''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
That's true for American citizens or residents who are Muslim, but not true for immigrants and tourists. The POTUS has executive power to ban immigrants or entry of any non-American on the basis of national security.
But not on grounds of religion. Thanks to Obama, executive power is a dicey subject thanks to over reach.
The constitution makes no mention on the grounds to which the POTUS can ban entry of people and the first amendment only applies to US citizens and residents. It doesn't give rights to people outside of the US. I'm no expert and I'm sure the ACLU will be the first to take any executive order to the SCOTUS for a hearing, but my simplistic view is that he could ban immigration and entry of non-American Muslims on the basis that Islamic terrorism is a threat to the state. A rather broad brush and unworthy of a the office of the President, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional, if it is applied to non-Americans only.
It would be a dumb executive order, IMHO. Real terrorists and trouble makers would lie. Business people and other well to do tourists and the like would get the hump. The half million US Muslims would never vote Republican again.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
But they are not American citizens, what rights do they have?
The Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
Personally, find it difficult to see the Giant Panda as an example of successful evolution. It doesn’t mate easily and eats something which dies off every so often, so the animals starve.
Pandas used for populist propoganda? The people of Scotland will surely be appalled by this
The Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
Personally, find it difficult to see the Giant Panda as an example of successful evolution. It doesn’t mate easily and eats something which dies off every so often, so the animals starve.
Pandas used for populist propoganda? The people of Scotland will surely be appalled by this
It's the global panda conspiracy you want to watch out for. Conniving, bamboo munching cosmopolitans. Never heard a word about them and WTC no 8 have you? There's a reason for that.
On Topic. Bernie's support is most fanatical in the student group. Normally, that would mean his unadjusted poll numbers are over-stating his likely vote. But all the polls are adjusted to 'likely voters' already, so you'd have to look at the details of the adjustments to the raw data that the pollsters are making in order to assess your trust in them.
And, we have seen from Obama 2008 and 2012 that a fully motivated and mobilized group that does not normally vote in large numbers can be persuaded to turn out in high numbers (students and black in 2008, blacks in 2012). There is no doubt in my mind that Bernie's supporters are off the chart enthusiastic compared with Hillary's. I would expect that to translate into better GOTV.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
Also: Donald Trump knows that prohibiting Muslims from even entering the US would damage US interests in the Middle East. The US has a naval base in Bahrain, for instance. We can reasonably assume that as President he would ban people from certain countries, and that would likely be it.
I think he may try and get a hard limit on the number on Muslim immigration if he won. Restrict H1-B applications, but I doubt he would be stupid enough to stop a German citizen of Turkish origin from going to Disney World.
Bloomberg has a net worth of $37 billion compared to Trump's $4. 5 billion, he could easily fund his own campaign. It looks like he will only run if Hillary loses to Sanders which would offer him the chance to hoover up the independent and moderate vote and I would expect both the Clintons and Bushes to vote for him, Hillary has said she will win the nomination to save him having to run. We shall see, Trump has said Bloomberg used to be a friend maybe not now and has attacked his position on guns and abortion, Sanders has said he can't wait to face 2 New York billionaires
On a practical question, how long would that mean Bloomberg would have to wait before deciding?
On a trivia level, when was the last time a presidential race was as North Eastern-dominated as a Bloomberg-Sanders-Trump one would be?
Bloomberg has a net worth of $37 billion compared to Trump's $4. 5 billion, he could easily fund his own campaign. It looks like he will only run if Hillary loses to Sanders which would offer him the chance to hoover up the independent and moderate vote and I would expect both the Clintons and Bushes to vote for him, Hillary has said she will win the nomination to save him having to run. We shall see, Trump has said Bloomberg used to be a friend maybe not now and has attacked his position on guns and abortion, Sanders has said he can't wait to face 2 New York billionaires
On a practical question, how long would that mean Bloomberg would have to wait before deciding?
On a trivia level, when was the last time a presidential race was as North Eastern-dominated as a Bloomberg-Sanders-Trump one would be?
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
That's true for American citizens or residents who are Muslim, but not true for immigrants and tourists. The POTUS has executive power to ban immigrants or entry of any non-American on the basis of national security.
But not on grounds of religion. Thanks to Obama, executive power is a dicey subject thanks to over reach.
The constitution makes no mention on the grounds to which the POTUS can ban entry of people and the first amendment only applies to US citizens and residents. It doesn't give rights to people outside of the US. I'm no expert and I'm sure the ACLU will be the first to take any executive order to the SCOTUS for a hearing, but my simplistic view is that he could ban immigration and entry of non-American Muslims on the basis that Islamic terrorism is a threat to the state. A rather broad brush and unworthy of a the office of the President, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional, if it is applied to non-Americans only.
It would be a dumb executive order, IMHO. Real terrorists and trouble makers would lie. Business people and other well to do tourists and the like would get the hump. The half million US Muslims would never vote Republican again.
Completely agree; it would be very dumb. But in my opinion - and I'm no lawyer so I only have one of them - it would be lawful.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
But they are not American citizens, what rights do they have?
Doesn't the constitution protect the rights of all, even non-citizens, once they have entered the US?
But I guess that it doesn't apply to people entering the US.
One can only think it is the old story of Labour sentimentality. They didn't want to upset Ed M for example.
It was reported that EdM edited Beckett's report before it was published
For an honest report that would help Labour face reality, Ed was the last person that should have been involved in its publication imho. - Not that the ‘weak and bumbling leader’ had much of reputation to uphold, but still...
If this is true then it is bonkers. If Ed M wanted to have a proper say on what happened and the future of the party he should stuck around for another year and made sure the party had proper debate about the future.
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
That's true for American citizens or residents who are Muslim, but not true for immigrants and tourists. The POTUS has executive power to ban immigrants or entry of any non-American on the basis of national security.
But not on grounds of religion. Thanks to Obama, executive power is a dicey subject thanks to over reach.
The constitution makes no mention on the grounds to which the POTUS can ban entry of people and the first amendment only applies to US citizens and residents. It doesn't give rights to people outside of the US. I'm no expert and I'm sure the ACLU will be the first to take any executive order to the SCOTUS for a hearing, but my simplistic view is that he could ban immigration and entry of non-American Muslims on the basis that Islamic terrorism is a threat to the state. A rather broad brush and unworthy of a the office of the President, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional, if it is applied to non-Americans only.
It would be a dumb executive order, IMHO. Real terrorists and trouble makers would lie. Business people and other well to do tourists and the like would get the hump. The half million US Muslims would never vote Republican again.
I'm not defending the policy, I think it is pretty stupid. I'm just pointing out that by a simplistic reading of the US constitution he may be able to do it if it was applied to non-Americans only. It's still a poor idea, and of course that doesn't stop people like Richard Reid the shoe bomber, nowhere on a British passport does it mention a person's religious confirmation and if the ESTA had a question on religion a would-be terrorist could just lie.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
But in what way is banning muslims (or any religious group) from entering the US "prohibiting the free exercise" of their religion? Presumably, they can still exercise it where they are prior to entry?
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
But they are not American citizens, what rights do they have?
Doesn't the constitution protect the rights of all, even non-citizens, once they have entered the US?
But I guess that it doesn't apply to people entering the US.
Yes, the whole point would be stop them entering in the first place. I don't know what constitutional rights illegal aliens have in the US.
Anyway, as we discussed last time, American Muslims are very well integrated into US society, this would be a backwards step. I think that American Muslims have a very big PR problem though, CAIR is as poor a representative for Muslim views in America as the Muslim Council for Britain is for Muslims in the UK.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
But they are not American citizens, what rights do they have?
Doesn't the constitution protect the rights of all, even non-citizens, once they have entered the US?
But I guess that it doesn't apply to people entering the US.
Immigration law, (and all other laws) and executive orders, passed in the US, have to comply with the US constitution.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
But they are not American citizens, what rights do they have?
Doesn't the constitution protect the rights of all, even non-citizens, once they have entered the US?
But I guess that it doesn't apply to people entering the US.
Yes, the whole point would be stop them entering in the first place. I don't know what constitutional rights illegal aliens have in the US.
I'm assuming the 13th amendment applied to illegal aliens, tourists and other visitors! I should hate to find myself enslaved on my next visit to the United States.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
But they are not American citizens, what rights do they have?
Doesn't the constitution protect the rights of all, even non-citizens, once they have entered the US?
But I guess that it doesn't apply to people entering the US.
Yes, the whole point would be stop them entering in the first place. I don't know what constitutional rights illegal aliens have in the US.
Anyway, as we discussed last time, American Muslims are very well integrated into US society, this would be a backwards step. I think that American Muslims have a very big PR problem though, CAIR is as poor a representative for Muslim views in America as the Muslim Council for Britain is for Muslims in the UK.
Go to Dearborn Michigan - the muslims there are NOT integrated into US society at all.
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
That's true for American citizens or residents who are Muslim, but not true for immigrants and tourists. The POTUS has executive power to ban immigrants or entry of any non-American on the basis of national security.
But not on grounds of religion. Thanks to Obama, executive power is a dicey subject thanks to over reach.
The constitution makes no mention on the grounds to which the POTUS can ban entry of people and the first amendment only applies to US citizens and residents. It doesn't give rights to people outside of the US. I'm no expert and I'm sure the ACLU will be the first to take any executive order to the SCOTUS for a hearing, but my simplistic view is that he could ban immigration and entry of non-American Muslims on the basis that Islamic terrorism is a threat to the state. A rather broad brush and unworthy of a the office of the President, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional, if it is applied to non-Americans only.
It would be a dumb executive order, IMHO. Real terrorists and trouble makers would lie. Business people and other well to do tourists and the like would get the hump. The half million US Muslims would never vote Republican again.
if the ESTA had a question on religion a would-be terrorist could just lie.
Q1. Are you a muslim? Q2. Have you lied to us in your answer to Q1? Q3. Have you lied to us in your answer to Q2? Q4. Have you lied to us in your answer to Q3? Q5. Have you lied to us in your answer to Q4? Q6. Why did you lie to us in Q1? Q7. Are you sure you're not a muslim?
Man of the people - apparently Trump spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express in Iowa. His comment was "Nice. Clean. Good mattress". It's from MsNBC so treat it with caution.
He parked his private jet around the back
I was puzzled when I heard it - he has a luxurious bedroom on his 757.
I expect he had his butler on tap in the next room
He doesn't have a butler - he has a flight attendant who is a very nice lady.
Snide comments don't become you. You should cease.
One can only think it is the old story of Labour sentimentality. They didn't want to upset Ed M for example.
It was reported that EdM edited Beckett's report before it was published
For an honest report that would help Labour face reality, Ed was the last person that should have been involved in its publication imho. - Not that the ‘weak and bumbling leader’ had much of reputation to uphold, but still...
If this is true then it is bonkers. If Ed M wanted to have a proper say on what happened and the future of the party he should stuck around for another year and made sure the party had proper debate about the future.
Indeed – Ed had the opportunity after his defeat to do a Howard or a Kinnock and achieve something worthwhile to salvage his reputation. – Running away seems to be a trait in the Milband family.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
Also: Donald Trump knows that prohibiting Muslims from even entering the US would damage US interests in the Middle East. The US has a naval base in Bahrain, for instance. We can reasonably assume that as President he would ban people from certain countries, and that would likely be it.
Trump probably has a very different definition of US interests than you. In an interview last week he was suggesting that he would make Germany, Japan and South Korea pay for being under the US defence umbrella. As far as Trump is concerned, a naval base in Bahrain is as much a liability as an asset.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
But they are not American citizens, what rights do they have?
Doesn't the constitution protect the rights of all, even non-citizens, once they have entered the US?
But I guess that it doesn't apply to people entering the US.
Yes, the whole point would be stop them entering in the first place. I don't know what constitutional rights illegal aliens have in the US.
Anyway, as we discussed last time, American Muslims are very well integrated into US society, this would be a backwards step. I think that American Muslims have a very big PR problem though, CAIR is as poor a representative for Muslim views in America as the Muslim Council for Britain is for Muslims in the UK.
Go to Dearborn Michigan - the muslims there are NOT integrated into US society at all.
Man of the people - apparently Trump spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express in Iowa. His comment was "Nice. Clean. Good mattress". It's from MsNBC so treat it with caution.
He parked his private jet around the back
I was puzzled when I heard it - he has a luxurious bedroom on his 757.
I expect he had his butler on tap in the next room
He doesn't have a butler - he has a flight attendant who is a very nice lady.
Snide comments don't become you. You should cease.
Man of the people - apparently Trump spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express in Iowa. His comment was "Nice. Clean. Good mattress". It's from MsNBC so treat it with caution.
He parked his private jet around the back
I was puzzled when I heard it - he has a luxurious bedroom on his 757.
I expect he had his butler on tap in the next room
He doesn't have a butler - he has a flight attendant who is a very nice lady.
Snide comments don't become you. You should cease.
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.
But they are not American citizens, what rights do they have?
Doesn't the constitution protect the rights of all, even non-citizens, once they have entered the US?
But I guess that it doesn't apply to people entering the US.
Yes, the whole point would be stop them entering in the first place. I don't know what constitutional rights illegal aliens have in the US.
Anyway, as we discussed last time, American Muslims are very well integrated into US society, this would be a backwards step. I think that American Muslims have a very big PR problem though, CAIR is as poor a representative for Muslim views in America as the Muslim Council for Britain is for Muslims in the UK.
Go to Dearborn Michigan - the muslims there are NOT integrated into US society at all.
Man of the people - apparently Trump spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express in Iowa. His comment was "Nice. Clean. Good mattress". It's from MsNBC so treat it with caution.
He parked his private jet around the back
I was puzzled when I heard it - he has a luxurious bedroom on his 757.
I expect he had his butler on tap in the next room
He doesn't have a butler - he has a flight attendant who is a very nice lady.
Snide comments don't become you. You should cease.
James Longton Someone spray paints dead whale with what they think is the Nuclear Disarmament logo. Except it's the Mercedes logo https://t.co/HeQomUBXUk
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
I also think the traditional Republican donor base would be queueing up to hand him money on a Trump vs Sanders race. (As would a large chunk of the Democrats)
Bloomberg has a net worth of $37 billion compared to Trump's $4. 5 billion, he could easily fund his own campaign. It looks like he will only run if Hillary loses to Sanders which would offer him the chance to hoover up the independent and moderate vote and I would expect both the Clintons and Bushes to vote for him, Hillary has said she will win the nomination to save him having to run. We shall see, Trump has said Bloomberg used to be a friend maybe not now and has attacked his position on guns and abortion, Sanders has said he can't wait to face 2 New York billionaires
On a practical question, how long would that mean Bloomberg would have to wait before deciding?
According to this article, maybe not until after the end of March:
The Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
Personally, find it difficult to see the Giant Panda as an example of successful evolution. It doesn’t mate easily and eats something which dies off every so often, so the animals starve.
Pandas used for populist propoganda? The people of Scotland will surely be appalled by this
The Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
Personally, find it difficult to see the Giant Panda as an example of successful evolution. It doesn’t mate easily and eats something which dies off every so often, so the animals starve.
Pandas used for populist propoganda? The people of Scotland will surely be appalled by this
It's the global panda conspiracy you want to watch out for. Conniving, bamboo munching cosmopolitans. Never heard a word about them and WTC no 8 have you? There's a reason for that.
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
That's before 100 governors, ex-governors, and a former VP come out and back Bloomberg. And before starts spreading $2bn around.
But I would agree he has a mountain to climb.
No sitting Governor will endorse Bloomberg, they have to work for re-election and their primaries. Former VP ? Dick Cheney? Al Gore? Is Mondale still alive?
Come on, come on. At least Perot had popular policies. Bloomberg will get less than Perot in 1992.
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Has Bloomberg ever really had to face down significant and sustained negative campaigning? His initial win in New York was in the wake of 9/11 so not a typical race. A casual reading of commentary on speculation about him entering the race suggests that there is plenty of material to use against him, particularly from his record as Mayor.
The Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
Personally, find it difficult to see the Giant Panda as an example of successful evolution. It doesn’t mate easily and eats something which dies off every so often, so the animals starve.
Pandas used for populist propoganda? The people of Scotland will surely be appalled by this
The Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
Personally, find it difficult to see the Giant Panda as an example of successful evolution. It doesn’t mate easily and eats something which dies off every so often, so the animals starve.
Pandas used for populist propoganda? The people of Scotland will surely be appalled by this
It's the global panda conspiracy you want to watch out for. Conniving, bamboo munching cosmopolitans. Never heard a word about them and WTC no 8 have you? There's a reason for that.
James Longton Someone spray paints dead whale with what they think is the Nuclear Disarmament logo. Except it's the Mercedes logo https://t.co/HeQomUBXUk
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg
Speedy, this polling makes sense. Both Sanders and Trump have more enthused supporters than the other candidates, so would be less exposed to leakage should a third party enter into the fray.
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Has Bloomberg ever really had to face down significant and sustained negative campaigning? His initial win in New York was in the wake of 9/11 so not a typical race. A casual reading of commentary on speculation about him entering the race suggests that there is plenty of material to use against him, particularly from his record as Mayor.
There is a huge amount of material - he is a BIG nanny state type - and Trump will overwhelm him.
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
That's before 100 governors, ex-governors, and a former VP come out and back Bloomberg. And before starts spreading $2bn around.
But I would agree he has a mountain to climb.
No sitting Governor will endorse Bloomberg, they have to work for re-election and their primaries. Former VP ? Dick Cheney? Al Gore? Is Mondale still alive?
Come on, come on. At least Perot had popular policies.
Yes; Perot was pushing the protectionist agenda that is now... Trump's and Sanders.
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Has Bloomberg ever really had to face down significant and sustained negative campaigning? His initial win in New York was in the wake of 9/11 so not a typical race. A casual reading of commentary on speculation about him entering the race suggests that there is plenty of material to use against him, particularly from his record as Mayor.
There is a huge amount of material - he is a BIG nanny state type - and Trump will overwhelm him.
Must be awful in the US during election year; every time you turn the TV there's some sort of political ad.
Kevin Schofield Jeremy Corbyn won't be attending the weekly PLP meeting tonight, I'm told.
The idea that the weekly PLP meeting is a regular chance for MPs to fence with the leader is simply wrong: that isn't how the meeting works. It's normally a briefing by one shadow minister on their area, without other members of the Shadow Cabinet present. Otherwise, every discussion on every subject would get sidetracked into a general policy discussion. Tony and Gordon would normally come to a PLP meeting a few times a year to give an overall view.
Do you not think there's something of an elephant in the room here though? Once the story has become Corbyn not attending then the longer he goes on not attending the longer the story will run and the more that will be made of it. And Corbyn does seem to be deliberately isolating himself from the PLP - the specific plays into the narrative.
Not really on the specific issue - it's a Westminster story (nobody except us geeks cares who attends the PLP), and PLP members know that it's nonsense. So it only works for people like PB partisans who are interested but not informed, and with all due respect they aren't too significant in internal Labour politics.
There is obviously an important wider issue of Corbyn having plenty of opponents within the PLP, but this particular lever doesn't move anything.
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Other than 2000, the winner of the popular vote has won the EC vote every time in the last 50 years
He won't win a single state, not even Connecticut.
Bloomberg is an unpopular stiff ex-mayor with unpopular policies appealing strictly to the managerial class. No matter how much he spends he will be a second coming of Jeb Bush, at least Steve Forbes had humour when he bombed in 1996 and 2000.
Of course he might still run, because it's his last chance to ever run for president.
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Other than 2000, the winner of the popular vote has won the EC vote every time in the last 50 years
He won't win a single state, not even Connecticut.
Bloomberg is an unpopular stiff ex-mayor with unpopular policies appealing strictly to the managerial class. No matter how much he spends he will be a second coming of Jeb Bush, at least Steve Forbes had humour when he bombed in 1996 and 2000.
Of course he might still run, because it's his last chance to ever run for president.
Do you want to give me a vote spread for him - assuming he runs?
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Has Bloomberg ever really had to face down significant and sustained negative campaigning? His initial win in New York was in the wake of 9/11 so not a typical race. A casual reading of commentary on speculation about him entering the race suggests that there is plenty of material to use against him, particularly from his record as Mayor.
There is a huge amount of material - he is a BIG nanny state type - and Trump will overwhelm him.
Must be awful in the US during election year; every time you turn the TV there's some sort of political ad.
Luckily I'm in Georgia - a state without a single statewide elected Democratic official, and so I am less exposed than most. As I watch most stuff on my dvr I can fast forward past ads, political and otherwise.
Bloomberg will only run if Sanders is the nominee in all likelihood not against Clinton or Biden as he would have less of a chance but if Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is nominee, regardless of what Biden does
A bit overstated IMO. Hllary will win SC which is up next, and the media love a roller-coaster story. I think Sanders needs to win Super Tuesday.
Two good links on the challenges of 3rd party candidates (the former was written about Trump but applies to Bloomberg too):
Rain delay. It's pretty much a nailed on draw now.
I said a couple of hours ago I couldn't understand why South Africa weren't bringing more urgency to their play.
Yes, they should have gone for it after lunch as hey had wickets in hand. England should have been in by now chasing 360-370, but the Saffers have played it safe with the injured bowler.
*Desparately tries to undo his position to avoid a loss*
Bloomberg will only run if Sanders is the nominee in all likelihood not against Clinton or Biden as he would have less of a chance but if Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is nominee, regardless of what Biden does
A bit overstated IMO. Hllary will win SC which is up next, and the media love a roller-coaster story. I think Sanders needs to win Super Tuesday.
Two good links on the challenges of 3rd party candidates (the former was written about Trump but applies to Bloomberg too):
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Other than 2000, the winner of the popular vote has won the EC vote every time in the last 50 years
He won't win a single state, not even Connecticut.
Bloomberg is an unpopular stiff ex-mayor with unpopular policies appealing strictly to the managerial class. No matter how much he spends he will be a second coming of Jeb Bush, at least Steve Forbes had humour when he bombed in 1996 and 2000.
Of course he might still run, because it's his last chance to ever run for president.
Do you want to give me a vote spread for him - assuming he runs?
Assuming Morning Consultant is accurate, I'll say Bloomberg will get somewhere between Perot 92 and Perot 96, depending on events. And you can tell Bloomberg that.
But I'm not betting on that until more polls come out.
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Has Bloomberg ever really had to face down significant and sustained negative campaigning? His initial win in New York was in the wake of 9/11 so not a typical race. A casual reading of commentary on speculation about him entering the race suggests that there is plenty of material to use against him, particularly from his record as Mayor.
There is a huge amount of material - he is a BIG nanny state type - and Trump will overwhelm him.
Must be awful in the US during election year; every time you turn the TV there's some sort of political ad.
Luckily I'm in Georgia - a state without a single statewide elected Democratic official, and so I am less exposed than most. As I watch most stuff on my dvr I can fast forward past ads, political and otherwise.
I've heard from friends that in early primary and 'swing' states TV is just about unwatchable in the run up to the election. I wonder has any research been done on the changing way people watch TV now, compared to 2012 and 2008? It's now possible to avoid most of the TV advertising if you want to, with various catchup services and DVRs which must make certain (younger) demographics very hard to reach.
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Other than 2000, the winner of the popular vote has won the EC vote every time in the last 50 years
He won't win a single state, not even Connecticut.
Bloomberg is an unpopular stiff ex-mayor with unpopular policies appealing strictly to the managerial class. No matter how much he spends he will be a second coming of Jeb Bush, at least Steve Forbes had humour when he bombed in 1996 and 2000.
Of course he might still run, because it's his last chance to ever run for president.
Do you want to give me a vote spread for him - assuming he runs?
Assuming Morning Consultant is accurate, I'll say Bloomberg will get somewhere between Perot 92 and Perot 96, depending on events. And you can tell Bloomberg that.
But I'm not betting on that until more polls come out.
Kevin Schofield Jeremy Corbyn won't be attending the weekly PLP meeting tonight, I'm told.
The idea that the weekly PLP meeting is a regular chance for MPs to fence with the leader is simply wrong: that isn't how the meeting works. It's normally a briefing by one shadow minister on their area, without other members of the Shadow Cabinet present. Otherwise, every discussion on every subject would get sidetracked into a general policy discussion. Tony and Gordon would normally come to a PLP meeting a few times a year to give an overall view.
Do you not think there's something of an elephant in the room here though? Once the story has become Corbyn not attending then the longer he goes on not attending the longer the story will run and the more that will be made of it. And Corbyn does seem to be deliberately isolating himself from the PLP - the specific plays into the narrative.
Not really on the specific issue - it's a Westminster story (nobody except us geeks cares who attends the PLP), and PLP members know that it's nonsense. So it only works for people like PB partisans who are interested but not informed, and with all due respect they aren't too significant in internal Labour politics.
There is obviously an important wider issue of Corbyn having plenty of opponents within the PLP, but this particular lever doesn't move anything.
Bloomberg will only run if Sanders is the nominee in all likelihood not against Clinton or Biden as he would have less of a chance but if Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is nominee, regardless of what Biden does
A bit overstated IMO. Hllary will win SC which is up next, and the media love a roller-coaster story. I think Sanders needs to win Super Tuesday.
Two good links on the challenges of 3rd party candidates (the former was written about Trump but applies to Bloomberg too):
I'd think Trump or Bloomberg could get on most states - far more financial firepower than the others who did it in the past. But it'd be a scramble.
Super Tuesday as rebuilt is now being called the S.E.C. Primary by the cognoscenti - many of the states have football teams in the South Eastern Conference.
There is a large contingent of black voters - in SC I believe it's over 50% - and they seem to be breaking for Clinton at present.
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Please read my post before replying, as otherwise it wastes both our time. I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was unconstitutional.
Why are non-citizens afforded the protections of the US Constitution?
Grr. Looked at the SPOTY betting following the earlier conversation, with the intention of putting a few quid on an almost unknown, only to find that not only is she clearly not almost unknown, but she's been installed as the third favourite!
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Has Bloomberg ever really had to face down significant and sustained negative campaigning? His initial win in New York was in the wake of 9/11 so not a typical race. A casual reading of commentary on speculation about him entering the race suggests that there is plenty of material to use against him, particularly from his record as Mayor.
There is a huge amount of material - he is a BIG nanny state type - and Trump will overwhelm him.
Must be awful in the US during election year; every time you turn the TV there's some sort of political ad.
Luckily I'm in Georgia - a state without a single statewide elected Democratic official, and so I am less exposed than most. As I watch most stuff on my dvr I can fast forward past ads, political and otherwise.
I've heard from friends that in early primary and 'swing' states TV is just about unwatchable in the run up to the election. I wonder has any research been done on the changing way people watch TV now, compared to 2012 and 2008? It's now possible to avoid most of the TV advertising if you want to, with various catchup services and DVRs which must make certain (younger) demographics very hard to reach.
Firstly I object to the idea that younger voters have dvrs - EVERYONE has a dvr!!!
If you live in a battleground state TV does get pretty much unwatchable on the major channels. But there are many many channels to watch. Personally I can always flee to the Golf Channel.
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Other than 2000, the winner of the popular vote has won the EC vote every time in the last 50 years
He won't win a single state, not even Connecticut.
Bloomberg is an unpopular stiff ex-mayor with unpopular policies appealing strictly to the managerial class. No matter how much he spends he will be a second coming of Jeb Bush, at least Steve Forbes had humour when he bombed in 1996 and 2000.
Of course he might still run, because it's his last chance to ever run for president.
Do you want to give me a vote spread for him - assuming he runs?
Assuming Morning Consultant is accurate, I'll say Bloomberg will get somewhere between Perot 92 and Perot 96, depending on events. And you can tell Bloomberg that.
But I'm not betting on that until more polls come out.
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Other than 2000, the winner of the popular vote has won the EC vote every time in the last 50 years
He won't win a single state, not even Connecticut.
Bloomberg is an unpopular stiff ex-mayor with unpopular policies appealing strictly to the managerial class. No matter how much he spends he will be a second coming of Jeb Bush, at least Steve Forbes had humour when he bombed in 1996 and 2000.
Of course he might still run, because it's his last chance to ever run for president.
Do you want to give me a vote spread for him - assuming he runs?
Assuming Morning Consultant is accurate, I'll say Bloomberg will get somewhere between Perot 92 and Perot 96, depending on events. And you can tell Bloomberg that.
But I'm not betting on that until more polls come out.
Grr. Looked at the SPOTY betting following the earlier conversation, with the intention of putting a few quid on an almost unknown, only to find that not only is she clearly not almost unknown, but she's been installed as the third favourite!
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Please read my post before replying, as otherwise it wastes both our time. I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was unconstitutional.
Why are non-citizens afforded the protections of the US Constitution?
If you're in the US legally you're entitled to the protections of it. That's why Guantanamo exists.
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Please read my post before replying, as otherwise it wastes both our time. I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was unconstitutional.
Why are non-citizens afforded the protections of the US Constitution?
Presumably the 13th amendment applies to all in the US- otherwise I'm not going there on holiday!
Has there ever been such a conclusive referendum in any free country?
Could only be such as a result of boycott.
In essence, that's right. No-one is likely to want to live there unless they agree with the proposition put. It'd be interesting to know why the 3 voted the way they did.
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Other than 2000, the winner of the popular vote has won the EC vote every time in the last 50 years
He won't win a single state, not even Connecticut.
Bloomberg is an unpopular stiff ex-mayor with unpopular policies appealing strictly to the managerial class. No matter how much he spends he will be a second coming of Jeb Bush, at least Steve Forbes had humour when he bombed in 1996 and 2000.
Of course he might still run, because it's his last chance to ever run for president.
Do you want to give me a vote spread for him - assuming he runs?
Assuming Morning Consultant is accurate, I'll say Bloomberg will get somewhere between Perot 92 and Perot 96, depending on events. And you can tell Bloomberg that.
But I'm not betting on that until more polls come out.
Can I not buy at 18 at 10 quid a point?
I'll offer you evens that he launches a bid.
I'm not at all convinced he's serious.
I think he only runs if it's Trump vs Sanders
I agree - he'll only run if Hillary doesn't make it.
For comparison, 2 days ago : Hillary 36 Trump 37 Bloomberg 13
President Sanders? Though Trump does best of the 3 GOP with Bloomberg and Bloomberg a little better than against Hillary
How does that work out per state, though. As we're often told, it's Electoral College votes which count.
Pretty meaningless at this stage IMHO. If Bloomberg did run he would be throwing money at TV ads like there's no tomorrow.
Other than 2000, the winner of the popular vote has won the EC vote every time in the last 50 years
He won't win a single state, not even Connecticut.
Bloomberg is an unpopular stiff ex-mayor with unpopular policies appealing strictly to the managerial class. No matter how much he spends he will be a second coming of Jeb Bush, at least Steve Forbes had humour when he bombed in 1996 and 2000.
Of course he might still run, because it's his last chance to ever run for president.
Do you want to give me a vote spread for him - assuming he runs?
Assuming Morning Consultant is accurate, I'll say Bloomberg will get somewhere between Perot 92 and Perot 96, depending on events. And you can tell Bloomberg that.
But I'm not betting on that until more polls come out.
Can I not buy at 18 at 10 quid a point?
I'll offer you evens that he launches a bid.
I'm not at all convinced he's serious.
If there's a market to bet against Bloomberg launching a bid, I too would like to bet on that market. He's jilted his potential voters at the altar far too many times before.
Comments
It's the global panda conspiracy you want to watch out for. Conniving, bamboo munching cosmopolitans. Never heard a word about them and WTC no 8 have you? There's a reason for that.
And, we have seen from Obama 2008 and 2012 that a fully motivated and mobilized group that does not normally vote in large numbers can be persuaded to turn out in high numbers (students and black in 2008, blacks in 2012). There is no doubt in my mind that Bernie's supporters are off the chart enthusiastic compared with Hillary's. I would expect that to translate into better GOTV.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/03/top12.pdf
On a trivia level, when was the last time a presidential race was as North Eastern-dominated as a Bloomberg-Sanders-Trump one would be?
"Every young person gets a house". An ambitious, if numerically challenging plan from Jeremy Corbyn there. #thsimorning
Fat chance!
Haven't even got my free fecking owl yet....
But I guess that it doesn't apply to people entering the US.
Anyway, as we discussed last time, American Muslims are very well integrated into US society, this would be a backwards step. I think that American Muslims have a very big PR problem though, CAIR is as poor a representative for Muslim views in America as the Muslim Council for Britain is for Muslims in the UK.
Sanders 35
Trump 34
Bloomberg 12
Sanders 36
Cruz 28
Bloomberg 11
Sanders 36
Rubio 29
Bloomberg 10
http://morningconsult.com/2016/01/poll-bloomberg-vs-sanders-vs-trump/
For comparison, 2 days ago :
Hillary 36
Trump 37
Bloomberg 13
Small business owners are more eurosceptic than big business – https://t.co/dLPrzbKE62 https://t.co/RCl6eaXSa0
But I would agree he has a mountain to climb.
Q2. Have you lied to us in your answer to Q1?
Q3. Have you lied to us in your answer to Q2?
Q4. Have you lied to us in your answer to Q3?
Q5. Have you lied to us in your answer to Q4?
Q6. Why did you lie to us in Q1?
Q7. Are you sure you're not a muslim?
How the U.S. public's priorities have changed during Obama's two terms in office https://t.co/Pz9oqxOriG https://t.co/mhUkd53jhO
As opposed to Cameron's "every young couple who can afford it will..."
He has a personal pilot and co-pilot, plus his personal flight attendant, all of whom have been with him for years.
Big business leaders strongly support Britain remaining in the EU – https://t.co/dLPrzbKE62 https://t.co/caLhx9xCgE
James Longton
Someone spray paints dead whale with what they think is the Nuclear Disarmament logo. Except it's the Mercedes logo https://t.co/HeQomUBXUk
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/25/when-bloomberg-really-needs-to-decide.html
He'd need time to organise signatures etc in Texas (May deadline)
It's the global panda conspiracy you want to watch out for. Conniving, bamboo munching cosmopolitans. Never heard a word about them and WTC no 8 have you? There's a reason for that.
Former VP ? Dick Cheney? Al Gore? Is Mondale still alive?
Come on, come on.
At least Perot had popular policies.
Bloomberg will get less than Perot in 1992.
You'd better never bother with me ol' bam-boo? It's the global panda conspiracy you want to watch out for. Conniving, bamboo munching cosmopolitans. Never heard a word about them and WTC no 8 have you? There's a reason for that.
There is obviously an important wider issue of Corbyn having plenty of opponents within the PLP, but this particular lever doesn't move anything.
Bloomberg is an unpopular stiff ex-mayor with unpopular policies appealing strictly to the managerial class.
No matter how much he spends he will be a second coming of Jeb Bush, at least Steve Forbes had humour when he bombed in 1996 and 2000.
Of course he might still run, because it's his last chance to ever run for president.
The polls overestimated the late swing caused by Iowa.
Ted Cruz, be warned.
AB's head isn't properly on the game I think.
Two good links on the challenges of 3rd party candidates (the former was written about Trump but applies to Bloomberg too):
http://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/how-hard-would-it-be-for-trump-to-run-as-a-third-party-candidate
and (a website promoting such candidates)
http://ballot-access.org/
I'd think Trump or Bloomberg could get on most states - far more financial firepower than the others who did it in the past. But it'd be a scramble.
*Desparately tries to undo his position to avoid a loss*
Last poll for Nevada, Sanders 43 Hillary 47.
China's foreign reserves fell by over $500bn last year, with more than $100bn heading out the door in December alone.
And you can tell Bloomberg that.
But I'm not betting on that until more polls come out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_sovereignty_referendum,_2002
I think it was NMR who said that you should always leave the first and the last 10% for someone else.
(but then he also argued that blood running in the streets was the best buy signal there was)
There is a large contingent of black voters - in SC I believe it's over 50% - and they seem to be breaking for Clinton at present.
We're still 5 weeks away so that could change.
https://m.oddschecker.com/t/#/awards-sports-personality-of-the-year-winner
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/status/691629581552500736
I think that 13% is AfD's highest ever score.
If you live in a battleground state TV does get pretty much unwatchable on the major channels. But there are many many channels to watch. Personally I can always flee to the Golf Channel.
I'm not at all convinced he's serious.
Cool, even more impressive than the pro-Russian vote in Crimea two years ago:
For re-unification with Russia: 96.57% = 1,495,043
For Ukrainian constitution of 1992: 2.66% = 41,247
Spoilt: 0.77% = 11,907
Turnout: 84.17% = 1,548,197
(NB. this is the aggregate for City of Sevastopol and Republic of Crimea)