that this is criticial satire of male presumption and not a directive
Cameron will get stuck between accepting the UN or vetoing an anti-ISIS resolution by France, he will of course be forced to let it pass.
Once a UN resolution passes Corbyn and the MP's will be on board and Cameron would not be able to milk the issue for political reasons anymore.
The proposal to give votes to children is about the Lords trying to introduce something new.
Surely it's not hard to see the difference?
Iowa
Trump 29%
Carson 17%
Rubio 12%
Cruz 9%
Bush 9%
New Hampshire
Trump 33%
Carson 15%
Rubio 9%
Cruz 9%
Bush 5%
Nevada
Trump 38%
Carson 18%
Rubio 12%
Cruz 7%
Bush 6%
South Carolina
Trump 27%
Carson 25%
Rubio 10%
Cruz 10%
Bush 10%
https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/poll-trump-clinton-way-ahead-nevada
I've beaten you though with a N.H poll from Fox:
Fox News PollVerified account @foxnewspoll 21m21 minutes ago
#BREAKING New Hampshire! #2016#GOP #FoxNews#poll
Trump 27
Rubio 13
Cruz 11
Bush&Carson 9
Kasich 7
Christie 6
http://fxn.ws/1H9kHTh
GOP
Trump 27%
Rubio 13%
Cruz 11%
Bush 9%
Carson 9%
Dems
Sanders 45%
Clinton 44%
O'Malley 5%
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/18/fox-news-poll-trump-rules-gop-race-in-new-hampshire-sanders-by-1-over-clinton/
In today's polls Carson's fall varies from region to region with the N.East the greatest but it has benefited all candidates a little, they haven't gone to anyone in particular.
As a result Trump's lead is much higher even though he doesn't rise that much.
Iowa
Clinton 40% Bush 41%
Clinton 40% Carson 46%
Clinton 40% Rubio 43%
Clinton 41% Trump 40%
Nevada
Clinton 44% Bush 38%
Clinton 44% Carson 41%
Clinton 42% Rubio 42%
Clinton 41% Trump 44%
New Hampshire
Clinton 42% Bush 40%
Clinton 43% Carson 41%
Clinton 42% Rubio 40%
Clinton 45% Trump 38%
South Carolina
Clinton 39% Bush 44%
Clinton 37% Carson 48%
Clinton 38% Rubio 46%
Clinton 41% Trump 44%
https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/poll-trump-clinton-way-ahead-nevada
http://www.completeformations.co.uk/companyfaqs/company_director/age_of_a_director.html
There is some legal doubt, however, as to whether a company director under the age of 18 can commit the company to a contract, which he or she couldn't do as an individual on his or her own behalf.
@election_data: Good god no apology. #newsnight
@election_data: I've made my mind up.
Sounds ominous.
That place is supposedly full of mexicans, however Rubio is cuban so he's not very popular with those.
Just 14% agree with Corbyn's position at the weekend on shoot to kill for ISIS terrorists, 7 in 10 disagree (ComRes/D Mail)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/12004437/Conservative-chairman-knew-about-sexual-harassment-allegations-against-senior-aide-MP-claims.html
Iowa
Clinton 55%
Sanders 37%
O'Malley 2%
New Hampshire
Clinton 48%
Sanders 44%
O'Malley 3%
Nevada
Clinton 59%
Sanders 30%
O'Malley 2%
South Carolina
Clinton 64%
Sanders 20%
O'Malley 0%
https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/poll-trump-clinton-way-ahead-nevada
'She's being very silly......'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImQn8UG3JOc
How useful is the Almanac of American Politics vs Google/Wiki?
~£75 is a lot of money...