I take it that whoever becomes the next Chairman of the Environment Agency, one of the absolute requirements is a crystal ball and that the undertaking of holidays is forbidden?
Perhaps because I'm not a fan of David Bowie, I do find the obsessive coverage of his death way over the top. All the luvvies seem to be out in force. It's on every news channel. LBC have just done a phone-in. You would think absolutely nothing else was happening in the world.
If you think the coverage of David Bowie going is OTT (and as it happens I agree), imagine when Paul Mccartney leaves us.
I heard some worthy on R5 today saying that in popular music there had been 3 greats: Sinatra, Elvis and Bowie. I mean, I am a fan but seriously? OTT and down the other side doesn't really cover it.
So which is worse then, the beatifying adulation or the bleating affront?
There were 2 particularly pernicious examples this weekend: (1) a silly article by someone calling himself a moral philosopher in the Times where he argued that of course the Charlie Hebdo journalists didn't deserve to be killed but - and there's always a but - they did not follow their moral obligation not to offend. Honestly, it was utter drivel - half a page to say what could be summed up in one sentence: "I don't want to say rude things about Islam because I'm scared."
And there's some French writer, Emmanuel Tod, who is seeking to make the distinction between criticising one's own religion and criticising the religion of others. Honestly, how ignorant can a man be of the history of Europe? Did he really think that the criticism of Catholicism was led only by Catholics and not by Protestant Europe and, indeed, atheist revolutionary France? Another quasi-Jesuitical argument to justify saying: I am shutting up because I don't want to be attacked and killed.
Someone has to be against the tide and flow (especially when it's wrong).
Remember: only dead fish go with the flow.
So, Emmanuel Tod is arguing that only Catholics can critise the Catholic church? Or does that "distort" what he was trying to say :-)
I plan to enforce the Tod rule on this site. So, only BOO-ers may critique the BOO case. And only In-ers can comment on the case for Remain.
You have been warned.
Does that mean that only Labour voters can comment about Corbyn and not Tories on PB from now on ?
I was going to only allow members of Momentum can comment on Corbyn...
Is there a pay £3 to comment on Corbyn option?
Looking at how riled most Tories get about Corbyn, PB could make a fortune.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
Nigel Farage debating Carwyn Jones at the moment. Streamed live via Breitbart London.
Only just started watching, so missed first half hour. Not sure if the audience is packed with Kippers, but Carwyn curently being trounced by Farage whilst debating the CAP.
Kippers could push Labour out of government in Wales.
Hope the debate is put online for those of us who missed it.
A Tory/UKIP coalition in Wales would certainly shake things around a little after Labour rule for so long!
With the LDs dead could it be Con/UKIP and Lab/PC/Grn with almost the same number of seats?
I don't know how common it is, but I've just had a "Britain Stronger in Europe" ad on my Facebook timeline (the ad discussed last week). It was a sponsored post.
Nigel Farage debating Carwyn Jones at the moment. Streamed live via Breitbart London.
Only just started watching, so missed first half hour. Not sure if the audience is packed with Kippers, but Carwyn curently being trounced by Farage whilst debating the CAP.
Kippers could push Labour out of government in Wales.
It could happen, by virtue of UKIP being above the voting threshold for seats even if Labour increases it's share of the vote.
Labour had some seriously bad results in Wales at the general election, especially along the north coast in seats like Wrexham, Vale of Clwyd, Clwyd South, Aberconwy. A lot of that was to do with an increase in the UKIP share.
Nigel Farage debating Carwyn Jones at the moment. Streamed live via Breitbart London.
Only just started watching, so missed first half hour. Not sure if the audience is packed with Kippers, but Carwyn curently being trounced by Farage whilst debating the CAP.
Kippers could push Labour out of government in Wales.
Hope the debate is put online for those of us who missed it.
A Tory/UKIP coalition in Wales would certainly shake things around a little after Labour rule for so long!
With the LDs dead could it be Con/UKIP and Lab/PC/Grn with almost the same number of seats?
I don't know how common it is, but I've just had a "Britain Stronger in Europe" ad on my Facebook timeline (the ad discussed last week). It was a sponsored post.
Disingenuous slogan, surely these muppets mean EU, not Europe.
Nigel Farage debating Carwyn Jones at the moment. Streamed live via Breitbart London.
Only just started watching, so missed first half hour. Not sure if the audience is packed with Kippers, but Carwyn curently being trounced by Farage whilst debating the CAP.
Kippers could push Labour out of government in Wales.
Hope the debate is put online for those of us who missed it.
A Tory/UKIP coalition in Wales would certainly shake things around a little after Labour rule for so long!
With the LDs dead could it be Con/UKIP and Lab/PC/Grn with almost the same number of seats?
" ITV will also be showing the debate in full on Tuesday night at 10.40pm."
Those of us who value free speech, free thought need to fight back. It has always been thus. We need to keep making the argument, answering back, skewering ludicrous nonsense with scorn, contempt, arguments, laughter. We need to keep going and out argue and out speak and out shout those who would shut everyone up. We need to be unrelenting in our insistence on the right to think what we want and to say what we want. Because without fighting for that right we will lose it.
Let's make people like Christopher Hitchens and Orwell our heroes. If they can do it, so can we. We may as well bloody try. I for one am not going to let Enlightenment values go down without a fight. (Pompous as that undoubtedly sounds.)
There were 2 particularly pernicious examples this weekend: (1) a silly article by someone calling himself a moral philosopher in the Times where he argued that of course the Charlie Hebdo journalists didn't deserve to be killed but - and there's always a but - they did not follow their moral obligation not to offend. Honestly, it was utter drivel - half a page to say what could be summed up in one sentence: "I don't want to say rude things about Islam because I'm scared."
And there's some French writer, Emmanuel Tod, who is seeking to make the distinction between criticising one's own religion and criticising the religion of others. Honestly, how ignorant can a man be of the history of Europe? Did he really think that the criticism of Catholicism was led only by Catholics and not by Protestant Europe and, indeed, atheist revolutionary France? Another quasi-Jesuitical argument to justify saying: I am shutting up because I don't want to be attacked and killed.
Someone has to be against the tide and flow (especially when it's wrong).
Remember: only dead fish go with the flow.
I think Tod is mistakenly onto something. Not that he is right about criticism only coming from the group. That's just stupid. What is true is that criticism that comes from within the group should be more powerful and listened to by those in power.
Nigel Farage debating Carwyn Jones at the moment. Streamed live via Breitbart London.
Only just started watching, so missed first half hour. Not sure if the audience is packed with Kippers, but Carwyn curently being trounced by Farage whilst debating the CAP.
Kippers could push Labour out of government in Wales.
Hope the debate is put online for those of us who missed it.
A Tory/UKIP coalition in Wales would certainly shake things around a little after Labour rule for so long!
With the LDs dead could it be Con/UKIP and Lab/PC/Grn with almost the same number of seats?
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
Nigel Farage debating Carwyn Jones at the moment. Streamed live via Breitbart London.
Only just started watching, so missed first half hour. Not sure if the audience is packed with Kippers, but Carwyn curently being trounced by Farage whilst debating the CAP.
Kippers could push Labour out of government in Wales.
Hope the debate is put online for those of us who missed it.
A Tory/UKIP coalition in Wales would certainly shake things around a little after Labour rule for so long!
With the LDs dead could it be Con/UKIP and Lab/PC/Grn with almost the same number of seats?
Those of us who value free speech, free thought need to fight back. It has always been thus. We need to keep making the argument, answering back, skewering ludicrous nonsense with scorn, contempt, arguments, laughter. We need to keep going and out argue and out speak and out shout those who would shut everyone up. We need to be unrelenting in our insistence on the right to think what we want and to say what we want. Because without fighting for that right we will lose it.
Let's make people like Christopher Hitchens and Orwell our heroes. If they can do it, so can we. We may as well bloody try. I for one am not going to let Enlightenment values go down without a fight. (Pompous as that undoubtedly sounds.)
There were 2 particularly pernicious examples this weekend: (1) a silly article by someone calling himself a moral philosopher in the Times where he argued that of course the Charlie Hebdo journalists didn't deserve to be killed but - and there's always a but - they did not follow their moral obligation not to offend. Honestly, it was utter drivel - half a page to say what could be summed up in one sentence: "I don't want to say rude things about Islam because I'm scared."
And there's some French writer, Emmanuel Tod, who is seeking to make the distinction between criticising one's own religion and criticising the religion of others. Honestly, how ignorant can a man be of the history of Europe? Did he really think that the criticism of Catholicism was led only by Catholics and not by Protestant Europe and, indeed, atheist revolutionary France? Another quasi-Jesuitical argument to justify saying: I am shutting up because I don't want to be attacked and killed.
Someone has to be against the tide and flow (especially when it's wrong).
Remember: only dead fish go with the flow.
I think Tod is mistakenly onto something. Not that he is right about criticism only coming from the group. That's just stupid. What is true is that criticism that comes from within the group should be more powerful and listened to by those in power.
I'm sorry MaxPB, but unless you are a philosopher, you can't critique philosophers. Tod's law, you see.
Nigel Farage debating Carwyn Jones at the moment. Streamed live via Breitbart London.
Only just started watching, so missed first half hour. Not sure if the audience is packed with Kippers, but Carwyn curently being trounced by Farage whilst debating the CAP.
I don't think Farage makes the best case for leaving the EU but he will savage Jones tonight.
Nigel Farage debating Carwyn Jones at the moment. Streamed live via Breitbart London.
Only just started watching, so missed first half hour. Not sure if the audience is packed with Kippers, but Carwyn curently being trounced by Farage whilst debating the CAP.
Kippers could push Labour out of government in Wales.
Hope the debate is put online for those of us who missed it.
A Tory/UKIP coalition in Wales would certainly shake things around a little after Labour rule for so long!
With the LDs dead could it be Con/UKIP and Lab/PC/Grn with almost the same number of seats?
" ITV will also be showing the debate in full on Tuesday night at 10.40pm."
@PSbook: As we predicted, Karl Turner gets nod as Labour's shadow attorney general. So who to replace him in #2 role. Rebecca Long-Bailey?
Appointing someone with so little legal experience shows how there is next to no talent left on the Labour benches willing to serve.
The AG has a vital role to play in the life of the nation as a senior law officer - someone with less than 5 years legal work experience is not fit for purpose. Even as a shadow AG.
"he graduated with a law degree as a mature student from the University of Hull in 2004. He became a barrister in 2005 after passing the Bar Vocational Course at Northumbria University and went on to practise criminal law for the Max Gold Partnership in Hull"
Stellar expertise and experience. Just what we need to be able to be to understand the ins and outs of what is incredibly complex job.
I am sure his opinion on the legality of Labour's next war will be compelling.
Labour are already at war... oh I see what you mean :-)
FPT: thanks @RodCrosby for the Art Tatum track. Lifted my spirits for the afternoon.
Yes, Art Tatum is absolutely wonderful. Also Rod mentioned Ben Webster - another goodie.
They actually recorded together once. Art was not always comfortable in a group setting:- either the others couldn't keep up, or tried to compete with him, pointlessly.
Ben knew better, and let his languid phrases simply float over Art's dazzling embroidery, creating something very special, one of the top 100 jazz albums of all time. Impossible to believe that just six weeks later Art was dead, aged only 47... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsZZkOgtMyI
Thanks for that Rod. Beautiful track. I've just bought the album.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
Surely Bloomberg or someone half serious takes the plunge if that happens? There would be enough time to run a proper fundraising effort among those who didn't want to see a complete lunatic as leader of the free world!
The USA would be a laughing stock worldwide, imagine Jeremy Corbyn v Nick Griffin for UK PM.
Attention PB'rs, the inevitable has happened: Marco Rubio is no longer the betting frontrunner with everyone. Ladbrokes just put Trump ahead of Rubio at 15/8 vs 2.
Rubio was in the lead with all of them since mid-October, and it's a first for Trump to be the favourite with a betting company.
Rubio's odds were drifting for a long time now, his best was when he briefly hit 50% on Betfair on Nov. 15th.
There were 2 particularly pernicious examples this weekend: (1) a silly article by someone calling himself a moral philosopher in the Times where he argued that of course the Charlie Hebdo journalists didn't deserve to be killed but - and there's always a but - they did not follow their moral obligation not to offend. Honestly, it was utter drivel - half a page to say what could be summed up in one sentence: "I don't want to say rude things about Islam because I'm scared."
And there's some French writer, Emmanuel Tod, who is seeking to make the distinction between criticising one's own religion and criticising the religion of others. Honestly, how ignorant can a man be of the history of Europe? Did he really think that the criticism of Catholicism was led only by Catholics and not by Protestant Europe and, indeed, atheist revolutionary France? Another quasi-Jesuitical argument to justify saying: I am shutting up because I don't want to be attacked and killed.
Someone has to be against the tide and flow (especially when it's wrong).
Remember: only dead fish go with the flow.
So, Emmanuel Tod is arguing that only Catholics can critise the Catholic church? Or does that "distort" what he was trying to say :-)
I plan to enforce the Tod rule on this site. So, only BOO-ers may critique the BOO case. And only In-ers can comment on the case for Remain.
You have been warned.
Does that mean that only Labour voters can comment about Corbyn and not Tories on PB from now on ?
I was going to only allow members of Momentum can comment on Corbyn...
Only the progeny of Mike Smithson should be allowed to comment on PB?
"RBS cries 'sell everything' as deflationary crisis nears
RBS has advised clients to brace for a “cataclysmic year” and a global deflationary crisis, warning that major stock markets could fall by a fifth and oil may plummet to $16 a barrel."
@PSbook: As we predicted, Karl Turner gets nod as Labour's shadow attorney general. So who to replace him in #2 role. Rebecca Long-Bailey?
Appointing someone with so little legal experience shows how there is next to no talent left on the Labour benches willing to serve.
The AG has a vital role to play in the life of the nation as a senior law officer - someone with less than 5 years legal work experience is not fit for purpose. Even as a shadow AG.
"he graduated with a law degree as a mature student from the University of Hull in 2004. He became a barrister in 2005 after passing the Bar Vocational Course at Northumbria University and went on to practise criminal law for the Max Gold Partnership in Hull"
Stellar expertise and experience. Just what we need to be able to be to understand the ins and outs of what is incredibly complex job.
I am sure his opinion on the legality of Labour's next war will be compelling.
Labour are already at war... oh I see what you mean :-)
We need another sexed up dossier.
Hilary Benn only 45 minutes away from making another brilliant speech in Parliament!
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
Surely Bloomberg or someone half serious takes the plunge if that happens? There would be enough time to run a proper fundraising effort among those who didn't want to see a complete lunatic as leader of the free world!
The USA would be a laughing stock worldwide, imagine Jeremy Corbyn v Nick Griffin for UK PM.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
Surely Bloomberg or someone half serious takes the plunge if that happens? There would be enough time to run a proper fundraising effort among those who didn't want to see a complete lunatic as leader of the free world!
The USA would be a laughing stock worldwide, imagine Jeremy Corbyn v Nick Griffin for UK PM.
Bloomberg did a poll last month to test the waters, it was so bad he decided to announce he wasn't running. Though that with Hillary, not Sanders.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
Attention PB'rs, the inevitable has happened: Marco Rubio is no longer the betting frontrunner with everyone. Ladbrokes just put Trump ahead of Rubio at 15/8 vs 2.
Rubio was in the lead with all of them since mid-October, and it's a first for Trump to be the favourite with a betting company.
Rubio's odds were drifting for a long time now, his best was when he briefly hit 50% on Betfair on Nov. 15th.
Look for Rubio's odds to collapse out on other firms too soon enough
"RBS cries 'sell everything' as deflationary crisis nears
RBS has advised clients to brace for a “cataclysmic year” and a global deflationary crisis, warning that major stock markets could fall by a fifth and oil may plummet to $16 a barrel."
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
Surely Bloomberg or someone half serious takes the plunge if that happens? There would be enough time to run a proper fundraising effort among those who didn't want to see a complete lunatic as leader of the free world!
The USA would be a laughing stock worldwide, imagine Jeremy Corbyn v Nick Griffin for UK PM.
I still think Hillary will win Iowa though even if she loses NH
I did write Farage originally then changed it. I don't think he would actually stand up and say No More Brown People, which is pretty much what Trump has said.
The worst thing about this Presidential campaign is that one of the buggers has to win, will be sworn in 12 months from now!
Nigel Farage debating Carwyn Jones at the moment. Streamed live via Breitbart London.
Only just started watching, so missed first half hour. Not sure if the audience is packed with Kippers, but Carwyn curently being trounced by Farage whilst debating the CAP.
I don't think Farage makes the best case for leaving the EU but he will savage Jones tonight.
Didn't get to see that much of the debate in the end (daughter having a homework crisis). Saw most of the closing arguments which could pretty much be summed up as "Let's be a strong, independent sovereign country in charge of our own future" versus "We can't possibly stand on our own two feet". Carwyn Jones used the £3000k per household argument and accused a questioner of lying - nice touch. In the end, I only caught 5-10 minutes of the whole thing,
I thought Farage was much stronger in the bits I saw than Carwyn Jones. (Then again, I probably would, given that I am a strong "Outer" and voted Ukip at the last election.) But if Jones's arguments are the best the Inners can come up with, maybe "Out" are in with a better chance than I thought. I thought he was weak.
The idea that Sanders has any chance at all against Hillary is frankly at least as ridiculous as Corbyn being PM. Strictly in the never going to happen category.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
Surely Bloomberg or someone half serious takes the plunge if that happens? There would be enough time to run a proper fundraising effort among those who didn't want to see a complete lunatic as leader of the free world!
The USA would be a laughing stock worldwide, imagine Jeremy Corbyn v Nick Griffin for UK PM.
Bloomberg did a poll last month to test the waters, it was so bad he decided to announce he wasn't running. Though that with Hillary, not Sanders.
I did see that in passing the other day.. But if it's quite clearly Sanders v Trump in March or April *someone* will surely go for it, it's the chance of a lifetime.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
Surely Bloomberg or someone half serious takes the plunge if that happens? There would be enough time to run a proper fundraising effort among those who didn't want to see a complete lunatic as leader of the free world!
The USA would be a laughing stock worldwide, imagine Jeremy Corbyn v Nick Griffin for UK PM.
I still think Hillary will win Iowa though even if she loses NH
I did write Farage originally then changed it. I don't think he would actually stand up and say No More Brown People, which is pretty much what Trump has said.
The worst thing about this Presidential campaign is that one of the buggers has to win, will be sworn in 12 months from now!
When did Trump say that? I must have missed it. My understanding is that he said no more Muslims, which includes all races.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
When Sanders leads Trump by 2% on average nationally in the RCP average they very well could do and don't forget Iowa voted for Bush in 2004, NH for Bush in 2000, neither are safe Democratic states. I could certainly see Sanders beating Trump in Colorado and Virginia, that would take him over 270, maybe even Ohio too
Perhaps the reason why Tories want to get rid of Corbyn is the possibility of Cameron messing up with the economy so much, Corbyn might win.
It would need a far bigger black swan event than that, imo. A pandemic that kills half the population maybe. Even then, why would you vote for Corbyn in a crisis? (Also, we probably wouldn't be having elections in that scenario.)
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
It's way complicated, Sanders is very left wing on the economy and somewhat to the right on social issues (especially gun control). Trump is also on the left (but not that left like Sanders) on the economy and is a middle of the road on social issues (except immigration).
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Meant to add that Farage did better partly because he addressed the audience as well as Carwyn Jones; Jones directed most of his answers directly at Farage and made some quite personalised attacks (e.g. called him a "lapsed Tory" and criticised him from taking money from the EU as an MEP). But, as I said, this is just based on the 5-10 minutes I saw.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
Surely Bloomberg or someone half serious takes the plunge if that happens? There would be enough time to run a proper fundraising effort among those who didn't want to see a complete lunatic as leader of the free world!
The USA would be a laughing stock worldwide, imagine Jeremy Corbyn v Nick Griffin for UK PM.
I still think Hillary will win Iowa though even if she loses NH
I did write Farage originally then changed it. I don't think he would actually stand up and say No More Brown People, which is pretty much what Trump has said.
The worst thing about this Presidential campaign is that one of the buggers has to win, will be sworn in 12 months from now!
When did Trump say that? I must have missed it. My understanding is that he said no more Muslims, which includes all races.
He's said explicitly No More Muslims and to close the border with Mexico until Mexico pays for a wall along the border. He's come damn close to saying something racist but knows what he can get away with saying.
I stand by saying he's closer to Griffin than Farage in his beliefs.
"RBS cries 'sell everything' as deflationary crisis nears
RBS has advised clients to brace for a “cataclysmic year” and a global deflationary crisis, warning that major stock markets could fall by a fifth and oil may plummet to $16 a barrel."
Bet they wish the euro hadn't survived for so long. The eurozone is the prime exporter of deflation.
Perhaps the reason why Tories want to get rid of Corbyn is the possibility of Cameron messing up with the economy so much, Corbyn might win.
Why is the eurozone the prime exporter of deflation?
I get how it could export deflation from Germany to Spain, in that they are in the same currency bloc. But I can't see how it could export deflation to-for example- the US.
As an aside, inflation (ex energy) is comfortably positive in the eurozone, so I'm not sure it's even true inside the currency bloc anymore.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
It's way complicated, Sanders is very left wing on the economy and somewhat to the right on social issues (especially gun control). Trump is also on the left (but not that left like Sanders) on the economy and is a middle of the road on social issues (except immigration).
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Yes, it could go right to the wire, though Trump has promised to slash the top tax rate back below 30% so has moved right, at least on tax. It would be a populist mess as you say, Sanders representing 'Occupy Wall Street' and the anti War crowd and Hispanics and minorities, Trump the Tea Party and anti immigration rednecks
I've just watched the whole of the debate between Carwyn Jones and Nigel Farage. I thought NF won judging by the reaction but his closing statement on the reasons for coming out, were quite weak. He needs to up his game on this.
Carwyn Jones used the scaremongering tactic of loss of jobs, which I feel will be the cruz of the whole debate in the coming weeks and months. In the end, people will vote on whether they think their job is safe.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
Surely Bloomberg or someone half serious takes the plunge if that happens? There would be enough time to run a proper fundraising effort among those who didn't want to see a complete lunatic as leader of the free world!
The USA would be a laughing stock worldwide, imagine Jeremy Corbyn v Nick Griffin for UK PM.
I still think Hillary will win Iowa though even if she loses NH
I did write Farage originally then changed it. I don't think he would actually stand up and say No More Brown People, which is pretty much what Trump has said.
The worst thing about this Presidential campaign is that one of the buggers has to win, will be sworn in 12 months from now!
When did Trump say that? I must have missed it. My understanding is that he said no more Muslims, which includes all races.
He's said explicitly No More Muslims and to close the border with Mexico until Mexico pays for a wall along the border. He's come damn close to saying something racist but knows what he can get away with saying.
I stand by saying he's closer to Griffin than Farage in his beliefs.
I'm pretty sure with the Trump Wall he says he'll put a big door in it for legal migration. Have you even watched the primary debates...
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
When Sanders leads Trump by 2% on average nationally in the RCP average they very well could do and don't forget Iowa voted for Bush in 2004, NH for Bush in 2000, neither are safe Democratic states. I could certainly see Sanders beating Trump in Colorado and Virginia, that would take him over 270, maybe even Ohio too
True, it's more easy for Sanders to beat Trump than Hillary, Hillary has an unfavourability rating that rivals Trump while Sanders is on the black with his favourables.
Sanders and Carson are the most popular politicians in america right now, though their primary campaigns tell a different story. While Hillary and Trump are the most unpopular.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
Eh? Sanders would if anything probably have more chance of winning in the more ethnically-diverse states you mention, than in the overwhelmingly-white Iowa and New Hampshire (they're two of the few states where there's a wealthy white liberal vote who usually go Democrat but might defect if they think they're going to get clobbered by taxes too much).
It's way complicated, Sanders is very left wing on the economy and somewhat to the right on social issues (especially gun control). Trump is also on the left (but not that left like Sanders) on the economy and is a middle of the road on social issues (except immigration).
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Yes, it could go right to the wire, though Trump has promised to slash the top tax rate back below 30% so has moved right, at least on tax. It would be a populist mess as you say, Sanders representing 'Occupy Wall Street' and the anti War crowd, Trump the Tea Party and anti immigration rednecks
It would end up being a three-way election also. There's no way an independent wouldn't enter a Trump/Sanders race.
The idea that Sanders has any chance at all against Hillary is frankly at least as ridiculous as Corbyn being PM. Strictly in the never going to happen category.
Corbyn just needed to enthuse the base to become Labour leader though, Sanders just needs to enthuse the Democratic base to become nominee
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
Surely Bloomberg or someone half serious takes the plunge if that happens? There would be enough time to run a proper fundraising effort among those who didn't want to see a complete lunatic as leader of the free world!
The USA would be a laughing stock worldwide, imagine Jeremy Corbyn v Nick Griffin for UK PM.
I still think Hillary will win Iowa though even if she loses NH
I did write Farage originally then changed it. I don't think he would actually stand up and say No More Brown People, which is pretty much what Trump has said.
The worst thing about this Presidential campaign is that one of the buggers has to win, will be sworn in 12 months from now!
When did Trump say that? I must have missed it. My understanding is that he said no more Muslims, which includes all races.
He's said explicitly No More Muslims and to close the border with Mexico until Mexico pays for a wall along the border. He's come damn close to saying something racist but knows what he can get away with saying.
I stand by saying he's closer to Griffin than Farage in his beliefs.
I'm pretty sure with the Trump Wall he says he'll put a big door in it for legal migration. Have you even watched the primary debates...
Yes he said he'd put a door in it, but only after the Mexicans had agreed to pay for it. Watched most of the debates yes, although that doesn't mean I might only have been half awake some of the time!!
"RBS cries 'sell everything' as deflationary crisis nears
RBS has advised clients to brace for a “cataclysmic year” and a global deflationary crisis, warning that major stock markets could fall by a fifth and oil may plummet to $16 a barrel."
Bet they wish the euro hadn't survived for so long. The eurozone is the prime exporter of deflation.
Perhaps the reason why Tories want to get rid of Corbyn is the possibility of Cameron messing up with the economy so much, Corbyn might win.
Why is the eurozone the prime exporter of deflation?
I get how it could export deflation from Germany to Spain, in that they are in the same currency bloc. But I can't see how it could export deflation to-for example- the US.
As an aside, inflation (ex energy) is comfortably positive in the eurozone, so I'm not sure it's even true inside the currency bloc anymore.
This crisis is one of the BRICS and emerging markets, and for commodity producers in particular. The Eurozone is looking more positive than it has for years, with quite positive growth forecasts in many parts.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
When Sanders leads Trump by 2% on average nationally in the RCP average they very well could do and don't forget Iowa voted for Bush in 2004, NH for Bush in 2000, neither are safe Democratic states. I could certainly see Sanders beating Trump in Colorado and Virginia, that would take him over 270, maybe even Ohio too
True, it's more easy for Sanders to beat Trump than Hillary, Hillary has an unfavourability rating that rivals Trump while Sanders is on the black with his favourables.
Sanders and Carson are the most popular politicians in america right now, though their primary campaigns tell a different story. While Hillary and Trump are the most unpopular.
Indeed, though Rubio polls the best in general election matchups of any candidate, GOP or Democrat, however he is following the Andy Burnham school of leadership campaigns
"RBS cries 'sell everything' as deflationary crisis nears
RBS has advised clients to brace for a “cataclysmic year” and a global deflationary crisis, warning that major stock markets could fall by a fifth and oil may plummet to $16 a barrel."
Bet they wish the euro hadn't survived for so long. The eurozone is the prime exporter of deflation.
Perhaps the reason why Tories want to get rid of Corbyn is the possibility of Cameron messing up with the economy so much, Corbyn might win.
Why is the eurozone the prime exporter of deflation?
I get how it could export deflation from Germany to Spain, in that they are in the same currency bloc. But I can't see how it could export deflation to-for example- the US.
As an aside, inflation (ex energy) is comfortably positive in the eurozone, so I'm not sure it's even true inside the currency bloc anymore.
A devalued currency. The euro has been devalued by so much last year it's crushing non-eurozone manufacturers, the result is what was a eurozone depression has become a global manufacturing recession.
Yes he said he'd put a door in it, but only after the Mexicans had agreed to pay for it. Watched most of the debates yes, although that doesn't mean I might only have been half awake some of the time!!
Do republican voters care if Mexico don't pay for it? A resounding no, all they care about is that the policy is actually implemented, and put to bed once and for all.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
It's way complicated, Sanders is very left wing on the economy and somewhat to the right on social issues (especially gun control). Trump is also on the left (but not that left like Sanders) on the economy and is a middle of the road on social issues (except immigration).
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Sanders is pro gay marriage and abortion, other than gun control he is fairly liberal on social issues
Swedish police have been accused of covering a number of sexual assaults on teenage girls at a music festival in Stockholm last summer - because a number of the suspects were underage refugees.
Roger Ticoalu, who heads Stockholm city government's events department, said Monday that a 'large part' of those detained were from Afghanistan, many carrying temporary ID-cards issued to asylum-seekers.
He said about 20 teenage girls filed complaints of sexual assault and that about 200 suspects were detained and ejected from the festival for sexual assault and other offenses.
Ticoalu said organizers received reports already in 2014 of groups of young men and boys groping girls in a systematic manner. Efforts were put in place, including more security guards, to prevent a repeat in 2015 but instead the problem got worse, he said.
Several of the officers DN spoken to say that the authority deliberately avoiding to report on the phenomena linked to offenders of foreign origin. we sometimes dare not say that it is because we think it plays Sweden Democrats in the hands. We must take on this in the police, said the police chief Peter Agren
It's way complicated, Sanders is very left wing on the economy and somewhat to the right on social issues (especially gun control). Trump is also on the left (but not that left like Sanders) on the economy and is a middle of the road on social issues (except immigration).
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Yes, it could go right to the wire, though Trump has promised to slash the top tax rate back below 30% so has moved right, at least on tax. It would be a populist mess as you say, Sanders representing 'Occupy Wall Street' and the anti War crowd, Trump the Tea Party and anti immigration rednecks
It would end up being a three-way election also. There's no way an independent wouldn't enter a Trump/Sanders race.
An independent will either allow a landslide Sanders victory or a marginal Trump victory, since Sanders can beat Trump anyway with relative ease.
A Sanders campaign will be the only one that will make the GOP establishment stick with Trump at the same time as diffusing Trump's populist wing, so an independent will not gain much from the republican side but he might get a small slice (no more than 5%), so it will depend on his appeal with democrats.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
Surely Bloomberg or someone half serious takes the plunge if that happens? There would be enough time to run a proper fundraising effort among those who didn't want to see a complete lunatic as leader of the free world!
The USA would be a laughing stock worldwide, imagine Jeremy Corbyn v Nick Griffin for UK PM.
I still think Hillary will win Iowa though even if she loses NH
I did write Farage originally then changed it. I don't think he would actually stand up and say No More Brown People, which is pretty much what Trump has said.
The worst thing about this Presidential campaign is that one of the buggers has to win, will be sworn in 12 months from now!
Maybe not but both Farage and Trump are fishing in the same voter pool and it was no coincidence UKIP voters were the only ones of any major UK party to back Trump's comments in the polls
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
Surely Bloomberg or someone half serious takes the plunge if that happens? There would be enough time to run a proper fundraising effort among those who didn't want to see a complete lunatic as leader of the free world!
The USA would be a laughing stock worldwide, imagine Jeremy Corbyn v Nick Griffin for UK PM.
Bloomberg did a poll last month to test the waters, it was so bad he decided to announce he wasn't running. Though that with Hillary, not Sanders.
Bloomberg could win over some Hillary voters if Sanders is the Democratic nominee and some moderate Republicans if Trump is the GOP nominee, he may not win but he would have the best chance of any third party candidate since Ross Perot and probably an even better one
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
It's way complicated, Sanders is very left wing on the economy and somewhat to the right on social issues (especially gun control). Trump is also on the left (but not that left like Sanders) on the economy and is a middle of the road on social issues (except immigration).
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Sanders is pro gay marriage and abortion, other than gun control he is fairly liberal on social issues
Trump doesn't care about gay marriage and abortion and Sanders agrees with him on guns and mostly on foreign policy, so the battle will be waged on economics (banks, taxes, and free trade ) and immigration.
Sidenote: can we talk about how appallingly bad Martin O'Malley's campaign is?
How the hell do you stay stuck at just 2% in a contest with just 3 candidates?!?
I think his problems are two things: 1. His name is O'Malley (though that didn't stop Obama) 2. He's governor of Maryland, a nice reduced wasteland of a state, most known for it's Baltimore riots.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
It's way complicated, Sanders is very left wing on the economy and somewhat to the right on social issues (especially gun control). Trump is also on the left (but not that left like Sanders) on the economy and is a middle of the road on social issues (except immigration).
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Sanders is pro gay marriage and abortion, other than gun control he is fairly liberal on social issues
Trump doesn't care about gay marriage and abortion and Sanders agrees with him on guns and mostly on foreign policy, so the battle will be waged on economics (banks, taxes, and free trade ) and immigration.
No, but he will play enough of the religious card to win over the religious right. Sanders is an isolationist abroad and a pacifist, Trump wants to start WW3 in the Middle East, so would disagree there. I agree they disagree on economics and immigration
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
It's way complicated, Sanders is very left wing on the economy and somewhat to the right on social issues (especially gun control). Trump is also on the left (but not that left like Sanders) on the economy and is a middle of the road on social issues (except immigration).
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Sanders is pro gay marriage and abortion, other than gun control he is fairly liberal on social issues
Trump doesn't care about gay marriage and abortion and Sanders agrees with him on guns and mostly on foreign policy, so the battle will be waged on economics (banks, taxes, and free trade ) and immigration.
No, but he will play enough of the religious card to win over the religious right. Sanders is an isolationist abroad and a pacifist, Trump wants to start WW3 in the Middle East, so would disagree there. I agree they disagree on economics and immigration
Christie wants WW3, Trump on the other hand wants money.
Both Sanders and Trump would follow a realist foreign policy, though for different reasons, Sanders for ideological reasons and Trump because he likes money more than war.
Trump wont do wars unless it's profitable for america.
It's way complicated, Sanders is very left wing on the economy and somewhat to the right on social issues (especially gun control). Trump is also on the left (but not that left like Sanders) on the economy and is a middle of the road on social issues (except immigration).
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Yes, it could go right to the wire, though Trump has promised to slash the top tax rate back below 30% so has moved right, at least on tax. It would be a populist mess as you say, Sanders representing 'Occupy Wall Street' and the anti War crowd, Trump the Tea Party and anti immigration rednecks
It would end up being a three-way election also. There's no way an independent wouldn't enter a Trump/Sanders race.
An independent will either allow a landslide Sanders victory or a marginal Trump victory, since Sanders can beat Trump anyway with relative ease.
A Sanders campaign will be the only one that will make the GOP establishment stick with Trump at the same time as diffusing Trump's populist wing, so an independent will not gain much from the republican side but he might get a small slice (no more than 5%), so it will depend on his appeal with democrats.
I think someone would run for sure. A Trump/Sanders election would not just run its course.
Swedish police have been accused of covering a number of sexual assaults on teenage girls at a music festival in Stockholm last summer - because a number of the suspects were underage refugees.
Roger Ticoalu, who heads Stockholm city government's events department, said Monday that a 'large part' of those detained were from Afghanistan, many carrying temporary ID-cards issued to asylum-seekers.
He said about 20 teenage girls filed complaints of sexual assault and that about 200 suspects were detained and ejected from the festival for sexual assault and other offenses.
Ticoalu said organizers received reports already in 2014 of groups of young men and boys groping girls in a systematic manner. Efforts were put in place, including more security guards, to prevent a repeat in 2015 but instead the problem got worse, he said.
There are obviously lots of these incidents going unreported by the MSM. Seems there is even a word for it since it is not exactly unknown in certain cultures: "taharrush". Bit like the way eskimos have 11 different words for snow, I suppose.
Don't know if anyone has mentioned the scenes in Berlin on NYE? Quite worried by that as my (pretty, blonde, petite) 15-year-old daughter is off on a school trip to Berlin next month. I assume the linked video below is genuine. Looks like a warzone, not a Western capital city.
And another worrying trend...I notice how it is reported as the government fault first and foremost, not the scum bag employers....
The British government is exposing thousands of women brought to the UK by wealthy Gulf families to conditions of slavery, trafficking and abuse, according to a review of domestic worker visas.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Sanders is pro gay marriage and abortion, other than gun control he is fairly liberal on social issues
Trump doesn't care about gay marriage and abortion and Sanders agrees with him on guns and mostly on foreign policy, so the battle will be waged on economics (banks, taxes, and free trade ) and immigration.
No, but he will play enough of the religious card to win over the religious right. Sanders is an isolationist abroad and a pacifist, Trump wants to start WW3 in the Middle East, so would disagree there. I agree they disagree on economics and immigration
Christie wants WW3, Trump on the other hand wants money.
Both Sanders and Trump would follow a realist foreign policy, though for different reasons, Sanders for ideological reasons and Trump because he likes money more than war.
Trump wont do wars unless it's profitable for america.
It's way complicated, Sanders is very left wing on the economy and somewhat to the right on social issues (especially gun control). Trump is also on the left (but not that left like Sanders) on the economy and is a middle of the road on social issues (except immigration).
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Yes, it could go right to the wire, though Trump has promised to slash the top tax rate back below 30% so has moved right, at least on tax. It would be a populist mess as you say, Sanders representing 'Occupy Wall Street' and the anti War crowd, Trump the Tea Party and anti immigration rednecks
It would end up being a three-way election also. There's no way an independent wouldn't enter a Trump/Sanders race.
An independent will either allow a landslide Sanders victory or a marginal Trump victory, since Sanders can beat Trump anyway with relative ease.
A Sanders campaign will be the only one that will make the GOP establishment stick with Trump at the same time as diffusing Trump's populist wing, so an independent will not gain much from the republican side but he might get a small slice (no more than 5%), so it will depend on his appeal with democrats.
I think someone would run for sure. A Trump/Sanders election would not just run its course.
We can try and throw names:
Jeb : single digits, Sanders victory Rubio : single digits, Sanders victory Bloomberg: in the low teens, impact mostly on Sanders so election too close to call Kasich : single digits, may have a small chance in Ohio but Sanders victory Webb: single digits, impact mostly on Sanders but still too small.
I have trouble finding an independent candidate beating both the Sanders DNC and Trump GOP to the White House. Bloomberg is the only one I can think of that could handle the keys to Trump.
Basically there are 3 models: Florida senate race 2010, Presidential elections of 1980 and 1992.
The Florida 2010 one is interesting, popular governor Charlie Crist loses the primary to Rubio, then runs as an independent with democrat support but loses because the democratic candidate refused to leave the race thus splitting the vote:
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Sanders is pro gay marriage and abortion, other than gun control he is fairly liberal on social issues
Trump doesn't care about gay marriage and abortion and Sanders agrees with him on guns and mostly on foreign policy, so the battle will be waged on economics (banks, taxes, and free trade ) and immigration.
No, but he will play enough of the religious card to win over the religious right. Sanders is an isolationist abroad and a pacifist, Trump wants to start WW3 in the Middle East, so would disagree there. I agree they disagree on economics and immigration
Christie wants WW3, Trump on the other hand wants money.
Both Sanders and Trump would follow a realist foreign policy, though for different reasons, Sanders for ideological reasons and Trump because he likes money more than war.
Trump wont do wars unless it's profitable for america.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Sanders is pro gay marriage and abortion, other than gun control he is fairly liberal on social issues
No, but he will play enough of the religious card to win over the religious right. Sanders is an isolationist abroad and a pacifist, Trump wants to start WW3 in the Middle East, so would disagree there. I agree they disagree on economics and immigration
Christie wants WW3, Trump on the other hand wants money.
Both Sanders and Trump would follow a realist foreign policy, though for different reasons, Sanders for ideological reasons and Trump because he likes money more than war.
Trump wont do wars unless it's profitable for america.
So? It's more profitable for Trump to get rid of ISIS and get their oil or at least demand cash payments from neighbouring countries for the job, I can certainly imagine Trump saying "we'll get rid of ISIS for you, for a 100 billion dollar fee only, we don't take credit cards".
It's way complicated, Sanders is very left wing on the economy and somewhat to the right on social issues (especially gun control). Trump is also on the left (but not that left like Sanders) on the economy and is a middle of the road on social issues (except immigration).
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Yes, it could go right to the wire, though Trump has promised to slash the top tax rate back below 30% so has moved right, at least on tax. It would be a populist mess as you say, Sanders representing 'Occupy Wall Street' and the anti War crowd, Trump the Tea Party and anti immigration rednecks
It would end up being a three-way election also. There's no way an independent wouldn't enter a Trump/Sanders race.
An independent will either allow a landslide Sanders victory or a marginal Trump victory, since Sanders can beat Trump anyway with relative ease.
A Sanders campaign will be the only one that will make the GOP establishment stick with Trump at the same time as diffusing Trump's populist wing, so an independent will not gain much from the republican side but he might get a small slice (no more than 5%), so it will depend on his appeal with democrats.
I think someone would run for sure. A Trump/Sanders election would not just run its course.
We can try and throw names:
Jeb : single digits, Sanders victory Rubio : single digits, Sanders victory Bloomberg: in the low teens, impact mostly on Sanders so election too close to call Kasich : single digits, may have a small chance in Ohio but Sanders victory Webb: single digits, impact mostly on Sanders but still too small.
I have trouble finding an independent candidate beating both the Sanders DNC and Trump GOP to the White House. Bloomberg is the only one I can think of that could handle the keys to Trump.
Basically there are 3 models: Florida senate race 2010, Presidential elections of 1980 and 1992.
The Florida 2010 one is interesting, popular governor Charlie Crist loses the primary to Rubio, then runs as an independent with democrat support but loses because the democratic candidate refused to leave the race thus splitting the vote:
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Sanders is pro gay marriage and abortion, other than gun control he is fairly liberal on social issues
Trump doesn't care about gay marriage and abortion and Sanders agrees with him on guns and mostly on foreign policy, so the battle will be waged on economics (banks, taxes, and free trade ) and immigration.
No, but he will play enough of the religious card to win over the religious right. Sanders is an isolationist abroad and a pacifist, Trump wants to start WW3 in the Middle East, so would disagree there. I agree they disagree on economics and immigration
Christie wants WW3, Trump on the other hand wants money.
Both Sanders and Trump would follow a realist foreign policy, though for different reasons, Sanders for ideological reasons and Trump because he likes money more than war.
Trump wont do wars unless it's profitable for america.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy. It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
Sanders is pro gay marriage and abortion, other than gun control he is fairly liberal on social issues
No, but he will play enough of the religious card to win over the religious right. Sanders is an isolationist abroad and a pacifist, Trump wants to start WW3 in the Middle East, so would disagree there. I agree they disagree on economics and immigration
Trump wont do wars unless it's profitable for america.
So? It's more profitable for Trump to get rid of ISIS and get their oil or at least demand cash payments from neighbouring countries for the job, I can certainly imagine Trump saying "we'll get rid of ISIS for you, for a 100 billion dollar fee only, we don't take credit cards".
Yes well taking out ISIS, not just containing them, requires a full on war
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
.
Sanders is pro gay marriage and abortion, other than gun control he is fairly liberal on social issues
Trump doesn't care about gay marriage and abortion and Sanders agrees with him on guns and mostly on foreign policy, so the battle will be waged on economics (banks, taxes, and free trade ) and immigration.
No, but he will play enough of the religious card to win over the religious right. Sanders is an isolationist abroad and a pacifist, Trump wants to start WW3 in the Middle East, so would disagree there. I agree they disagree on economics and immigration
Christie wants WW3, Trump on the other hand wants money.
Both Sanders and Trump would follow a realist foreign policy, though for different reasons, Sanders for ideological reasons and Trump because he likes money more than war.
Trump wont do wars unless it's profitable for america.
Not such a bad tactic against fanatics determined to die. There should be no safe areas for them to hide. Bit tough on Yazidi sex slaves though.
Yes, leave the Yazidis out
It is a bit difficult. IS does use prisoners and civilians as human shields, though they do not recognise civilians themselves, as we saw at the Bataclan.
Lets say that Cruz has peaked early and Trump sneaks a win in Iowa, the GOP race would be over. Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
If Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is Democratic nominee. In which case it could be Trump v Sanders by mid March!
That would mean a landslide for Trump of course. A socialist has no chance of winning outside a few places like Vermont.
Not on the latest polling it does not, NBC had Sanders beating Trump in both Iowa and NH yesterday.
The election won't be decided in those states. I can't see the likes of Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado voting for a socialist candidate.
.
Sanders is pro gay marriage and abortion, other than gun control he is fairly liberal on social issues
Trump doesn't care about gay marriage and abortion and Sanders agrees with him on guns and mostly on foreign policy, so the battle will be waged on economics (banks, taxes, and free trade ) and immigration.
No, but he will play enough of the religious card to win over the religious right. Sanders is an isolationist abroad and a pacifist, Trump wants to start WW3 in the Middle East, so would disagree there. I agree they disagree on economics and immigration
Christie wants WW3, Trump on the other hand wants money.
Both Sanders and Trump would follow a realist foreign policy, though for different reasons, Sanders for ideological reasons and Trump because he likes money more than war.
Trump wont do wars unless it's profitable for america.
Not such a bad tactic against fanatics determined to die. There should be no safe areas for them to hide. Bit tough on Yazidi sex slaves though.
Yes, leave the Yazidis out
It is a bit difficult. IS does use prisoners and civilians as human shields, though they do not recognise civilians themselves, as we saw at the Bataclan.
Indeed and Trump is hardly the most nuanced of people
Comments
Hillary Clinton can lose against anyone, even a geriatric communist.
Now if Sanders wins Iowa he also wins N.H., but that maybe just the beginning of a long and unpredictable DNC race.
A Tory/UKIP coalition in Wales would certainly shake things around a little after Labour rule for so long!
With the LDs dead could it be Con/UKIP and Lab/PC/Grn with almost the same number of seats?
I don't know how common it is, but I've just had a "Britain Stronger in Europe" ad on my Facebook timeline (the ad discussed last week). It was a sponsored post.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Turner-s-bid-history-books/story-11950325-detail/story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Assembly_for_Wales_election,_2016
LAB 34+PC 18=52 %
CON 23+UKIP 16 =39 %
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/how-can-watch-carwyn-jones-10714463
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/watch-live-carwyn-jones-nigel-10717759
Shame for Wales, some fresh thinking there could I'm sure help with a lot of their problems.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3393862/Good-riddance-maybe-unionism-gives-cancer-Scottish-Nationalists-troll-David-Bowie-death-pleaded-Scotland-stay-UK-2014.html
We need another sexed up dossier.
The USA would be a laughing stock worldwide, imagine Jeremy Corbyn v Nick Griffin for UK PM.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4d7Wp9kKjA
Marco Rubio is no longer the betting frontrunner with everyone.
Ladbrokes just put Trump ahead of Rubio at 15/8 vs 2.
Rubio was in the lead with all of them since mid-October, and it's a first for Trump to be the favourite with a betting company.
Rubio's odds were drifting for a long time now, his best was when he briefly hit 50% on Betfair on Nov. 15th.
RBS has advised clients to brace for a “cataclysmic year” and a global deflationary crisis, warning that major stock markets could fall by a fifth and oil may plummet to $16 a barrel."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12093807/RBS-cries-sell-everything-as-deflationary-crisis-nears.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html
I still think Hillary will win Iowa even if she loses NH
Though that with Hillary, not Sanders.
https://twitter.com/ElinCeredigion/status/686644508646346752
The eurozone is the prime exporter of deflation.
Perhaps the reason why Tories want to get rid of Corbyn is the possibility of Cameron messing up with the economy so much, Corbyn might win.
The worst thing about this Presidential campaign is that one of the buggers has to win, will be sworn in 12 months from now!
I thought Farage was much stronger in the bits I saw than Carwyn Jones. (Then again, I probably would, given that I am a strong "Outer" and voted Ukip at the last election.) But if Jones's arguments are the best the Inners can come up with, maybe "Out" are in with a better chance than I thought. I thought he was weak.
Trump is also on the left (but not that left like Sanders) on the economy and is a middle of the road on social issues (except immigration).
It will be a populist mess, Trump will be yelling about protectionism and immigrants, Sanders will be yelling about bank nationalizations and social justice, but both agree on a pragmatist foreign policy.
It will be like a hypothetical LBJ vs Reagan race but less belligerent.
I stand by saying he's closer to Griffin than Farage in his beliefs.
I get how it could export deflation from Germany to Spain, in that they are in the same currency bloc. But I can't see how it could export deflation to-for example- the US.
As an aside, inflation (ex energy) is comfortably positive in the eurozone, so I'm not sure it's even true inside the currency bloc anymore.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/happened-carwyn-jones-nigel-farage-10717759
Just off to read through it.
Carwyn Jones used the scaremongering tactic of loss of jobs, which I feel will be the cruz of the whole debate in the coming weeks and months. In the end, people will vote on whether they think their job is safe.
Sanders and Carson are the most popular politicians in america right now, though their primary campaigns tell a different story.
While Hillary and Trump are the most unpopular.
The euro has been devalued by so much last year it's crushing non-eurozone manufacturers, the result is what was a eurozone depression has become a global manufacturing recession.
Swedish police have been accused of covering a number of sexual assaults on teenage girls at a music festival in Stockholm last summer - because a number of the suspects were underage refugees.
Roger Ticoalu, who heads Stockholm city government's events department, said Monday that a 'large part' of those detained were from Afghanistan, many carrying temporary ID-cards issued to asylum-seekers.
He said about 20 teenage girls filed complaints of sexual assault and that about 200 suspects were detained and ejected from the festival for sexual assault and other offenses.
Ticoalu said organizers received reports already in 2014 of groups of young men and boys groping girls in a systematic manner. Efforts were put in place, including more security guards, to prevent a repeat in 2015 but instead the problem got worse, he said.
I confess, I was surprised by her twitter feed: she seems to have a mouth like a sewer.
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/overgreppen-pa-festivalen-i-stockholm-rapporterades-aldrig-vidare/
A Sanders campaign will be the only one that will make the GOP establishment stick with Trump at the same time as diffusing Trump's populist wing, so an independent will not gain much from the republican side but he might get a small slice (no more than 5%), so it will depend on his appeal with democrats.
How the hell do you stay stuck at just 2% in a contest with just 3 candidates?!?
1. His name is O'Malley (though that didn't stop Obama)
2. He's governor of Maryland, a nice reduced wasteland of a state, most known for it's Baltimore riots.
Both Sanders and Trump would follow a realist foreign policy, though for different reasons, Sanders for ideological reasons and Trump because he likes money more than war.
Trump wont do wars unless it's profitable for america.
Seems there is even a word for it since it is not exactly unknown in certain cultures: "taharrush". Bit like the way eskimos have 11 different words for snow, I suppose.
Don't know if anyone has mentioned the scenes in Berlin on NYE? Quite worried by that as my (pretty, blonde, petite) 15-year-old daughter is off on a school trip to Berlin next month. I assume the linked video below is genuine. Looks like a warzone, not a Western capital city.
https://youtu.be/lWd6iMXlXVE
The British government is exposing thousands of women brought to the UK by wealthy Gulf families to conditions of slavery, trafficking and abuse, according to a review of domestic worker visas.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/jan/11/uk-increasing-abuse-foreign-maids-tied-visas
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/trump-isis-families-145744666.html
Jeb : single digits, Sanders victory
Rubio : single digits, Sanders victory
Bloomberg: in the low teens, impact mostly on Sanders so election too close to call
Kasich : single digits, may have a small chance in Ohio but Sanders victory
Webb: single digits, impact mostly on Sanders but still too small.
I have trouble finding an independent candidate beating both the Sanders DNC and Trump GOP to the White House. Bloomberg is the only one I can think of that could handle the keys to Trump.
Basically there are 3 models: Florida senate race 2010, Presidential elections of 1980 and 1992.
The Florida 2010 one is interesting, popular governor Charlie Crist loses the primary to Rubio, then runs as an independent with democrat support but loses because the democratic candidate refused to leave the race thus splitting the vote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Florida,_2010
It's more profitable for Trump to get rid of ISIS and get their oil or at least demand cash payments from neighbouring countries for the job, I can certainly imagine Trump saying "we'll get rid of ISIS for you, for a 100 billion dollar fee only, we don't take credit cards".
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/8949396?ir=UK+Comedy
I particularly like this on:
https://twitter.com/Mefusen_Jam/status/686200054584086528
*and he has quite close friends there:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9328002/Coalition-at-war-over-Jeremy-Hunt-and-BSkyB.html
new thread