It's the same here in the Deep South - since the church shooting in Charleston SC there is growing pressure to remove statues of Confederate figures.
Where does such nonsense end? Presumably all of the great benefactors of Oxbridge colleges from centuries past had 'unacceptable' views by today's standards. Do we pull down all the statues and effigies of Henry VII, Henry VIII, various medieval nobles and businessmen?
Presumably their donations should be returned as well...
...
Trinity College, Cambridge?
...
..
..
From memory - and TimT can confirm this - one of the main highways south from DC into Virginia is the Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway.
Its an interesting and moot point. It should come as no surprise that the concept was sponsored by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, nor that there are numerous Jefferson Davis Highways dotted about the south. But it is unclear that it was officially named as such in any northern state.
Davis was of course a United States Secretary of War before the Civil War but the southern states might have been better served by a different president. In the end Davis and his decisions were the architect of his own downfall.
Interesting - Yes. Moot - certainly not.
Georgia and Virginia have much more confederate 'stuff' than the other states, and Georgia suffered more than any other state from the US armies.
There is a growing movement to get rid of confederate monuments etc - there have even been requests to get the carving on Stone Mountain destroyed.
Well moot in the sense that it appears that the Highway referred to outside Washington was never actually officially designated. The southern states will have more Confederate stuff. I think for instance North and South Carolina suffered from the ravages of Shermans armies as well as Georgia. However his campaigns after the fall of Atlanta were marked by few in fact no pitched battles. The South was too weak and Johnson too canny. Shermans biggest handicap was dealing with all the thousands of freed slaves that followed him. As such, loss of life was minimal. Virginia in contrast suffered greatly during the war.
Excellent post by Don Brind with the general theme that,contrary to current thinking on the right,there is an overwhelming call for tribal unification,the main motivation being,instead of red-on-red,the fire needs to be directed at one of least open governments ever whilst it threatens FOI,sneaks through legislation without the proper scrutiny of either the HoC or the HoL,coated with greenwash whilst it fracks the very earth we stand on,attempts to gerrymander its' way to perpetual governance and continues its' pathological attack on poor people,especially those who work via UC cuts. One important feature of high performing tribes is the hatred of a common enemy who are perceived as evil.It's the Tories who are Labour's real enemy,not each other. Jeremy Corbyn's 3 pillars of giving people a greater say,an ethical foreign policy-remember that,and an understanding that the public has had enough of the political choice,rather than the economic necessity,of austerity,provide the basis of that unity and that is what the Tories really fear.
I think it's actually long sentences that really strike fear into Tory hearts. So you're doing your bit.
It's the same here in the Deep South - since the church shooting in Charleston SC there is growing pressure to remove statues of Confederate figures.
I'm a proud alumni of King Henry VIII !
Trinity College, Cambridge?
He means a junior school in Coventry.
Clive will have to go, and Clive Steps renamed. What about Stanford, Carnegie and all the other rail and steel barons?
Not only that Mr. T. but take a tour around central London, how many of the statutes could be allowed to stand? They are mostly of men, and even a few women, very few of whom had values that would be acceptable in polite society today.
If those students at Oxford that feel they are being subject to violence walking past Rhodes they would be black and blue, if not beaten to death, were they be made to walk from the Palace of Westminster, around Parliament Square and up Whitehall to Trafalgar Square.
From memory - and TimT can confirm this - one of the main highways south from DC into Virginia is the Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway.
Its an interesting and moot point. It should come as no surprise that the concept was sponsored by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, nor that there are numerous Jefferson Davis Highways dotted about the south. But it is unclear that it was officially named as such in any northern state.
Davis was of course a United States Secretary of War before the Civil War but the southern states might have been better served by a different president. In the end Davis and his decisions were the architect of his own downfall.
Interesting - Yes. Moot - certainly not.
Georgia and Virginia have much more confederate 'stuff' than the other states, and Georgia suffered more than any other state from the US armies.
There is a growing movement to get rid of confederate monuments etc - there have even been requests to get the carving on Stone Mountain destroyed.
And, as one could very easily predict, it's morphed into a campaign to get rid of any memorial to historical figures whose views are deemed unacceptable today.
Given that these States are solid Red, why not just stick two fingers up t the wankers?
Because they are black, liberal, the NAACP or the Congressional Black Caucus - all of which the media will not touch.
Sorry it's politically incorrect, but it is the case.
It's the same here in the Deep South - since the church shooting in Charleston SC there is growing pressure to remove statues of Confederate figures.
Where does such nonsense end? Presumably all of the great benefactors of Oxbridge colleges from centuries past had 'unacceptable' views by today's standards. Do we pull down all the statues and effigies of Henry VII, Henry VIII, various medieval nobles and businessmen?
Presumably their donations should be returned as well...
I'm a proud alumni of King Henry VIII !
Trinity College, Cambridge?
He means a junior school in Coventry.
Clive will have to go, and Clive Steps renamed. What about Stanford, Carnegie and all the other rail and steel barons?
Not only that Mr. T. but take a tour around central London, how many of the statutes could be allowed to stand? They are mostly of men, and even a few women, very few of whom had values that would be acceptable in polite society today.
If those students at Oxford that feel they are being subject to violence walking past Rhodes they would be black and blue, if not beaten to death, were they be made to walk from the Palace of Westminster, around Parliament Square and up Whitehall to Trafalgar Square.
Quite. You don't build empires with wimps, not even in film.
It's the same here in the Deep South - since the church shooting in Charleston SC there is growing pressure to remove statues of Confederate figures.
I'm a proud alumni of King Henry VIII !
Trinity College, Cambridge?
He means a junior school in Coventry.
Clive will have to go, and Clive Steps renamed. What about Stanford, Carnegie and all the other rail and steel barons?
Not only that Mr. T. but take in polite society today.
If those students at Oxford that feel they are being subject to violence walking past Rhodes they would be black and blue, if not beaten to death, were they be made to walk from the Palace of Westminster, around Parliament Square and up Whitehall to Trafalgar Square.
From memory - and TimT can confirm this - one of the main highways south from DC into Virginia is the Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway.
Its an interesting and moot point. It should come as no surprise that the concept was sponsored by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, nor that there are numerous Jefferson Davis Highways dotted about the south. But it is unclear that it was officially named as such in any northern state.
Davis was of course a United States Secretary of War before the Civil War but the southern states might have been better served by a different president. In the end Davis and his decisions were the architect of his own downfall.
Interesting - Yes. Moot - certainly not.
Georgia and Virginia have much more confederate 'stuff' than the other states, and Georgia suffered more than any other state from the US armies.
There is a growing movement to get rid of confederate monuments etc - there have even been requests to get the carving on Stone Mountain destroyed.
And, as one could very easily predict, it's morphed into a campaign to get rid of any memorial to historical figures whose views are deemed unacceptable today.
Given that these States are solid Red, why not just stick two fingers up t the wankers?
Because they are black, liberal, the NAACP or the Congressional Black Caucus - all of which the media will not touch.
Sorry it's politically incorrect, but it is the case.
But, if you're a Republican representative in a Red State, you can cheerfully ignore them. They'll never vote for you, and you don't need their votes to win. So, tell them to suck it up.
That is the worst reporting of a poll I've ever seen !
Betting wise - get Chris Christie onside, he looks like the potential surger, and has the biggest odds of the top 5 in the betting. Trump's price is still very big, Cruz about right. Rubio/Bush both too short.
In NH at least Christie could be an outside challenger to Trump
It's the same here in the Deep South - since the church shooting in Charleston SC there is growing pressure to remove statues of Confederate figures.
Where does such nonsense end? Presumably all of the great benefactors of Oxbridge colleges from centuries past had 'unacceptable' views by today's standards. Do we pull down all the statues and effigies of Henry VII, Henry VIII, various medieval nobles and businessmen?
Presumably their donations should be returned as well...
...
Trinity College, Cambridge?
...
..
..
From memory - and TimT can confirm this - one of the main highways south from DC into Virginia is the Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway.
Its an interesting and moot point. It should come as no surprise that the concept was sponsored by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, nor that there are numerous Jefferson Davis Highways dotted about the south. But it is unclear that it was officially named as such in any northern state.
Davis was of course a United States Secretary of War before the Civil War but the southern states might have been better served by a different president. In the end Davis and his decisions were the architect of his own downfall.
Interesting - Yes. Moot - certainly not.
Georgia and Virginia have much more confederate 'stuff' than the other states, and Georgia suffered more than any other state from the US armies.
There is a growing movement to get rid of confederate monuments etc - there have even been requests to get the carving on Stone Mountain destroyed.
Well moot in the sense that it appears that the Highway referred to outside Washington was never actually officially designated. The southern states will have more Confederate stuff. I think for instance North and South Carolina suffered from the ravages of Shermans armies as well as Georgia. However his campaigns after the fall of Atlanta were marked by few in fact no pitched battles. The South was too weak and Johnson too canny. Shermans biggest handicap was dealing with all the thousands of freed slaves that followed him. As such, loss of life was minimal. Virginia in contrast suffered greatly during the war.
Virginia did indeed suffer greatly, but Atlanta was destroyed, and Sherman created a swath of destruction 40 miles wide from Atlanta to Savannah.
I've always said that I don't believe that Trump will be the nominee, but it has been getting harder and harder to keep saying it. This makes me feel better.
He still has a clear lead both nationally and in the early states, he may still fall at the final hurdle but time is running out to stop him
I think the Labour Party can best be likened to be undergoing a forest fire at the moment. The Corbynites are busy fanning the flames and the best anyone else can do is try to contain it and then hope it can be regenerated after the fire is put out. The struggle for unity is a chimera. Ultimately the leader and people round him don't want it, they want total control and obescience.
That is the worst reporting of a poll I've ever seen !
Betting wise - get Chris Christie onside, he looks like the potential surger, and has the biggest odds of the top 5 in the betting. Trump's price is still very big, Cruz about right. Rubio/Bush both too short.
In NH at least Christie could be an outside challenger to Trump
Yeah - He looks to be a bit of a surger. There is a whole bunch of 'schooling' going on though. Bush is going to murder Rubio's chances I reckon. I mean Bush won't win, but he'll be a constant drag on what could well be Rubio voters.
It's the same here in the Deep South - since the church shooting in Charleston SC there is growing pressure to remove statues of Confederate figures.
I'm a proud alumni of King Henry VIII !
Trinity College, Cambridge?
He means a junior school in Coventry.
Clive will have to go, and Clive Steps renamed. What about Stanford, Carnegie and all the other rail and steel barons?
Not only that Mr. T. but take in polite society today.
From memory - and TimT can confirm this - one of the main highways south from DC into Virginia is the Jefferson Davis Memorial Highway.
Its an interesting and moot point. It should come as no surprise that the concept was sponsored by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, nor that there are numerous Jefferson Davis Highways dotted about the south. But it is unclear that it was officially named as such in any northern state.
Davis was of course a United States Secretary of War before the Civil War but the southern states might have been better served by a different president. In the end Davis and his decisions were the architect of his own downfall.
Interesting - Yes. Moot - certainly not.
Georgia and Virginia have much more confederate 'stuff' than the other states, and Georgia suffered more than any other state from the US armies.
There is a growing movement to get rid of confederate monuments etc - there have even been requests to get the carving on Stone Mountain destroyed.
And, as one could very easily predict, it's morphed into a campaign to get rid of any memorial to historical figures whose views are deemed unacceptable today.
Given that these States are solid Red, why not just stick two fingers up t the wankers?
Because they are black, liberal, the NAACP or the Congressional Black Caucus - all of which the media will not touch.
Sorry it's politically incorrect, but it is the case.
But, if you're a Republican representative in a Red State, you can cheerfully ignore them. They'll never vote for you, and you don't need their votes to win. So, tell them to suck it up.
The demographics in Georgia are shifting due to substantial hispanic immigration.
Boris Johnson could be made foreign secretary to boost leadership credentials after he quits as London Mayor
A senior source close to Prime Minister David Cameron said he was considering handing him a prime Government role like foreign secretary in a bid to ensure he campaigns for Britain to stay in the EU
This post reminded me of Dianne Abbott's reaction on TW last night when AN suggested that her next job would be Shadow Foreign Secretary. I have never seen "coy" quite so badly done.
I've always said that I don't believe that Trump will be the nominee, but it has been getting harder and harder to keep saying it. This makes me feel better.
He still has a clear lead both nationally and in the early states, he may still fall at the final hurdle but time is running out to stop him
That is the worst reporting of a poll I've ever seen !
Betting wise - get Chris Christie onside, he looks like the potential surger, and has the biggest odds of the top 5 in the betting. Trump's price is still very big, Cruz about right. Rubio/Bush both too short.
In NH at least Christie could be an outside challenger to Trump
Yeah - He looks to be a bit of a surger. There is a whole bunch of 'schooling' going on though. Bush is going to murder Rubio's chances I reckon. I mean Bush won't win, but he'll be a constant drag on what could well be Rubio voters.
Indeed Bush will eat into Rubio's support and just end up taking them both down
I've always said that I don't believe that Trump will be the nominee, but it has been getting harder and harder to keep saying it. This makes me feel better.
He still has a clear lead both nationally and in the early states, he may still fall at the final hurdle but time is running out to stop him
Yup, it looks that way.
Yes, Cruz might pip him in Iowa but Trump will likely win NH and SC
That is the worst reporting of a poll I've ever seen !
Betting wise - get Chris Christie onside, he looks like the potential surger, and has the biggest odds of the top 5 in the betting. Trump's price is still very big, Cruz about right. Rubio/Bush both too short.
Look at his background first before deciding. The Republicans will never nominate someone who supported Obama in 2012 and has a terrible governance record, especially on fiscal and pension matters. Christie doesn't have a chance,even if he has the endorsement of every newspaper and elected official in N.H, republicans will never vote for a man with such an appalling record for them.
I've always said that I don't believe that Trump will be the nominee, but it has been getting harder and harder to keep saying it. This makes me feel better.
He still has a clear lead both nationally and in the early states, he may still fall at the final hurdle but time is running out to stop him
Yup, it looks that way.
Yes, Cruz might pip him in Iowa but Trump will likely win NH and SC
If Trump takes both New Hampshire and South Carolina, he'll win. They're better indicators than Iowa which has evangelical atypicalness.
Just a little pointer re employment in the EU..My wife and myself are involved in an English Language Teaching school..In the new year we will be expanding the student teaching areas threefold..This is to accommodate the massive surge in young people and a few older ones ..who desperately want to learn English...in the majority of cases it is to facilitate a move from Europe to anywhere in the English speaking world..They don't seem to give a hoot for Surbitons Workers Rights..they just need a job..
Jut to annoy TSE, am about to sit down and watch The Hateful Eight.....
May raise some indignant eye-brows, but prior to last night's screening of Star Wars, the last time I went to the cinema was in January 2012 to watch The Iron Lady...
Terrible movie. Nothing to do with the subject matter either, just a really poorly done piece of film making.
No jokes about which movie I'm talking about though!
I've always said that I don't believe that Trump will be the nominee, but it has been getting harder and harder to keep saying it. This makes me feel better.
He still has a clear lead both nationally and in the early states, he may still fall at the final hurdle but time is running out to stop him
Yup, it looks that way.
Yes, Cruz might pip him in Iowa but Trump will likely win NH and SC
If Trump takes both New Hampshire and South Carolina, he'll win. They're better indicators than Iowa which has evangelical atypicalness.
Indeed though I think it is increasingly likely that Cruz will become Trump's closest rival if he does win Iowa
A bit harsh - his qualification to do things is he's gotten elected. Actually having experience of certain things, of taking decisions, or even having intellectual or academic merit, is not as far as I know a requirement of holding elected office. So while we might prefer people who have some of those things, none of them are things that qualify someone to make these decisions, even if they perhaps should be.
I think the Labour Party can best be likened to be undergoing a forest fire at the moment. The Corbynites are busy fanning the flames and the best anyone else can do is try to contain it and then hope it can be regenerated after the fire is put out. The struggle for unity is a chimera. Ultimately the leader and people round him don't want it, they want total control and obescience.
That's not actually correct - had a long talk with him today, and continue to think he's genuinely committed to free debate. Of course he'd like to win arguments, who wouldn't? But obseisance? No. Some people are talking themselves into a paranoid view, seizing on every random troll on the internet to prove the point. It's no way to win anyone round.
I've always said that I don't believe that Trump will be the nominee, but it has been getting harder and harder to keep saying it. This makes me feel better.
He still has a clear lead both nationally and in the early states, he may still fall at the final hurdle but time is running out to stop him
Yup, it looks that way.
Yes, Cruz might pip him in Iowa but Trump will likely win NH and SC
If Trump takes both New Hampshire and South Carolina, he'll win. They're better indicators than Iowa which has evangelical atypicalness.
That is true, the state polls in those states should be the only thing that bettors should look at after new years day.
But they should not forget the details, for instance Cruz surged in first place in Iowa because the pastors switched to him from Carson, now if the pastors chance their mind again we can know it before the polls show it.
Same with Christie and N.H. once he got the endorsements from a lot of local press and local officials you know that's worth something, but not a lot these days, so you could guess that Christie would rise from nothing to 10%, which is not enough though to win, but enough to deny rival establishment campaigns of that support.
That is the worst reporting of a poll I've ever seen !
Betting wise - get Chris Christie onside, he looks like the potential surger, and has the biggest odds of the top 5 in the betting. Trump's price is still very big, Cruz about right. Rubio/Bush both too short.
Look at his background first before deciding. The Republicans will never nominate someone who supported Obama in 2012 and has a terrible governance record, especially on fiscal and pension matters. Christie doesn't have a chance,even if he has the endorsement of every newspaper and elected official in N.H, republicans will never vote for a man with such an appalling record for them.
He has... a chance if he can get some NH momentum.
Here is my estimates of the current prices and my current position:
Trump +276 6-4 Cruz +265 3-1 Rubio -81 9-2 C Christie +205 10-1 Bush -225 20-1
Bit of a hedge on Rubio for the presidency. Bush would be a disaster ! But he has a bloody long way to go to even justify his crackers 8-1 right now.
A bit harsh - his qualification to do things is he's gotten elected. Actually having experience of certain things, of taking decisions, or even having intellectual or academic merit, is not as far as I know a requirement of holding elected office. So while we might prefer people who have some of those things, none of them are things that qualify someone to make these decisions, even if they perhaps should be.
Indeed, though technically the same argument could be made in favour of an unemployed drunk with no qualifications who happens to win an election
That is the worst reporting of a poll I've ever seen !
Betting wise - get Chris Christie onside, he looks like the potential surger, and has the biggest odds of the top 5 in the betting. Trump's price is still very big, Cruz about right. Rubio/Bush both too short.
Look at his background first before deciding. The Republicans will never nominate someone who supported Obama in 2012 and has a terrible governance record, especially on fiscal and pension matters. Christie doesn't have a chance,even if he has the endorsement of every newspaper and elected official in N.H, republicans will never vote for a man with such an appalling record for them.
He has... a chance if he can get some NH momentum.
Here is my estimates of the current prices and my current position:
Trump +276 6-4 Cruz +265 3-1 Rubio -81 9-2 C Christie +205 10-1 Bush -225 20-1
10% is all that he can get, there are no more people of significance left there to endorse him.
I advise you to look at the details, there are 5 candidates in second place each getting around 10% each, why would any republican prefer to choose Christie, over the others, who supported Obama in the last election, who drove N. Jersey to the brink of bankruptcy, defaulted N. Jersey on pensions, presided over the collapse of his state's economy and linked to a variety of scandals? His governing record is so appalling he has record unpopularity in his own state, the only thing his rivals have to do if they feel threatened by him is to bash him with his own record.
Imagine the attacks: " Chris Christie stole grandma's pension in New Jersey, he might do the same to you"
A bit harsh - his qualification to do things is he's gotten elected. Actually having experience of certain things, of taking decisions, or even having intellectual or academic merit, is not as far as I know a requirement of holding elected office. So while we might prefer people who have some of those things, none of them are things that qualify someone to make these decisions, even if they perhaps should be.
Indeed, though technically the same argument could be made in favour of an unemployed drunk with no qualifications who happens to win an election
No it couldn't as technically if a drunk won an election he wouldn't be unemployed
I think the Labour Party can best be likened to be undergoing a forest fire at the moment. The Corbynites are busy fanning the flames and the best anyone else can do is try to contain it and then hope it can be regenerated after the fire is put out. The struggle for unity is a chimera. Ultimately the leader and people round him don't want it, they want total control and obescience.
That's not actually correct - had a long talk with him today, and continue to think he's genuinely committed to free debate. Of course he'd like to win arguments, who wouldn't? But obseisance? No. Some people are talking themselves into a paranoid view, seizing on every random troll on the internet to prove the point. It's no way to win anyone round.
If nothing else, he had a free debate in the leadership contest and won easily - why wouldn't he think more free debate would help him?
I think the Labour Party can best be likened to be undergoing a forest fire at the moment. The Corbynites are busy fanning the flames and the best anyone else can do is try to contain it and then hope it can be regenerated after the fire is put out. The struggle for unity is a chimera. Ultimately the leader and people round him don't want it, they want total control and obescience.
That's not actually correct - had a long talk with him today, and continue to think he's genuinely committed to free debate. Of course he'd like to win arguments, who wouldn't? But obseisance? No. Some people are talking themselves into a paranoid view, seizing on every random troll on the internet to prove the point. It's no way to win anyone round.
Nick. I'll judge him on what he does, not what he says. He has so far appointed a team around him that is entirely from his (very narrow) in group. He has asserted his personal position rather than agreed Labour Party policy on several occasions now and appears to be seeking to change the policy making process to rubber stamp his positions. And he has let McDonnell (his closest ally) get heavily involved in momentum and placed ken at the centre of policy making and as the face/voice of the party on the media. I can't think of one example where he has sought to compromise with anyone on anything. He may be a nice man but he must know what people like McDonnell, livingstone and Lansmann are like and he has effectively given them free reign. I am just an ordinary member who delivers leaflets and knocks on doors. I'm not paranoid as there is nothing he can do to me and I have no political ambitions. But I think there is a better than even chance he will destroy the party.
Just a little pointer re employment in the EU..My wife and myself are involved in an English Language Teaching school..In the new year we will be expanding the student teaching areas threefold..This is to accommodate the massive surge in young people and a few older ones ..who desperately want to learn English...in the majority of cases it is to facilitate a move from Europe to anywhere in the English speaking world..They don't seem to give a hoot for Surbitons Workers Rights..they just need a job..
Jut to annoy TSE, am about to sit down and watch The Hateful Eight.....
May raise some indignant eye-brows, but prior to last night's screening of Star Wars, the last time I went to the cinema was in January 2012 to watch The Iron Lady...
Terrible movie. Nothing to do with the subject matter either, just a really poorly done piece of film making.
No jokes about which movie I'm talking about though!
So I guess the new Star Wars had few scenes of wars in star systems. Goodnight.
That is the worst reporting of a poll I've ever seen !
Betting wise - get Chris Christie onside, he looks like the potential surger, and has the biggest odds of the top 5 in the betting. Trump's price is still very big, Cruz about right. Rubio/Bush both too short.
Look at his background first before deciding. The Republicans will never nominate someone who supported Obama in 2012 and has a terrible governance record, especially on fiscal and pension matters. Christie doesn't have a chance,even if he has the endorsement of every newspaper and elected official in N.H, republicans will never vote for a man with such an appalling record for them.
He has... a chance if he can get some NH momentum.
Here is my estimates of the current prices and my current position:
Trump +276 6-4 Cruz +265 3-1 Rubio -81 9-2 C Christie +205 10-1 Bush -225 20-1
10% is all that he can get, there are no more people of significance left there to endorse him.
I advise you to look at the details, there are 5 candidates in second place each getting around 10% each, why would any republican prefer to choose Christie, over the others, who supported Obama in the last election, who drove N. Jersey to the brink of bankruptcy, defaulted N. Jersey on pensions, presided over the collapse of his state's economy and linked to a variety of scandals? His governing record is so appalling he has record unpopularity in his own state, the only thing his rivals have to do if they feel threatened by him is to bash him with his own record.
Imagine the attacks: " Chris Christie stole grandma's pension in New Jersey, he might do the same to you"
A bit harsh - his qualification to do things is he's gotten elected. Actually having experience of certain things, of taking decisions, or even having intellectual or academic merit, is not as far as I know a requirement of holding elected office. So while we might prefer people who have some of those things, none of them are things that qualify someone to make these decisions, even if they perhaps should be.
Indeed, though technically the same argument could be made in favour of an unemployed drunk with no qualifications who happens to win an election
No it couldn't as technically if a drunk won an election he wouldn't be unemployed
Well that is true and certainly there have been more than a handful of MPs in the past who have not been that dissimilar
A bit harsh - his qualification to do things is he's gotten elected. Actually having experience of certain things, of taking decisions, or even having intellectual or academic merit, is not as far as I know a requirement of holding elected office. So while we might prefer people who have some of those things, none of them are things that qualify someone to make these decisions, even if they perhaps should be.
Indeed, though technically the same argument could be made in favour of an unemployed drunk with no qualifications who happens to win an election
I know - the price of democracy, that people will make stupid decisions sometimes about who to represent them. I doubt anyone here has never voted for a right duffer of a candidate at some point, unles they've voted in very few elections.
'That's not actually correct - had a long talk with him today, and continue to think he's genuinely committed to free debate. Of course he'd like to win arguments, who wouldn't? But obseisance? No. Some people are talking themselves into a paranoid view, seizing on every random troll on the internet to prove the point. It's no way to win anyone round.'
Lets be kind and just say your just a tad gullible.
Just read the words Jeremy Corbyn and ethical foreign policy in the same sentence ... would have made me spit out my coffee if I was drinking any. Don't be so preposterous.
Ethical? So has he stopped supporting antisemites? Ethical? So is he no longer friends with every left wing anti western dictator going? Ethical? So dictators like Hugo Chavez aren't to be revered as great leaders? Ethical? So ISIS the most vile group since the Khmer Rouge are to be tackled?
A bit harsh - his qualification to do things is he's gotten elected. Actually having experience of certain things, of taking decisions, or even having intellectual or academic merit, is not as far as I know a requirement of holding elected office. So while we might prefer people who have some of those things, none of them are things that qualify someone to make these decisions, even if they perhaps should be.
Indeed, though technically the same argument could be made in favour of an unemployed drunk with no qualifications who happens to win an election
I know - the price of democracy, that people will make stupid decisions sometimes about who to represent them. I doubt anyone here has never voted for a right duffer of a candidate at some point, unles they've voted in very few elections.
Well statisticially in a House of over 600 MPs at least 60 or so are likely to be of dubious merit at best
A bit harsh - his qualification to do things is he's gotten elected. Actually having experience of certain things, of taking decisions, or even having intellectual or academic merit, is not as far as I know a requirement of holding elected office. So while we might prefer people who have some of those things, none of them are things that qualify someone to make these decisions, even if they perhaps should be.
Indeed, though technically the same argument could be made in favour of an unemployed drunk with no qualifications who happens to win an election
I know - the price of democracy, that people will make stupid decisions sometimes about who to represent them. I doubt anyone here has never voted for a right duffer of a candidate at some point, unles they've voted in very few elections.
Well statisticially in a House of over 600 MPs at least 60 or so are likely to be of dubious merit at best
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Since this is basically the Rajoy continuity scenario, what about the one that polls suggest? The one that suggests there will be a need for 3 major parties to form any coalition, instead of 2?
Anyway so far the polls suggest a normal election campaign with the centre squeezed by the right and the left, as the PP is squeezing the C's and Podemos is squeezing the PSOE. Bare in mind that Spain uses the D'Hond method for seat allocations, which mean that the barrier for a party to gain lots of seats is around 15%, and C's are already falling close to that level.
Spain is a multimember PR system, with large urban blocks, and small rural ones.
Of the three member rural constituencies, a large number will go 2 PP, 1 PSOE (and in a few cases Podemos). Because the PP is so strong in rural Spain, at a 28% vote share, it will end up with 35% of the seats.
A 10% vote share that's concentrated heavily in urban areas will give you a decent number of seats. A 10% vote share that's distributed equally around the country will not lead to lots of seats.
Notice how apportionment to the Cortes is almost identical to the apportionment to the US Electoral College.
The 50 regions are each entitled to a minimum of 2 members, plus more based on population.
The smaller (rural) areas are thus over-represented, as are the parties (conservative) which do well there...
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
A bit harsh - his qualification to do things is he's gotten elected. Actually having experience of certain things, of taking decisions, or even having intellectual or academic merit, is not as far as I know a requirement of holding elected office. So while we might prefer people who have some of those things, none of them are things that qualify someone to make these decisions, even if they perhaps should be.
Indeed, though technically the same argument could be made in favour of an unemployed drunk with no qualifications who happens to win an election
I know - the price of democracy, that people will make stupid decisions sometimes about who to represent them. I doubt anyone here has never voted for a right duffer of a candidate at some point, unles they've voted in very few elections.
Well statisticially in a House of over 600 MPs at least 60 or so are likely to be of dubious merit at best
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
The republicans are having their process in a normal way so far, the Democrats are going off the rails to the courts and the protest rallies to decide theirs:
Everyone thought that if there was open warfare like this, it would have been between the RNC and Trump not Sanders and the DNC. The worst is that Hillary never needed to do this, she was way ahead of Sanders anyway, but she still did it. Tomorrow there is a democratic debate, let's see what happens there.
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
No they're not. They're going through a perfectly normal primary campaign which is not 'vicious' at all. The only abnormal aspects are the number of candidates and the huge size of the debate TV audiences. By normal standards it's actually quite polite.
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
No they're not. They're going through a perfectly normal primary campaign which is not 'vicious' at all. The only abnormal aspects are the number of candidates and the huge size of the debate TV audiences. By normal standards it's actually quite polite.
The Donald is introducing a quite fascinating dynamic to it all though !
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
No they're not. They're going through a perfectly normal primary campaign which is not 'vicious' at all. The only abnormal aspects are the number of candidates and the huge size of the debate TV audiences. By normal standards it's actually quite polite.
The Donald is introducing a quite fascinating dynamic to it all though !
That's certainly true. Nobody wants to tangle with Trump.
Sunil- you were a bit sharp with me last night just because I equated watching a Star Wars movie with waiting in an airport lounge. I'll go to watch this film and let you know what I think.
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
The republicans are having their process in a normal way so far, the Democrats are going off the rails to the courts and the protest rallies to decide theirs:
Everyone thought that if there was open warfare like this, it would have been between the RNC and Trump not Sanders and the DNC. The worst is that Hillary never needed to do this, she was way ahead of Sanders anyway, but she still did it. Tomorrow there is a democratic debate, let's see what happens there.
It's not Hillary, though there's little doubt the DNC is in the tank for her.
The DNC's database (the product name escapes me) has several divisions - the democratic database open to all campaigns, and data specific to each campaign, which is confidential. It looks like someone in the Sanders campaign found a way to access the confidential Hillary data, ran some queries and saved the results.
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
The republicans are having their process in a normal way so far, the Democrats are going off the rails to the courts and the protest rallies to decide theirs:
Everyone thought that if there was open warfare like this, it would have been between the RNC and Trump not Sanders and the DNC. The worst is that Hillary never needed to do this, she was way ahead of Sanders anyway, but she still did it. Tomorrow there is a democratic debate, let's see what happens there.
The Republicans are ripping themselves apart in front of the cameras the Democrats may rip themselves apart on technicalities in the courts
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
No they're not. They're going through a perfectly normal primary campaign which is not 'vicious' at all. The only abnormal aspects are the number of candidates and the huge size of the debate TV audiences. By normal standards it's actually quite polite.
You wait, once Trump has won his first primary the GOP establishment will go beserk
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
No they're not. They're going through a perfectly normal primary campaign which is not 'vicious' at all. The only abnormal aspects are the number of candidates and the huge size of the debate TV audiences. By normal standards it's actually quite polite.
You wait, once Trump has won his first primary the GOP establishment will go beserk (sic)
Stop changing the subject - it's a nasty habit of yours.
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
The republicans are having their process in a normal way so far, the Democrats are going off the rails to the courts and the protest rallies to decide theirs:
Everyone thought that if there was open warfare like this, it would have been between the RNC and Trump not Sanders and the DNC. The worst is that Hillary never needed to do this, she was way ahead of Sanders anyway, but she still did it. Tomorrow there is a democratic debate, let's see what happens there.
The Republicans are ripping themselves apart in front of the cameras the Democrats may rip themselves apart on technicalities in the courts
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are 'ripping themselves apart'. The GOP are having a perfectly normal primary season. The Democratic suit is not a positive sign but it will be resolved in short order.
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
No they're not. They're going through a perfectly normal primary campaign which is not 'vicious' at all. The only abnormal aspects are the number of candidates and the huge size of the debate TV audiences. By normal standards it's actually quite polite.
You wait, once Trump has won his first primary the GOP establishment will go beserk (sic)
Stop changing the subject - it's a nasty habit of yours.
Just over a week ago Jeb Bush called Trump 'unhinged', Kasich compared him to Hitler and the Nazis in an ad, Trump called Bush 'dumb as a rock' and Rubio 'a perfect little puppet', yes sounds a very polite and amicable primary the Republicans are having!
I think the Labour Party can best be likened to be undergoing a forest fire at the moment. The Corbynites are busy fanning the flames and the best anyone else can do is try to contain it and then hope it can be regenerated after the fire is put out. The struggle for unity is a chimera. Ultimately the leader and people round him don't want it, they want total control and obescience.
That's not actually correct - had a long talk with him today, and continue to think he's genuinely committed to free debate. Of course he'd like to win arguments, who wouldn't? But obseisance? No. Some people are talking themselves into a paranoid view, seizing on every random troll on the internet to prove the point. It's no way to win anyone round.
Nick. I'll judge him on what he does, not what he says. He has so far appointed a team around him that is entirely from his (very narrow) in group. He has asserted his personal position rather than agreed Labour Party policy on several occasions now and appears to be seeking to change the policy making process to rubber stamp his positions. And he has let McDonnell (his closest ally) get heavily involved in momentum and placed ken at the centre of policy making and as the face/voice of the party on the media. I can't think of one example where he has sought to compromise with anyone on anything. He may be a nice man but he must know what people like McDonnell, livingstone and Lansmann are like and he has effectively given them free reign. I am just an ordinary member who delivers leaflets and knocks on doors. I'm not paranoid as there is nothing he can do to me and I have no political ambitions. But I think there is a better than even chance he will destroy the party.
This is the most sensible Labour post I've read recently. I'm not a current sympathiser but I voted for Blair (my guilty secret) and don't want to see what I understand to be proper Labour destroyed rather than some loony left Labour.
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
The republicans are having their process in a normal way so far, the Democrats are going off the rails to the courts and the protest rallies to decide theirs:
Everyone thought that if there was open warfare like this, it would have been between the RNC and Trump not Sanders and the DNC. The worst is that Hillary never needed to do this, she was way ahead of Sanders anyway, but she still did it. Tomorrow there is a democratic debate, let's see what happens there.
The Republicans are ripping themselves apart in front of the cameras the Democrats may rip themselves apart on technicalities in the courts
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are 'ripping themselves apart'. The GOP are having a perfectly normal primary season. The Democratic suit is not a positive sign but it will be resolved in short order.
Please stop peddling this nonsense.
It looks likely the 2016 presidential election will be the most vicious and negative in a generation and if it ends up Trump v Clinton that is guaranteed
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
The republicans are having their process in a normal way so far, the Democrats are going off the rails to the courts and the protest rallies to decide theirs:
Everyone thought that if there was open warfare like this, it would have been between the RNC and Trump not Sanders and the DNC. The worst is that Hillary never needed to do this, she was way ahead of Sanders anyway, but she still did it. Tomorrow there is a democratic debate, let's see what happens there.
The Republicans are ripping themselves apart in front of the cameras the Democrats may rip themselves apart on technicalities in the courts
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are 'ripping themselves apart'. The GOP are having a perfectly normal primary season. The Democratic suit is not a positive sign but it will be resolved in short order.
Please stop peddling this nonsense.
It looks likely the 2016 presidential election will be the most vicious and negative in a generation and if it ends up Trump v Clinton that is guaranteed
You're changing the subject again - that's not what we are talking about.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
No they're not. They're going through a perfectly normal primary campaign which is not 'vicious' at all. The only abnormal aspects are the number of candidates and the huge size of the debate TV audiences. By normal standards it's actually quite polite.
You wait, once Trump has won his first primary the GOP establishment will go beserk (sic)
Stop changing the subject - it's a nasty habit of yours.
Just over a week ago Jeb Bush called Trump 'unhinged', Kasich compared him to Hitler and the Nazis in an ad, Trump called Bush 'dumb as a rock' and Rubio 'a perfect little puppet', yes sounds a very polite and amicable primary the Republicans are having!
No they're not. They're going through a perfectly normal primary campaign which is not 'vicious' at all. The only abnormal aspects are the number of candidates and the huge size of the debate TV audiences. By normal standards it's actually quite polite.
You wait, once Trump has won his first primary the GOP establishment will go beserk (sic)
Stop changing the subject - it's a nasty habit of yours.
Just over a week ago Jeb Bush called Trump 'unhinged', Kasich compared him to Hitler and the Nazis in an ad, Trump called Bush 'dumb as a rock' and Rubio 'a perfect little puppet', yes sounds a very polite and amicable primary the Republicans are having!
It might sound odd to non-American eyes, but that's quite normal in primary season. People's eyes glaze over at political ads, so this sort of thing is what you have to do to get attention. Unfortunately negative advertising works. Trump called Bush 'low energy' and he has never recovered.
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign. So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign. Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
The republicans are having their process in a normal way so far, the Democrats are going off the rails to the courts and the protest rallies to decide theirs:
Everyone thought that if there was open warfare like this, it would have been between the RNC and Trump not Sanders and the DNC. The worst is that Hillary never needed to do this, she was way ahead of Sanders anyway, but she still did it. Tomorrow there is a democratic debate, let's see what happens there.
The Republicans are ripping themselves apart in front of the cameras the Democrats may rip themselves apart on technicalities in the courts
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are 'ripping themselves apart'. The GOP are having a perfectly normal primary season. The Democratic suit is not a positive sign but it will be resolved in short order.
Please stop peddling this nonsense.
It looks likely the 2016 presidential election will be the most vicious and negative in a generation and if it ends up Trump v Clinton that is guaranteed
You're changing the subject again - that's not what we are talking about.
You said 'By normal standards it's actually quite polite'
Given the GOP are already in an even more vicious civil war of their own they will not have much time for salivating!
No they're not. They're going through a perfectly normal primary campaign which is not 'vicious' at all. The only abnormal aspects are the number of candidates and the huge size of the debate TV audiences. By normal standards it's actually quite polite.
You wait, once Trump has won his first primary the GOP establishment will go beserk (sic)
Stop changing the subject - it's a nasty habit of yours.
Just over a week ago Jeb Bush called Trump 'unhinged', Kasich compared him to Hitler and the Nazis in an ad, Trump called Bush 'dumb as a rock' and Rubio 'a perfect little puppet', yes sounds a very polite and amicable primary the Republicans are having!
No they're not. They're going through a perfectly normal primary campaign which is not 'vicious' at all. The only abnormal aspects are the number of candidates and the huge size of the debate TV audiences. By normal standards it's actually quite polite.
You wait, once Trump has won his first primary the GOP establishment will go beserk (sic)
Stop changing the subject - it's a nasty habit of yours.
Just over a week ago Jeb Bush called Trump 'unhinged', Kasich compared him to Hitler and the Nazis in an ad, Trump called Bush 'dumb as a rock' and Rubio 'a perfect little puppet', yes sounds a very polite and amicable primary the Republicans are having!
It might sound odd to non-American eyes, but that's quite normal in primary season. People's eyes glaze over at political ads, so this sort of thing is what you have to do to get attention. Unfortunately negative advertising works. Trump called Bush 'low energy' and he has never recovered.
US politics can be quite aggressive but the loathing of Bush for Trump and Kasich for Trump and vice versa is almost unprecedented, certainly in GOP primaries
I am probably going to go against the grain here...but just back from Star Wars...and I thought it was utter garbage.
Well there is always one, it has a 95% rating on rotten tomatoes and broke the opening night box office record on Thursday taking $57m so I doubt the studios could care less, night http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35136378
I am probably going to go against the grain here...but just back from Star Wars...and I thought it was utter garbage.
Well there is always one, it has a 95% rating on rotten tomatoes and broke the opening night box office record on Thursday taking $57m so I doubt the studios could care less, night http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35136378
"Oh, I'm afraid Disney's profits will be quite operational when your friends arrive!"
I am probably going to go against the grain here...but just back from Star Wars...and I thought it was utter garbage.
Well there is always one, it has a 95% rating on rotten tomatoes and broke the opening night box office record on Thursday taking $57m so I doubt the studios could care less, night http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35136378
No accounting for taste ;-) ...I am a huge fan of the original trilogy, but that was like "the Expandables" do space....
I am probably going to go against the grain here...but just back from Star Wars...and I thought it was utter garbage.
Well there is always one, it has a 95% rating on rotten tomatoes and broke the opening night box office record on Thursday taking $57m so I doubt the studios could care less, night http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35136378
No accounting for taste ;-) ...I am a huge fan of the original trilogy, but that was like "the Expandables" do space....
The general muttering I overhead when coming out of the screening wasn't positive either. When the famous scrolling text started you could hear the excitement, but when the credits rolled, no applause, woophs of joy etc.
I am probably going to go against the grain here...but just back from Star Wars...and I thought it was utter garbage.
Well there is always one, it has a 95% rating on rotten tomatoes and broke the opening night box office record on Thursday taking $57m so I doubt the studios could care less, night http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35136378
"Oh, I'm afraid Disney's profits will be quite operational when your friends arrive!"
I am probably going to go against the grain here...but just back from Star Wars...and I thought it was utter garbage.
Well there is always one, it has a 95% rating on rotten tomatoes and broke the opening night box office record on Thursday taking $57m so I doubt the studios could care less, night http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35136378
No accounting for taste ;-) ...I am a huge fan of the original trilogy, but that was like "the Expandables" do space....
The general muttering I overhead when coming out of the screening wasn't positive either. When the famous scrolling text started you could hear the excitement, but when the credits rolled, no applause, woophs of joy etc.
The dangers of overhype but at the end if the day it is profits which count and the critics like it the fact the audience have not fainted with exhilaration at the end is a side issue
Compare that to the national media campaign against the Oxford Union President Ben Sullivan over an allegation that the police found to be "not enough evidence to charge", which was dragged up again under "Victim's Right to Review". The national campaign was launched while the police were still investigating. http://oxfordstudent.com/2015/02/19/ben-sullivan-investigation-could-be-reopened-says-cps/
Comments
I think for instance North and South Carolina suffered from the ravages of Shermans armies as well as Georgia. However his campaigns after the fall of Atlanta were marked by few in fact no pitched battles. The South was too weak and Johnson too canny. Shermans biggest handicap was dealing with all the thousands of freed slaves that followed him. As such, loss of life was minimal.
Virginia in contrast suffered greatly during the war.
Sorry it's politically incorrect, but it is the case.
“I fail to understand how they’ve selected Zac Goldsmith as a mayoral candidate because he has no academic achievement,” he told The Daily Telegraph.
“He was left money by his daddy, he’s never had a job other than a job given to him by his uncle, so what qualification has he got to do anything?”
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/heathrow-chairman-launches-scathing-attack-on-zac-goldsmith-in-third-runway-row-a3140441.html
They are doing their best to hide Hillary - limiting the number of debates, holding them on Saturday nights, the lowest TV viewing night of the week.
The Republicans will never nominate someone who supported Obama in 2012 and has a terrible governance record, especially on fiscal and pension matters.
Christie doesn't have a chance,even if he has the endorsement of every newspaper and elected official in N.H, republicans will never vote for a man with such an appalling record for them.
No jokes about which movie I'm talking about though!
But they should not forget the details, for instance Cruz surged in first place in Iowa because the pastors switched to him from Carson, now if the pastors chance their mind again we can know it before the polls show it.
Same with Christie and N.H. once he got the endorsements from a lot of local press and local officials you know that's worth something, but not a lot these days, so you could guess that Christie would rise from nothing to 10%, which is not enough though to win, but enough to deny rival establishment campaigns of that support.
Here is my estimates of the current prices and my current position:
Trump +276 6-4
Cruz +265 3-1
Rubio -81 9-2
C Christie +205 10-1
Bush -225 20-1
Bit of a hedge on Rubio for the presidency. Bush would be a disaster ! But he has a bloody long way to go to even justify his crackers 8-1 right now.
Static fire test looks good. Pending data review, will aim to launch Sunday.
I advise you to look at the details, there are 5 candidates in second place each getting around 10% each, why would any republican prefer to choose Christie, over the others, who supported Obama in the last election, who drove N. Jersey to the brink of bankruptcy, defaulted N. Jersey on pensions, presided over the collapse of his state's economy and linked to a variety of scandals?
His governing record is so appalling he has record unpopularity in his own state, the only thing his rivals have to do if they feel threatened by him is to bash him with his own record.
Imagine the attacks:
" Chris Christie stole grandma's pension in New Jersey, he might do the same to you"
Good night all.
Goodnight.
'That's not actually correct - had a long talk with him today, and continue to think he's genuinely committed to free debate. Of course he'd like to win arguments, who wouldn't? But obseisance? No. Some people are talking themselves into a paranoid view, seizing on every random troll on the internet to prove the point. It's no way to win anyone round.'
Lets be kind and just say your just a tad gullible.
Ethical? So has he stopped supporting antisemites?
Ethical? So is he no longer friends with every left wing anti western dictator going?
Ethical? So dictators like Hugo Chavez aren't to be revered as great leaders?
Ethical? So ISIS the most vile group since the Khmer Rouge are to be tackled?
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/18/politics/bernie-sanders-campaign-dnc-suspension/
What happened was that a Sanders campaign staffer was accidentally allowed to look at some Clinton campaign data by the DNC, as a response the DNC has closed down Sanders campaign.
So Sanders is now suing the DNC of sabotage in favour of Hillary.
This is a dangerous development for the Hillary campaign.
Republicans will be salivating at the civil war that has just started in their rivals camp.
The 50 regions are each entitled to a minimum of 2 members, plus more based on population.
The smaller (rural) areas are thus over-represented, as are the parties (conservative) which do well there...
https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/677988620641419264
Everyone thought that if there was open warfare like this, it would have been between the RNC and Trump not Sanders and the DNC.
The worst is that Hillary never needed to do this, she was way ahead of Sanders anyway, but she still did it.
Tomorrow there is a democratic debate, let's see what happens there.
All he did was remake Star Wars. Its pathetic. He should be hunted down.
The DNC's database (the product name escapes me) has several divisions - the democratic database open to all campaigns, and data specific to each campaign, which is confidential. It looks like someone in the Sanders campaign found a way to access the confidential Hillary data, ran some queries and saved the results.
So the DNC cut off the Sanders campaign access.
Please stop peddling this nonsense.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35136378
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3366645/Head-student-Islamic-Society-heckled-intolerant-speaker-quits-series-anti-gay-tweets.html
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/oct/14/oxford-university-student-annie-teriba-resigns-posts-non-consensual-sex
Compare that to the national media campaign against the Oxford Union President Ben Sullivan over an allegation that the police found to be "not enough evidence to charge", which was dragged up again under "Victim's Right to Review". The national campaign was launched while the police were still investigating.
http://oxfordstudent.com/2015/02/19/ben-sullivan-investigation-could-be-reopened-says-cps/
Hell in a Handcart.