politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump now in clear lead in the betting following another co

SystemSystem Posts: 12,293
edited 2016 15 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump now in clear lead in the betting following another confident debate performance

politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    First.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,486
    FPT
    Cyclefree said:

    Wanderer said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I tend to the view that either both parties are anonymous or neither are. I don't like anonymity when it comes to justice (save in very exceptional cases e.g children or matters of national security) so I do feel that the anonymity rules should be looked at again.

    Unless there is a need to gather further evidence or warn people, I don't see the advantage of publicising names of people accused of anything. If you buy a tabloid you discover that a George Smith of 17 Acacia Gardens has been accused of X. Either you know George or you don't. If you do, you probably know about the case anyway. If you don't, it does nobody any good at all, except give the reader a certain prurient interest ("hey, I drove by there only last month!"). But not only does it damage the defendant before conviction, it encourages false accusations and discourages true ones (because the complainant will be guessed at by people in the know, and in non-rape cases will actually be identified).

    After conviction, obviously it's open season.
    I agree. People who are charged but not convicted inevitably suffer a lot of harm (psychological and/or material) but we should do whatever we can to limit that and, realistically, that means anonymity before conviction.
    Anonymous trials. Really?? Justice neither being seen nor heard. No, really no. On what possible basis can one overturn centuries of legal practice and principle?

    The idea that the overriding principle should be to cause no harm or limit hard is, frankly, a childish one. There will always be costs and one should try as far as possible limit or mitigate those costs but most of the time we have to accept that there are far more important matters than ensuring that no-one ever suffers any upset or offence or bad effect ever. Life is tough: difficult things happen. We have to learn to live with them, get past them and get on with it. An open, transparent and, as far as possible, fair to the accused and all those involved and to the public justice system is really important. And, sorry, the hurt feelings of individuals are not a sufficient reason to tamper with that.

    Trials in secret / anonymous defendants and witnesses and accusers are an abomination in a free and open society.
    "Life isn't fair" is not an argument - it's a platitude and can be applied to anything in lieu of an actual argument.

    Don't like high taxes? Life isn't fair. Don't like secret police? Life isn't fair. Don't like gerrymandering? Life isn't fair. And so on.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    IMO it should be

    Trump 39%
    Cruz 29%
    Rubio 22%
    Bush 6%
    Christie 4%
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12101840/Ken-Livingstone-will-play-no-formal-role-in-Labours-defence-review.html

    Ken Livingstone ousted from defence review in a 'Trident two-step'
    Labour said on Friday that Mr Livingstone, the ex-London mayor, will have no formal role in Labour's review of its defence policy.

    Was Livingstones brief surge to power a flash in the pan? Oh those mixed metaphors!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,365
    Is that photo of Donald Trump or from some kind of fanfic porn movie?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Trump tightens his grip:

    This from an anti Trump analyst, whatever that may mean.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-republican-debate-shows-donald-trump-won/story?id=36276687
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,144
    First airing of Donald Trump's official theme song at a rally

    'Donald Trump's "official theme song" will haunt your soul. You've been warned.'
    https://www.facebook.com/bfnewsnetowrk/videos/1167246663315798/?pnref=story
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,753
    It's ALL about the Donald.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,548
    edited 2016 15
    FPT (in response to @Wanderer):-

    I don't agree with your premise but never mind.

    I think there is an issue with the police arresting people in a blaze of publicity and then leaving them hanging for months on end with no charge and with the press and others free to make their life a misery. I think that is wrong. The relationship between the police and the press has not been good on this and has caused real harm. Paul Gambaccini has talked quite movingly about the effect on him of just this sequence of events. That is curable - but not by anonymity.

    There is very great harm caused to people - and to society at large - by secret arrests. Think about that for a moment if you don't want a "sermon" from me.

    The problem is resolved - or very significantly mitigated - by controlling what the police say to the press (and enforcing this against the police, who have been pretty egregious sinners on this), by ensuring that arrests are not made prematurely and that once arrested the investigation is done as speedily as possible so that a decision on charges or not is made.

    I don't agree that charges should be kept anonymous. Justice should be public. Secret charges are as dubious and harmful as secret arrests and secret trials.

    It would be interesting to know how many people charged with certain types of offences e.g. child abuse / rape have committed suicide before the trial was concluded. I do appreciate that being charged with such crimes is pretty bloody horrible, especially if you consider yourself to be innocent. But being charged with any serious crime with the prospect of prison is pretty bloody horrible, especially if, say (as has happened to a number of people whose trial started this week) the time between being charged and the trial even starting is SIX years.

    The answer is to make sure that the investigation and trial happen as fast as possible so that, one way or another, all concerned get a conclusion quickly. Justice denied.... and all that.

    But that requires proper resources to be put into the criminal justice system. What do you think the chances of that happening any time soon are?

    And at this point, I'm retiring from this because the sound of lawyers asking for more money for lawyers and investigators and policemen and judges will lead to a roasting. And as I still have work to do, I need to get on with it. :)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,144
    Post-debate poll from Gravis

    Who won?
    Trump 41%
    Cruz 26%
    Rubio 18%
    Christie 7%
    Kasich 4%
    Bush 2%
    Carson 2%
    http://www.peoplespunditdaily.com/polls/2016/01/15/post-republican-debate-poll-donald-trump-scores-big-win-south-carolina/
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,548
    Freggles said:

    FPT

    Cyclefree said:

    Wanderer said:

    NickPalmer said:

    Cyclefree said:



    I tend to the view that either both parties are anonymous or neither are. I don't like anonymity when it comes to justice (save in very exceptional cases e.g children or matters of national security) so I do feel that the anonymity rules should be looked at again.

    Unless there is a need to gather further evidence or warn people, I don't see the advantage of publicising names of people accused of anything. If you buy a tabloid you discover that a George Smith of 17 Acacia Gardens has been accused of X. Either you know George or you don't. If you do, you probably know about the case anyway. If you don't, it does nobody any good at all, except give the reader a certain prurient interest ("hey, I drove by there only last month!"). But not only does it damage the defendant before conviction, it encourages false accusations and discourages true ones (because the complainant will be guessed at by people in the know, and in non-rape cases will actually be identified).

    After conviction, obviously it's open season.
    I agree. People who are charged but not convicted inevitably suffer a lot of harm (psychological and/or material) but we should do whatever we can to limit that and, realistically, that means anonymity before conviction.
    Anonymous trials. Really?? Justice neither being seen nor heard. No, really no. On what possible basis can one overturn centuries of legal practice and principle?

    The idea that the overriding principle should be to cause no harm or limit hard is, frankly, a childish one. There will always be costs and one should try as far as possible limit or mitigate those costs but most of the time we have to accept that there are far more important matters than ensuring that no-one ever suffers any upset or offence or bad effect ever. Life is tough: difficult things happen. We have to learn to live with them, get past them and get on with it. An open, transparent and, as far as possible, fair to the accused and all those involved and to the public justice system is really important. And, sorry, the hurt feelings of individuals are not a sufficient reason to tamper with that.

    Trials in secret / anonymous defendants and witnesses and accusers are an abomination in a free and open society.
    "Life isn't fair" is not an argument - it's a platitude and can be applied to anything in lieu of an actual argument.

    Don't like high taxes? Life isn't fair. Don't like secret police? Life isn't fair. Don't like gerrymandering? Life isn't fair. And so on.
    I tend to agree. But it seems to be an "argument" used ever more frequently. We are becoming a very babyish society. Life isn't fair. Deal with it. What are we? Four?

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,144
    3 way contest NBC/WSJ

    Trump 40%
    Cruz 31%
    Rubio 26%

    2 way contest

    Trump 52%
    Rubio 45%

    Cruz 51%
    Trump 43%
    http://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10772700/donald-trump-ted-cruz-poll?ref=yfp
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029
    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    Agreed. All those Europeans who rubbished his chances were just reflecting their own prejudices, as usual.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,144
    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    His theme song is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard, but very difficult to get out of your head
    https://www.facebook.com/bfnewsnetowrk/videos/1167246663315798/?pnref=story
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,365
    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    edited 2016 15
    Lay Cruz...
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/07/trump-vs-cruz-eligibility-questions-justified-rnc-ad-highlights-gop-diversity/

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/265509-mccain-cruz-eligibility-needs-to-be-looked-at
    Rubio's not eligible either, btw.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,753
    I'm laying out Jeb Bush a touch more.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,144
    AndyJS said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    Agreed. All those Europeans who rubbished his chances were just reflecting their own prejudices, as usual.
    Europeans are quite capable of voting in large numbers for Marine Le Pen, Silvio Berlusconi, Geert Wilders and Nigel Farage, all of whom come from the same pool as Trump
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,144
    AndyJS said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    Agreed. All those Europeans who rubbished his chances were just reflecting their own prejudices, as usual.
    Historically after 8 years out of the White House this race should be there for the taking for Republicans, however Trump could yet let Hillary in through the backdoor
  • ThreeQuidderThreeQuidder Posts: 6,133
    RodCrosby said:

    Lay Cruz...
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/07/trump-vs-cruz-eligibility-questions-justified-rnc-ad-highlights-gop-diversity/

    Rubio's not eligible either, btw.

    When were their naturalisation ceremonies?
  • Y0kelY0kel Posts: 2,307
    My understanding is that the FBI will propose some kind case be taken against Clinton.

    On an unrelated note, there are unverified stories that a Briton has been killed in Yemen, a British government employee, an armed one.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,744
    I'm going to the poorhouse aren't I?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited 2016 15
    O/T:

    On Newsnight a couple of days ago Tory MP Alan Duncan was talking about how the oil price was back where it was 30 years ago when he started out in the industry at $30 a barrel. He didn't mention the fact that when you adjust for inflation $30 today is equivalent to about $14 in 1986.

    http://chartsbin.com/view/oau
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    FPT re anonymity of defendants etc
    Cyclefree said:


    I think there is an issue with the police arresting people in a blaze of publicity and then leaving them hanging for months on end ...

    There is very great harm caused to people - and to society at large - by secret arrests.

    I totally agree that secret arrests are deplorable if the state can insist on secrecy. That's police-state-like. What I'm suggesting is that the arrestee can keep it secret if they prefer (again, unless considerations such as public safety override that).
    Cyclefree said:


    The problem is resolved - or very significantly mitigated - by controlling what the police say to the press (and enforcing this against the police, who have been pretty egregious sinners on this)

    Agreed. That would mitigate the problem if it happened.
    Cyclefree said:


    I don't agree that charges should be kept anonymous.

    On reflection, I agree.
    Cyclefree said:


    It would be interesting to know how many people charged with certain types of offences e.g. child abuse / rape have committed suicide before the trial was concluded. I do appreciate that being charged with such crimes is pretty bloody horrible, especially if you consider yourself to be innocent. But being charged with any serious crime with the prospect of prison is pretty bloody horrible, especially if, say (as has happened to a number of people whose trial started this week) the time between being charged and the trial even starting is SIX years.

    I think it's uniquely horrible if the charge is such that you will never be accepted in society again. I think most of us would agree that, if convicted of an offence like that, the most severe element of the punishment would not be the official sanction of imprisonment but the eternal revulsion of everyone you met. That should not be visited on the innocent.
    Cyclefree said:


    The answer is to make sure that the investigation and trial happen as fast as possible so that, one way or another, all concerned get a conclusion quickly. Justice denied.... and all that.

    But that requires proper resources to be put into the criminal justice system. What do you think the chances of that happening any time soon are?

    And at this point, I'm retiring from this because the sound of lawyers asking for more money for lawyers and investigators and policemen and judges will lead to a roasting. And as I still have work to do, I need to get on with it. :)

    No roasting from me. We should fund the criminal justice system adequately. But I appreciate that you have work to do, which is no fun on a Friday evening.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,753
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I'm going to the poorhouse aren't I?

    You've got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em..
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,161
    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
    I think Ford is one of the most underrated US Presidents.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,753
    AndyJS said:

    O/T:

    On Newsnight a couple of days ago Tory MP Alan Duncan was talking about how the oil price was back where it was 30 years ago when he started out in the industry at $30 a barrel. He didn't mention the fact that when you adjust for inflation $30 today is equivalent to about $14 in 1986.

    http://chartsbin.com/view/oau

    Is that all ? I'd rather have $14 in 1986 than $30 now !
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    Agreed. All those Europeans who rubbished his chances were just reflecting their own prejudices, as usual.
    Europeans are quite capable of voting in large numbers for Marine Le Pen, Silvio Berlusconi, Geert Wilders and Nigel Farage, all of whom come from the same pool as Trump
    Europeans are quite capable of hilariously hypocritical anti-American posturing.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,744
    Pulpstar said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I'm going to the poorhouse aren't I?

    You've got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em..
    My only hope is the Guardian launch a letter writing campaign telling the Americans to vote for Trump
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,365
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
    I think Ford is one of the most underrated US Presidents.
    He was a reversion of a classic gag. The Americans hired a brace of monkeys in Nixon and Agnew (later replaced by Ford) so they got Peanuts.
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    Clinton is looking sleazier by the day. It is actually possible to see Trump as the next POTUS.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,365
    Pulpstar said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T:

    On Newsnight a couple of days ago Tory MP Alan Duncan was talking about how the oil price was back where it was 30 years ago when he started out in the industry at $30 a barrel. He didn't mention the fact that when you adjust for inflation $30 today is equivalent to about $14 in 1986.

    http://chartsbin.com/view/oau

    Is that all ? I'd rather have $14 in 1986 than $30 now !
    Try it via this site:

    https://www.measuringworth.com/

    It offers a wider range of options, bearing in mind the different ways of measuring depreciation/inflation/purchasing power.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029
    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
    Yes, indeed. I was too young for that one but it's a very good parallel.

    (Sort of - Hillary fits closest to the Ford role while Trump would be Reagan?)
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029
    Pulpstar said:

    AndyJS said:

    O/T:

    On Newsnight a couple of days ago Tory MP Alan Duncan was talking about how the oil price was back where it was 30 years ago when he started out in the industry at $30 a barrel. He didn't mention the fact that when you adjust for inflation $30 today is equivalent to about $14 in 1986.

    http://chartsbin.com/view/oau

    Is that all ? I'd rather have $14 in 1986 than $30 now !
    Didn't it go under $10 during the mid-1980s?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
    I think Ford is one of the most underrated US Presidents.
    Not least by himself: "I'm a Ford, not a Lincoln". Nice quip but not designed to inspire confidence.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,365
    edited 2016 15
    david_herdson said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
    Yes, indeed. I was too young for that one but it's a very good parallel.

    (Sort of - Hillary fits closest to the Ford role while Trump would be Reagan?)
    Trump would be Carter - the man who poses as the complete outsider and going in to clean up Washington and sort out all the mess these corrupt insiders have made.

    Only to make, with due respect to @rcs1000's opinion of him, an even more impressive mess of things than Nixon did. At least Nixon was never attacked by a rabbit or had a major rescue mission blow itself up in full view of the world's press.
  • LondonBobLondonBob Posts: 467
    http://www.albawaba.com/news/jordan’s-king-abdullah-obama-plan-meet-next-month-after-crossing-paths-washington-793252

    King Abdullah came to Washington this week and was in the process of being ignored by Obama. Then some brave soul explained that Jordan was abandoning its alliance with the US and Israel in favor of Russia and Iran. That was evidently enough to get his attention and he met Abdullah at Andrews AFB as the King was leaving the US, but, alas, too little too late. Jordan has almost overnight agreed to establish a shared war room with Russia for the concerted conduct of their operations in Syria. This represents an extreme reversal of Amman’s policy. Alongside the SAA being on the verge of taking Al Bab and cutting IS's supply line to Turkey I think the summer looks like the likely end time for the Syrian civil war.

    Dreadful economic data out of the US today. Obama's legacy will be an anvil for Hilary.
    https://www.frbatlanta.org/cqer/research/gdpnow.aspx?panel=1
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,744
    I said on PB a few years ago, were Ed Miliband to become PM he'd be the British Gerald Ford.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,744
    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,161
    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
    Yes, indeed. I was too young for that one but it's a very good parallel.

    (Sort of - Hillary fits closest to the Ford role while Trump would be Reagan?)
    Trump would be Carter - the man who poses as the complete outsider and going in to clean up Washington and sort out all the mess these corrupt insiders have made.

    Only to make, with due respect to @rcs1000's opinion of him, an even more impressive mess of things than Nixon did. At least Nixon was never attacked by a rabbit or had a major rescue mission blow itself up in full view of the world's press.
    I have a high opinion of Ford, not Carter
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    edited 2016 15
    Did I get that calculation the wrong way round? Oops, if so.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 7,362
    HYUFD said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    His theme song is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard, but very difficult to get out of your head
    https://www.facebook.com/bfnewsnetowrk/videos/1167246663315798/?pnref=story
    Same here,so it's doing it's job ;-)

    On the facebook site where the song is on,the comment section is a good read ;-),this comment made me laugh.

    Mellissa Tipper -

    I listened to the whole thing and now it's stuck in my head. Bitterly ironic because now I'm wishing the UK had the same relaxed approach to gun laws as the US so that I could shoot myself.

    ;-)
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
    Yes, indeed. I was too young for that one but it's a very good parallel.

    (Sort of - Hillary fits closest to the Ford role while Trump would be Reagan?)
    Trump would be Carter - the man who poses as the complete outsider and going in to clean up Washington and sort out all the mess these corrupt insiders have made.

    Only to make, with due respect to @rcs1000's opinion of him, an even more impressive mess of things than Nixon did. At least Nixon was never attacked by a rabbit or had a major rescue mission blow itself up in full view of the world's press.
    Though Carter had been a state governor. He wasn't anything like as left-field as Trump would be.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,365
    edited 2016 15
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
    Yes, indeed. I was too young for that one but it's a very good parallel.

    (Sort of - Hillary fits closest to the Ford role while Trump would be Reagan?)
    Trump would be Carter - the man who poses as the complete outsider and going in to clean up Washington and sort out all the mess these corrupt insiders have made.

    Only to make, with due respect to @rcs1000's opinion of him, an even more impressive mess of things than Nixon did. At least Nixon was never attacked by a rabbit or had a major rescue mission blow itself up in full view of the world's press.
    I have a high opinion of Ford, not Carter
    Sorry - misread it. Too late at night after an extremely difficult week. It did seem an odd thing to say. Whatever Carter's virtues since leaving office, he was a bloody awful president. And so would Trump be, of course, although he might be better than Her Hilaryness.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,161
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    I have a very low opinion of LBJ. Although he did have some good lines.

    I had lunch in the same restaurant as Mitt Romney last Thursday.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    He's not poorly rated though?

    Is the "most underrated" title most likely to go to someone who is considered good (but we don't appreciate just how good) or someone who is considered to be shite (but was actually mediocre)?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,365
    edited 2016 15
    rcs1000 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    I have a very low opinion of LBJ. Although he did have some good lines.
    Among them this one:

    Aide to the President in 1967: 'Lovely morning, Mr President.'

    LBJ: 'Thank you.'

    And of course this one:

    Junior officer: 'That's your helicopter over there, Mr President.'

    LBJ: 'Son, they're all my helicopters.'

    Reality and LBJ didn't quite touch in some places.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,161
    Wanderer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    He's not poorly rated though?

    Is the "most underrated" title most likely to go to someone who is considered good (but we don't appreciate just how good) or someone who is considered to be shite (but was actually mediocre)?
    Sorry, he inherited the presidency at a difficult time, and performed well in the role; certainly better than the previous two incumbents or the subsequent one
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029
    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
    Yes, indeed. I was too young for that one but it's a very good parallel.

    (Sort of - Hillary fits closest to the Ford role while Trump would be Reagan?)
    Trump would be Carter - the man who poses as the complete outsider and going in to clean up Washington and sort out all the mess these corrupt insiders have made.

    Only to make, with due respect to @rcs1000's opinion of him, an even more impressive mess of things than Nixon did. At least Nixon was never attacked by a rabbit or had a major rescue mission blow itself up in full view of the world's press.
    Isn't Obama the new and improved Carter?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,739
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    Harry Truman is No 1 for me by a long way.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited 2016 15
    Wanderer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    He's not poorly rated though?

    Is the "most underrated" title most likely to go to someone who is considered good (but we don't appreciate just how good) or someone who is considered to be shite (but was actually mediocre)?
    It's the ends that justify the means.
    LBJ in one sentence.

    Kennedy had to be assassinated for Medicare, the Civil Rights Act, and the Vietnam war to proceed.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    I'd agree about LBJ.

    It does beg the question as to why Grover Cleveland would be your favourite president?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,365
    rcs1000 said:

    Wanderer said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    He's not poorly rated though?

    Is the "most underrated" title most likely to go to someone who is considered good (but we don't appreciate just how good) or someone who is considered to be shite (but was actually mediocre)?
    Sorry, he inherited the presidency at a difficult time, and performed well in the role; certainly better than the previous two incumbents or the subsequent one
    Indeed. But he never lived down that decision to pardon Nixon. Whether it was right or wrong morally, or ethically, or even legally, it was political suicide.

    On the other hand, he didn't hire people who photographed themselves committing crimes. Or get attacked by enraged examples of sylvilagus aquaticus.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,744
    edited 2016 15
    david_herdson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    I'd agree about LBJ.

    It does beg the question as to why Grover Cleveland would be your favourite president?
    Ulysses S. Grant :-)

    Depending on my mood, it alternates on being Harry S Truman, Abe Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

    Now my favourite Vice President, is Aaron Burr, for his duel with Alexander Hamilton.

    Now I can see Trump engaging in a duel with an opponent.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    If you want to start with someone with a dire reputation I wonder if Grant will be re-evaluated. There is a revisionist view of Reconstruction which is much more positive than Gone With the Wind, aiui.

    Or Herbert Hoover. Anyone going into bat for him?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,365
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    david_herdson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    I'd agree about LBJ.

    It does beg the question as to why Grover Cleveland would be your favourite president?
    Ulysses S. Grant :-)

    Depending on my mood, it alternates on being Harry S Truman, Abe Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

    Now my favourite Vice President, is Aaron Burr, for his duel with Alexander Hamilton.

    Now I can see Trump engaging in a duel with an opponent.
    Are you suggesting the Republicans might cast him in the role of Hamilton to solve their dilemma? Seems a bit extreme. After all, the duel wrecked Burr's life and career as well even if it was Hamilton that was killed.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    david_herdson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    I'd agree about LBJ.

    It does beg the question as to why Grover Cleveland would be your favourite president?
    Ulysses S. Grant :-)

    Depending on my mood, it alternates being Harry S Truman, Abe Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

    Now my favourite Vice President, is Aaron Burr, for his duel with Alexander Hamilton.

    Now I can see Trump engaging in a duel with an opponent.
    How dare you, sir! Burr was a bounder and a traitor. Hamilton was America's greatest prime minister (and also slightly unhinged but I'll skip over that).

    Being serious, my favourite president is TR.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    I watched the debate of youtube, I agree Trump had a solid performance, Cruz tried to get rid of the birther issue ,not very successfully in my view, while being constantly attacked by Rubio as a flip flopper.

    The others might not have even tried to be there on stage.

    It's funny how Trump became a hero for New York overnight after being cast as it's villain for months, also ironic that Cruz gets a lot of money from N.Y. donors and his wife works for Goldman Sachs in "evil" N.Y. (and a 500$ thousand loan from G.S. for his senate campaign).

    The moment of the debate was certainly when Trump counter-attacked on Cruz saying his remarks about N.Y. were insulting and Cruz was forced to clap Trump's attack on him.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.

    Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,744
    david_herdson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    david_herdson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    I'd agree about LBJ.

    It does beg the question as to why Grover Cleveland would be your favourite president?
    Ulysses S. Grant :-)

    Depending on my mood, it alternates being Harry S Truman, Abe Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

    Now my favourite Vice President, is Aaron Burr, for his duel with Alexander Hamilton.

    Now I can see Trump engaging in a duel with an opponent.
    How dare you, sir! Burr was a bounder and a traitor. Hamilton was America's greatest prime minister (and also slightly unhinged but I'll skip over that).

    Being serious, my favourite president is TR.
    I like him too.

    Actually I did write a piece saying FDR was the greatest President ever, for being a lying, duplicitous bastard.

    During WW2 whilst American was supposedly neutral, he took a very pro British position that was anything but neutral.

    His policy of Germany First, which he managed to sell to the US public after Pearl Harbour, was a stunning achievement and possibly changed the course of human history.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I'm going to the poorhouse aren't I?

    If you only had listened to me:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vE8XJEeOpyA
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,744
    ydoethur said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    david_herdson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    I'd agree about LBJ.

    It does beg the question as to why Grover Cleveland would be your favourite president?
    Ulysses S. Grant :-)

    Depending on my mood, it alternates on being Harry S Truman, Abe Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan.

    Now my favourite Vice President, is Aaron Burr, for his duel with Alexander Hamilton.

    Now I can see Trump engaging in a duel with an opponent.
    Are you suggesting the Republicans might cast him in the role of Hamilton to solve their dilemma? Seems a bit extreme. After all, the duel wrecked Burr's life and career as well even if it was Hamilton that was killed.
    My suggestions for Donald Trump aren't printable.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029
    Wanderer said:

    If you want to start with someone with a dire reputation I wonder if Grant will be re-evaluated. There is a revisionist view of Reconstruction which is much more positive than Gone With the Wind, aiui.

    Or Herbert Hoover. Anyone going into bat for him?

    Grant was a spectacularly crap president, mitigated only by the fact that he probably didn't want the job. Still doesn't excuse him for basically sleeping through eight years (which in reality, Calvin Coolidge actually more-or-less tried: I think he slept 14 hours a day or something ridiculous).

    Hoover? A good man in out of his depth. A bit like Neville Chamberlain here, his premiership overshadows an otherwise hugely successful career.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
    I think Ford is one of the most underrated US Presidents.
    He COULD walk and chew gum at the same time!

    Though I think that he was the only president never to be elected. He was appointed VP after Agnew resigned. It would be very underrated to be President with that backstory; avoiding all that tiresome election business.


  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029
    edited 2016 15
    Wanderer said:

    In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.

    Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?

    FDR. Did more or less what Lincoln did but on an international level, and saved the country beforehand, and showed outstanding leadership in preparing it for a war it didn't want but was coming anyway.

    Question of the most overrated president? Jefferson.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,144
    Wanderer said:

    HYUFD said:

    AndyJS said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    Agreed. All those Europeans who rubbished his chances were just reflecting their own prejudices, as usual.
    Europeans are quite capable of voting in large numbers for Marine Le Pen, Silvio Berlusconi, Geert Wilders and Nigel Farage, all of whom come from the same pool as Trump
    Europeans are quite capable of hilariously hypocritical anti-American posturing.
    Yes but Americans can just as easily stereotype Europeans as effete wimps
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,753
    When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    rcs1000 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    ...

    I had lunch in the same restaurant as Mitt Romney last Thursday.
    I have eaten and drunk in the same pub as Charles II on several occasions.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    LBJ was great, if flawed.

    Reagan was a great.

    The jury is out on Clinton.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited 2016 15
    Pulpstar said:

    When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?

    After N.H.
    Rubio after S.C. or Nevada.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,365
    foxinsoxuk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
    I think Ford is one of the most underrated US Presidents.
    He COULD walk and chew gum at the same time!

    Though I think that he was the only president never to be elected. He was appointed VP after Agnew resigned. It would be very underrated to be President with that backstory; avoiding all that tiresome election business.


    He was also the first VP not to be elected, under the terms of the 25th Amendment (which allowed for new veeps to be appointed if the veep died, resigned or was imprisoned while in office).

    The chapter on him in Tindall and Shi's America is called simply 'The Unelected President'.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    Pulpstar said:

    I'm laying out Jeb Bush a touch more.

    Been laying him for weeks (laid Rubio, then laid him again) . Only thing stopping me is that old adage "never bet what you can't afford to lose". Which in my case is £300, at an average 0f about 9.5.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    david_herdson said:

    Wanderer said:

    If you want to start with someone with a dire reputation I wonder if Grant will be re-evaluated. There is a revisionist view of Reconstruction which is much more positive than Gone With the Wind, aiui.

    Or Herbert Hoover. Anyone going into bat for him?

    Grant was a spectacularly crap president, mitigated only by the fact that he probably didn't want the job. Still doesn't excuse him for basically sleeping through eight years (which in reality, Calvin Coolidge actually more-or-less tried: I think he slept 14 hours a day or something ridiculous).

    Hoover? A good man in out of his depth. A bit like Neville Chamberlain here, his premiership overshadows an otherwise hugely successful career.
    I think I would have liked Coolidge if I'd been alive in the Twenties. I wouldn't be averse to an unfeasibly laconic Prime Minister (like that's going to happen).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,144
    Tykejohnno said:

    HYUFD said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    His theme song is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard, but very difficult to get out of your head
    https://www.facebook.com/bfnewsnetowrk/videos/1167246663315798/?pnref=story
    Same here,so it's doing it's job ;-)

    On the facebook site where the song is on,the comment section is a good read ;-),this comment made me laugh.

    Mellissa Tipper -

    I listened to the whole thing and now it's stuck in my head. Bitterly ironic because now I'm wishing the UK had the same relaxed approach to gun laws as the US so that I could shoot myself.

    ;-)
    Now playing on the BBC News, complete with the cheerleaders
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HurstLlama said:

    rcs1000 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Most underrated US President, LBJ.

    He's my second favourite US President.

    ...

    I had lunch in the same restaurant as Mitt Romney last Thursday.
    I have eaten and drunk in the same pub as Charles II on several occasions.
    I have had a pint in about a dozen oldest pubs in England.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,739
    edited 2016 15
    Wanderer said:

    In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.

    Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?

    Truman.

    Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    ydoethur said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
    I think Ford is one of the most underrated US Presidents.
    He COULD walk and chew gum at the same time!

    Though I think that he was the only president never to be elected. He was appointed VP after Agnew resigned. It would be very underrated to be President with that backstory; avoiding all that tiresome election business.


    He was also the first VP not to be elected, under the terms of the 25th Amendment (which allowed for new veeps to be appointed if the veep died, resigned or was imprisoned while in office).

    The chapter on him in Tindall and Shi's America is called simply 'The Unelected President'.
    Yes, that is what I meant. All previous VPs who became President at least won as part of a P/VP ticket.

    Jefferson may have been a bit poor, but no denying that the Louisiana Purchase was a very astute piece of business.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Tykejohnno said:

    HYUFD said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    His theme song is the most bizarre thing I have ever heard, but very difficult to get out of your head
    https://www.facebook.com/bfnewsnetowrk/videos/1167246663315798/?pnref=story
    Same here,so it's doing it's job ;-)

    On the facebook site where the song is on,the comment section is a good read ;-),this comment made me laugh.

    Mellissa Tipper -

    I listened to the whole thing and now it's stuck in my head. Bitterly ironic because now I'm wishing the UK had the same relaxed approach to gun laws as the US so that I could shoot myself.

    ;-)
    It's terrible.
    Someone call Disney, Trump is stealing all their ideas for the next Star Wars movie.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,744
    AlastairMeeks said:

    LBJ was great, if flawed.

    Reagan was a great.

    The jury is out on Clinton.

    If Hillary becomes President, I suspect their Presidencies might be viewed as a whole, so his reputation might be impacted by his wife.

    I like Bill Clinton, he provided me with so much fun during my youth.

    His definition of what 'is' meant was brilliant and of course his phrase of 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky'
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029
    Pulpstar said:

    When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?

    September, probably.
  • MonikerDiCanioMonikerDiCanio Posts: 5,792
    edited 2016 15
    foxinsoxuk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:

    He's going to win the nomination; he may well end up in the White House. Yes, his figures with blacks, Hispanics and women are not good. But Hillary's campaign is spluttering badly too. This is the strangest presidential election I can remember, where the winner will be whoever is least committed to messing their campaign up.

    It's Ford vs Carter in 1976 - on speed.
    I think Ford is one of the most underrated US Presidents.
    He COULD walk and chew gum at the same time!

    Though I think that he was the only president never to be elected. He was appointed VP after Agnew resigned. It would be very underrated to be President with that backstory; avoiding all that tiresome election business.


    It was said that Ford was so dumb as a result of the numerous concussions he suffered during his gridiron career. Today some say that Hillary has exhibited various symptoms and signs of Post Concussion Syndrome following her heavy fall a few years back.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,641
    Would love to see Trump win, just to see the look on TSE's face :lol:
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,454
    david_herdson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?

    September, probably.
    I just don't get it David. I'm with Pulps on this one.

    Bush would have to hoover up Kasich and Christie, hack down Rubio then face off Trump and Cruz. That's a very long way back for a man who has shown little to distinguish himself so far.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,365
    AlastairMeeks said:

    LBJ was great, if flawed.

    Reagan was a great.

    The jury is out on Clinton.

    I thought they acquitted him? :wink:
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited 2016 15
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    LBJ was great, if flawed.

    Reagan was a great.

    The jury is out on Clinton.

    If Hillary becomes President, I suspect their Presidencies might be viewed as a whole, so his reputation might be impacted by his wife.

    I like Bill Clinton, he provided me with so much fun during my youth.

    His definition of what 'is' meant was brilliant and of course his phrase of 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky'
    Geriatric Senators and Representatives talking about the factual and legal meaning of Oral Sex.

    Those were the times when america had no bigger problems than "where did the president sticks his cigar" (with 4% unemployment, world peace and a booming economy that was literally the biggest problem).

    Goodnight.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    david_herdson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?

    September, probably.
    I just don't get it David. I'm with Pulps on this one.

    Bush would have to hoover up Kasich and Christie, hack down Rubio then face off Trump and Cruz. That's a very long way back for a man who has shown little to distinguish himself so far.
    I agree. One possible argument: though it's not certain that Trump will implode (he could well get the nomination from here) it's still possible that he will, and if that happens who knows where the pieces fall?

    But yes, Bush's price is not really comprehensible.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Would love to see Trump win, just to see the look on TSE's face :lol:

    Merkel and Cameron's face as well.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Wanderer said:

    In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.

    Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?

    Truman.

    Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.
    I agree about Truman.

    Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.

    It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 120,744
    Wanderer said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Wanderer said:

    In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.

    Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?

    Truman.

    Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.
    I agree about Truman.

    Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.

    It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.
    'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall'
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,144
    In the past century FDR, then Reagan, then IKE, then Clinton, then JFK my top 5. LBJ had great domestic success but Vietnam let him down
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited 2016 15
    Before I sign off here, this is from Google Trends about last night's republican debate.
    Top trending questions:
    https://www.google.com/trends/story/US_cu_l0pJHVIBAACM1M_en

    Trump
    1 How does Donald Trump lose?
    2 Where was Donald Trump born?
    3 Why should Donald Trump not be President?
    4 Is Donald Trump a Republican?
    5 Why is Donald Trump orange?

    Cruz
    1 How long did Ted Cruz's mother live in Canada?
    2 Why was Cruz born in Canada?
    3 What does natural born citizen mean?
    4 How many years did Cruz live in Canada?
    5 Where was Ted Cruz's mother born?

    As you can see Cruz has not settled his birther issue.
    And yes, Trump looks orange.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Wanderer said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Wanderer said:

    In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.

    Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?

    Truman.

    Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.
    I agree about Truman.

    Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.

    It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.
    A list of what Reagan really did, up to and including funding Osama Bin Laden:

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

    Most overrated President? Certainly a contender.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Wanderer said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    david_herdson said:

    Pulpstar said:

    When does Jeb Bush's price fly off to thousandville btw ?

    September, probably.
    I just don't get it David. I'm with Pulps on this one.

    Bush would have to hoover up Kasich and Christie, hack down Rubio then face off Trump and Cruz. That's a very long way back for a man who has shown little to distinguish himself so far.
    I agree. One possible argument: though it's not certain that Trump will implode (he could well get the nomination from here) it's still possible that he will, and if that happens who knows where the pieces fall?

    But yes, Bush's price is not really comprehensible.
    The one thing Bush has going for him is a big warchest which might enable him to be the last Establishment candidate standing. Maybe that is what is keeping his price low-ish.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 125,144
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Would love to see Trump win, just to see the look on TSE's face :lol:

    Of course if Hillary wins it will be the first time the Democrats have won 3 or more straight presidential elections since FDR and Truman. The only Republican who has achieved the feat in the past 60 years is George Bush Snr. So if Trump is nominee historically he would have a good chance
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Speedy said:


    2 Why was Cruz born in Canada?

    lol, what kind of question is that?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,739
    Wanderer said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Wanderer said:

    In terms of actually greatest President I can't really see beyond Lincoln.

    Who was the most recent President you would call "great" though?

    Truman.

    Took the decision to drop the Atomic bombs on Japan. Set up the UN and NATO. Pushed the Marshall Plan through Congress. Was responsible for the Berlin Airlift. Forced through huge amounts of Civil Rights legislation against massive opposition from his own party. When he was done he packed up and went home to his mother in law's house refusing to take any position with any company or do any advertising or endorsements because he felt it would demean the office of the President.
    I agree about Truman.

    Of the other nominations I would rate LBJ above Reagan and Clinton.

    It's curious that Reagan is now spoken of as great though (to me, at least) he didn't seem so at the time. Memory winnows out all the lamentable moments to leave you with a few high points. Maybe it's like that in all these cases.
    Truman was considered very poorly when he first left office. He had the lowest poll ratings of any sitting US president up to GW Bush. It is only later that people have realised the importance of what he did. I think Reagan is like that to some extent as well.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,029
    HYUFD said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Would love to see Trump win, just to see the look on TSE's face :lol:

    Of course if Hillary wins it will be the first time the Democrats have won 3 or more straight presidential elections since FDR and Truman. The only Republican who has achieved the feat in the past 60 years is George Bush Snr. So if Trump is nominee historically he would have a good chance
    If she wins, the GOP will have an even better chance in 2020, not even allowing for Hillary's weakness. No party has had two candidates win back-to-back elections consecutively since Jefferson, Madison and Monroe.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,548
    Wanderer said:

    FPT re anonymity of defendants etc

    Cyclefree said:



    There is very great harm caused to people - and to society at large - by secret arrests.

    I totally agree that secret arrests are deplorable if the state can insist on secrecy. That's police-state-like. What I'm suggesting is that the arrestee can keep it secret if they prefer (again, unless considerations such as public safety override that).
    Cyclefree said:


    The problem is resolved - or very significantly mitigated - by controlling what the police say to the press (and enforcing this against the police, who have been pretty egregious sinners on this)

    Agreed. That would mitigate the problem if it happened.
    Cyclefree said:


    I don't agree that charges should be kept anonymous.

    On reflection, I agree.
    Cyclefree said:


    It would be interesting to know how many people charged with certain types of offences e.g. child abuse / rape have committed suicide before the trial was concluded. I do appreciate that being charged with such crimes is pretty bloody horrible, especially if you consider yourself to be innocent. But being charged with any serious crime with the prospect of prison is pretty bloody horrible, especially if, say (as has happened to a number of people whose trial started this week) the time between being charged and the trial even starting is SIX years.

    I think it's uniquely horrible if the charge is such that you will never be accepted in society again. I think most of us would agree that, if convicted of an offence like that, the most severe element of the punishment would not be the official sanction of imprisonment but the eternal revulsion of everyone you met. That should not be visited on the innocent.
    Cyclefree said:


    The answer is to make sure that the investigation and trial happen as fast as possible so that, one way or another, all concerned get a conclusion quickly. Justice denied.... and all that.

    But that requires proper resources to be put into the criminal justice system. What do you think the chances of that happening any time soon are?

    And at this point, I'm retiring from this because the sound of lawyers asking for more money for lawyers and investigators and policemen and judges will lead to a roasting. And as I still have work to do, I need to get on with it. :)

    No roasting from me. We should fund the criminal justice system adequately. But I appreciate that you have work to do, which is no fun on a Friday evening.
    Thank you for your response. I have just finished work.

    I hope everyone is now feeling duly sympathetic for the hard life I lead.... as I head off for whatever scraps are left at home. :(

  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    ThreeQuidder said:

    RodCrosby said:

    Lay Cruz...
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ted-cruz-is-not-eligible-to-be-president/2016/01/12/1484a7d0-b7af-11e5-99f3-184bc379b12d_story.html

    http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/07/trump-vs-cruz-eligibility-questions-justified-rnc-ad-highlights-gop-diversity/

    Rubio's not eligible either, btw.

    When were their naturalisation ceremonies?
    Cuban-Canadian Cruz was naturalized at birth by virtue of a statute. There was no need for a "ceremony". See Rogers v Bellei, Montana v Kennedy, Zimmer v Acheson, US v Wong Kim Ark.

    Rubio, although born in the US, was not born to citizen parents. He is therefore a 14th amendment "citizen" of the US. See US v Wong Kim Ark, Minor v Happersett

    Cruz is finished....
    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-12/few-colleagues-defend-cruz-as-white-house-eligibility-is-questioned

    The eejit thinks mis-quoting a long-repealed NATURALIZATION Act makes him an NBC...

    Prior to 1934, everyone of Cruz's birth circumstance was an alien viz-a-viz the United States. Not an NBC. Not even a citizen. An alien. Only then did Congress "indulge" such people with presumptive citizenship via the Naturalization Acts. [See Rogers v Bellei, 1971]

    Has anyone altered the definition of NBC since 1788? Well unless you can point to an constitutional amendment or an USSC judgement the answer is No.

    Ergo, someone who would have been an alien up to 1934, and is only a citizen at all due to a statute ( which has repeatedly been held to be an Act of Naturalization by the SCOTUS) can not possibly be an NBC...
This discussion has been closed.