politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the Romney attack on Trump the latest GOP Nominee TV

SystemSystem Posts: 11,704
edited March 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After the Romney attack on Trump the latest GOP Nominee TV debate

Only a few hours after the anti Trump speech by 2012 nominee Mitt Romney the four remaining contenders were back on the stage together for the latest GOP debate. This was the summing up by Taegan Goddard of Political Wire

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • Options
    Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    First like The Donald
  • Options
    adamandcatadamandcat Posts: 76
    Second like The Donald, in November
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,144
    Third like an independent Donald running in November....
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Go FOURTH and multiply the Clinton lead .... :smile:
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    An alternative view in the Guardian:

    This is the game we play after every Republican debate: the mainstream press corps finds some tortured explanation for why Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz won, and then days later Donald Trump rises in the polls. In a night where CNN ran a headline reading “Donald Trump defends size of his penis,” the man has probably won yet again.


    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/04/donald-trump-republican-debate-performance-detroit
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,290
    Challenge for OGH, or @TSE work this into a thread header.

    https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/705642401868546048
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2016
    It is in some ways a very strange system.

    We were saying a year or so ago then after several months of the Parties calling each other liars, cheats and incompetent charlatans it's hardly a great surprise if the public agrees with both of them. But in the US system you get the added spectacle of the great and the good of each party throwing mud at each other for months first, so by the time you get to the head to head everyone already has believed all the dirt that has been thrown at both candidates by their own people!

    It would be like having seen several months of Cameron, May, Osborne and Hague plus some also rans tearing chunks out of each other on some nights. On others we would have watched Miliband and half his shadow cabinet having at each other with hammers and tongs. Then later in the year the winner of each side go head to head and start the kicking all over again, but with the benefit of all the idiocies that were shown in the primary stage with which to beat each other over the head.

    Then they wonder why the public is not impressed with any of the candidates!
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,392
    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,977
    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    The difference between Trump and Corbyn is that the former's views seem to be elastic; Jeremy developed his opinions in the 70s and 80s and is not going to change them.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,392
    Indigo said:

    It is in some ways a very strange system.

    We were saying a year or so ago then after several months of the Parties calling each other liars, cheats and incompetent charlatans it's hardly a great surprise if the public agrees with both of them. But in the US system you get the added spectacle of the great and the good of each party throwing mud at each other for months first, so by the time you get to the head to head everyone already has believed all the dirt that has been thrown at both candidates by their own people!

    It would be like having seen several months of Cameron, May, Osborne and Hague plus some also rans tearing chunks out of each other on some nights. On others we would have watched Miliband and half his shadow cabinet having at each other with hammers and tongs. Then later in the year the winner of each side go head to head and start the kicking all over again, but with the benefit of all the idiocies that were shown in the primary stage with which to beat each other over the head.

    Then they wonder why the public is not impressed with any of the candidates!

    The old Reagan idea of never speaking ill of a fellow conservative does seem to have fallen into desuetude somewhat.

    The other credibility problem, something that greatly damaged Romney the last time, is that they have to pretend to be much more right or left wing than they really are (except Cruz of course, I have no doubt he means it) to win one constituency and then moderate their positions to win a different one in November. It would be remarkable if anyone believed anything they say after that operation.
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,558
    Very odd statement to say he defended the size of his manhood. Are you saying someone attacked him on this issue?
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    I find myself agreeing with you quite often, but I see no similarities whatsoever between Corbyn and Trump. One is a lifetime protestor/politician, the other (regardless of whether one likes him) is the epitome of the American dream who believes he can do a good job for his country.

    They're both white males of a similar age, they have nothing else in common.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2016
    DavidL said:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    I think this is almost inevitable.

    If you work your way up the party system, gaining experience and learning how the jobs are done and the extent of your power, you become part of the system. In order to succeed your face has to fit, you have to have the sort of views that most people in your party won't be offended by, and you have to be flexible enough in those views to keep your job, and keep moving up as the people above you change.

    On top of this people that move up the greasy pole will inevitably become soiled by the compromises that requires, the favours promised and owed, the quid-pro-quo power broking, and dirty little compromises and deals that seemed like a good idea at the time. By the time you are ready to make your play for the top job you are almost by definition going to be a consummate insider, with very middle of the road views and almost completely unexciting to anyone outside the party mainstream.

    Look at the current holders of the great offices: Cameron, Osborne, May, Hamilton all grey unexciting worthy middle of the road Tories, not a single one of them is going to set the pulse racing of someone flirting with joining the party, or changing their vote.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    On 2 May 1997, I walked into Downing Street as prime minister for the first time. I had never held office, not even as the most junior of junior ministers. It was my first and only job in government. -- Tony Blair, A Journey.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    btw yesterday I spoke of the gravy train that is the EU, have a look at their expenses. To think there are hundreds of them bleeding us dry, there has to be better things we can do with the absolute fortune being wasted.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12182738/MEPs-allowed-to-claim-120000-in-expenses-without-proof-of-how-money-is-spent.html
  • Options
    SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,977
    blackburn63 said:

    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    I find myself agreeing with you quite often, but I see no similarities whatsoever between Corbyn and Trump. One is a lifetime protestor/politician, the other (regardless of whether one likes him) is the epitome of the American dream who believes he can do a good job for his country.

    They're both white males of a similar age, they have nothing else in common.

    Doesn't the American dream involve working your way up from nothing? Trump has had everything on a plate since the day he was born. Rather like our PM and Chancellor, in fact.

  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,392
    blackburn63 said:

    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    I find myself agreeing with you quite often, but I see no similarities whatsoever between Corbyn and Trump. One is a lifetime protestor/politician, the other (regardless of whether one likes him) is the epitome of the American dream who believes he can do a good job for his country.

    They're both white males of a similar age, they have nothing else in common.
    Of course they hold completely different political positions but they are both running successful campaigns as the anti-candidate, the anti-establishment, the anti-politician. Neither have any experience of running any political organisation. Both generate visceral dislike by people in the same party, both look like breaking up coalitions of interests that have made the parties electable in the past, both are achieving this by bringing new supporters into the party but in each case these new supporters are not particularly welcomed by those already there. The fact that they have both come to the party very late in their careers (which is true in each case) is the least of it.
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    blackburn63 said:

    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    I find myself agreeing with you quite often, but I see no similarities whatsoever between Corbyn and Trump. One is a lifetime protestor/politician, the other (regardless of whether one likes him) is the epitome of the American dream who believes he can do a good job for his country.

    They're both white males of a similar age, they have nothing else in common.
    Trump is Boris not Corbyn.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    SouthamObserver said:

    blackburn63 said:

    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    I find myself agreeing with you quite often, but I see no similarities whatsoever between Corbyn and Trump. One is a lifetime protestor/politician, the other (regardless of whether one likes him) is the epitome of the American dream who believes he can do a good job for his country.

    They're both white males of a similar age, they have nothing else in common.

    Doesn't the American dream involve working your way up from nothing? Trump has had everything on a plate since the day he was born. Rather like our PM and Chancellor, in fact.

    I don't know much about Trump, but I'm pretty sure he didn't inherit billions.

    Look, I'm not saying I like the bloke I just can't get the comparison with Corbyn.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,648
    Non-white Britons are the most patriotic of us all. Huzzar:

    http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/03/the-majority-of-ethnic-minority-conservative-mps-are-backing-leave.html
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    Luckyguy1983 said:

    Very odd statement to say he defended the size of his manhood. Are you saying someone attacked him on this issue?

    TRUMP: Well, I also happened to call him [Rubio] a lightweight, OK? And I have said that. So I would like to take that back. He is really not that much of a lightweight. And as far as -- and I have to say this, I have to say this. He hit my hands. Nobody has ever hit my hands. I have never heard of this. Look at those hands. Are they small hands?

    (LAUGHTER)

    TRUMP: And he referred to my hands, if they are small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there is no problem. I guarantee.

    BAIER: OK. Moving on.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/03/the-fox-news-gop-debate-transcript-annotated/
  • Options
    nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Has this been on the BBC news?

    http://katm.co.uk/index.php/terror-as-coach-of-british-schoolchildren-attacked-by-calais-refugees/
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,392
    Indigo said:

    DavidL said:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    I think this is almost inevitable.

    If you work your way up the party system, gaining experience and learning how the jobs are done and the extent of your power, you become part of the system. In order to succeed your face has to fit, you have to have the sort of views that most people in your party won't be offended by, and you have to be flexible enough in those views to keep your job, and keep moving up as the people above you change.

    On top of this people that move up the greasy pole will inevitably become soiled by the compromises that requires, the favours promised and owed, the quid-pro-quo power broking, and dirty little compromises and deals that seemed like a good idea at the time. By the time you are ready to make your play for the top job you are almost by definition going to be a consummate insider, with very middle of the road views and almost completely unexciting to anyone outside the party mainstream.

    Look at the current holders of the great offices: Cameron, Osborne, May, Hamilton all grey unexciting worthy middle of the road Tories, not a single one of them is going to set the pulse racing of someone flirting with joining the party, or changing their vote.
    True and nearly all of that applies to Clinton too. Ex first lady, ex Senator, ex Secretary of State, she has through a long career acquired a baggage train of compromise, favours, mistakes, things done for financial support she might regret, positions adopted and then dropped, it goes on and on. She is the archetypal establishment candidate against the archetypal revolutionary. It will be interesting.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    DavidL said:

    blackburn63 said:

    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    I find myself agreeing with you quite often, but I see no similarities whatsoever between Corbyn and Trump. One is a lifetime protestor/politician, the other (regardless of whether one likes him) is the epitome of the American dream who believes he can do a good job for his country.

    They're both white males of a similar age, they have nothing else in common.
    Of course they hold completely different political positions but they are both running successful campaigns as the anti-candidate, the anti-establishment, the anti-politician. Neither have any experience of running any political organisation. Both generate visceral dislike by people in the same party, both look like breaking up coalitions of interests that have made the parties electable in the past, both are achieving this by bringing new supporters into the party but in each case these new supporters are not particularly welcomed by those already there. The fact that they have both come to the party very late in their careers (which is true in each case) is the least of it.
    I'm sorry but that's just not true, Corbyn has been in politics for decades, he is not anti-politician he is the epitome of one. First a councillor, MP for decades, protested about everything and anything.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    edited March 2016
    nigel4england said:

    Has this been on the BBC news?

    http://katm.co.uk/index.php/terror-as-coach-of-british-schoolchildren-attacked-by-calais-refugees/

    Its on the website:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-35280108

    11 January.....
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2016
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    On 2 May 1997, I walked into Downing Street as prime minister for the first time. I had never held office, not even as the most junior of junior ministers. It was my first and only job in government. -- Tony Blair, A Journey.
    Typical Blair. True while being utterly misleading.

    He was:

    Shadow Secretary of State for Energy (23 November 1988 – 2 November 1989)
    Shadow Secretary of State for Employment (2 November 1989 – 24 July 1992)
    Shadow Home Secretary (24 July 1992 – 24 October 1994)
    and he had been Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition for 3 years which includes being on the Privy Council.

    When any government has been in power for 3 terms like the Tories had is is inevitable that almost all the new government are going to have no experience in government, but they are far from inexperienced or uninformed about administration or policy, and Blair will have been briefed by civil servants as part of his job for years.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,648
    FPT - what a comically hysterical series of posts by Speedy, saying Trump is now "definitely finished"!!

    As PB.com's self-appointed "expert" on American politics (who cost me over £100 with similar hysterics on the South Carolina exit polls just two weeks ago) this latest bout of melodrama has now confirmed him as someone I will definitely ignore on US politics going forwards.

    Rod Crosby, Pulpstar, HYUFD and rcs1000 are the posters I pay attention to.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    Casino_Royale said:

    FPT - what a comically hysterical series of posts by Speedy, saying Trump is now "definitely finished"!!

    I thought that was 'brave'.......the Trump University stuff was bad - but it just seems to bounce off him........
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,396
    blackburn63 said:



    I don't know much about Trump, but I'm pretty sure he didn't inherit billions..

    Times were hard when Trump was young. All he had from his father was a small loan of a million dollars to work with.

    A friend of mine who is a respected economist told me that Trump would probably have been about twice as wealthy had he put his father's money into Treasury bonds and left it there. My friend is admittedly left wing, but it seems plausible given how many failed companies Trump has tried to run.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,396
    Indigo said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    On 2 May 1997, I walked into Downing Street as prime minister for the first time. I had never held office, not even as the most junior of junior ministers. It was my first and only job in government. -- Tony Blair, A Journey.
    Typical Blair. True while being utterly misleading.

    He was:

    Shadow Secretary of State for Energy (23 November 1988 – 2 November 1989)
    Shadow Secretary of State for Employment (2 November 1989 – 24 July 1992)
    Shadow Home Secretary (24 July 1992 – 24 October 1994)
    and he had been Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition for 3 years which includes being on the Privy Council.

    When any government has been in power for 3 terms like the Tories had is is inevitable that almost all the new government are going to have no experience in government, but they are far from inexperienced or uninformed about administration or policy, and Blair will have been briefed by civil servants as part of his job for years.
    He was however one of only two PMs in the 20th century not to have been in Cabinet before being PM, the other being Ramsay Macdonald. To that list we could add Cameron, but I think they are the only ones. Even William Pitt had been Chancellor, however briefly.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,648
    CarlottaVance said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    FPT - what a comically hysterical series of posts by Speedy, saying Trump is now "definitely finished"!!

    I thought that was 'brave'.......the Trump University stuff was bad - but it just seems to bounce off him........
    Trump had a bad debate, no question. But saying he's definitely finished??

    Have some perspective, man.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,900
    Kind of thing you'd expect from farage. I wonder when he'll throw his into the ring......
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    ydoethur said:

    Indigo said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    On 2 May 1997, I walked into Downing Street as prime minister for the first time. I had never held office, not even as the most junior of junior ministers. It was my first and only job in government. -- Tony Blair, A Journey.
    Typical Blair. True while being utterly misleading.

    He was:

    Shadow Secretary of State for Energy (23 November 1988 – 2 November 1989)
    Shadow Secretary of State for Employment (2 November 1989 – 24 July 1992)
    Shadow Home Secretary (24 July 1992 – 24 October 1994)
    and he had been Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition for 3 years which includes being on the Privy Council.

    When any government has been in power for 3 terms like the Tories had is is inevitable that almost all the new government are going to have no experience in government, but they are far from inexperienced or uninformed about administration or policy, and Blair will have been briefed by civil servants as part of his job for years.
    He was however one of only two PMs in the 20th century not to have been in Cabinet before being PM, the other being Ramsay Macdonald. To that list we could add Cameron, but I think they are the only ones. Even William Pitt had been Chancellor, however briefly.
    Oh sure, but the implication is that Blair was an outsider, and I struggle to think of someone with 9 years in shadow cabinet positions and 3 year in the Privy Council as an outsider.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    Casino_Royale said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    FPT - what a comically hysterical series of posts by Speedy, saying Trump is now "definitely finished"!!

    I thought that was 'brave'.......the Trump University stuff was bad - but it just seems to bounce off him........
    Trump had a bad debate, no question. But saying he's definitely finished??

    Have some perspective, man.
    Not what the voodoo polling indicates.

    Oh take a look at THIS:

    US Muslim Voters support in the primaries:
    Clinton 45%
    Sanders 25

    Trump 11%
    Rubio 4%
    Cruz 2%
    Kasich 1%
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    Trump 14%; Rubio 7% in Cali (Muslims)
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,396
    edited March 2016
    Indigo said:



    Oh sure, but the implication is that Blair was an outsider, and I struggle to think of someone with 9 years in shadow cabinet positions and 3 year in the Privy Council as an outsider.

    Possibly. I took it as an excuse for his inexperience and therefore an explanation for the many crass mistakes he made. For example, it is hard not to believe that somebody with experience of effective collegiate government from the inside would have let Brown behave as he did without rapidly moving or even firing him. The inexperience appears to have meant Blair did not know how to do it safely, even though it wouldn't have been that hard in 1998. Or been so cavalier about foreign policy with so little regard for party or public opinion.

    Edited because of a grammar error.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    Trump 18%; Rubio 6% Florida (Muslims)
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,900
    edited March 2016

    I'll wait for the Channel 4 FactCheck.

    http://hollywoodlife.com/2016/03/03/donald-trump-penis-size-hand-gop-debate-marco-rubio-fight/
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,392
    Trump last night seems to have paid the price for ticking off the media in general and Fox in particular. You can no doubt win a lot of cheap points attacking the media, people whom the public trust even less than politicians, but there are times when they will snap back.

    The Megyn Kelly section on Trump University was very damaging. She is extremely bright and a proper journalist who does her research. In fact my experience of Fox is that by far the cleverest of their presenters are the ones who look most like bimbos. He had insulted her before and she retaliated, big time.

    Will it be enough? Not sure, he still has substantial momentum and the alternatives are not particularly attractive, but the idea of a Teflon Trump died last night. He was hurt.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Pulpstar said:

    Trump 18%; Rubio 6% Florida (Muslims)

    How accurate have the American polls been so far.. I would hesitate to post anything from a poll as though it were fact.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    Obviously US muslims are overwhelmingly DEM/ Hillary, but those are great numbers for Trump (He is dominant on the GOP side) from a group he has said can't enter the US !!
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2016
    Pulpstar said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    FPT - what a comically hysterical series of posts by Speedy, saying Trump is now "definitely finished"!!

    I thought that was 'brave'.......the Trump University stuff was bad - but it just seems to bounce off him........
    Trump had a bad debate, no question. But saying he's definitely finished??

    Have some perspective, man.
    Not what the voodoo polling indicates.

    Oh take a look at THIS:

    US Muslim Voters support in the primaries:
    Clinton 45%
    Sanders 25

    Trump 11%
    Rubio 4%
    Cruz 2%
    Kasich 1%
    US Muslims number about 1% of the population, and only about two thirds of those are citizens, not sure its going to be electorally significant even if the voodoo poll is representative.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,396
    DavidL said:

    Trump last night seems to have paid the price for ticking off the media in general and Fox in particular. You can no doubt win a lot of cheap points attacking the media, people whom the public trust even less than politicians, but there are times when they will snap back.

    The Megyn Kelly section on Trump University was very damaging. She is extremely bright and a proper journalist who does her research. In fact my experience of Fox is that by far the cleverest of their presenters are the ones who look most like bimbos. He had insulted her before and she retaliated, big time.

    Will it be enough? Not sure, he still has substantial momentum and the alternatives are not particularly attractive, but the idea of a Teflon Trump died last night. He was hurt.

    Perhaps his hands were Trumped?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    SquareRoot said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Trump 18%; Rubio 6% Florida (Muslims)

    How accurate have the American polls been so far.. I would hesitate to post anything from a poll as though it were fact.
    The polls have been reasonably good, on the Democrat side they predicted the delegate count through super Tuesday to within 3 each for HRC and Sanders. I've been keeping a close watch on that side of things as it's been fairly ignored.

    Oklahoma on the GOP side and South Carolina individually on the Democrat side were big misses.
  • Options
    LondonBobLondonBob Posts: 467
    edited March 2016
    ydoethur said:

    blackburn63 said:



    I don't know much about Trump, but I'm pretty sure he didn't inherit billions..

    Times were hard when Trump was young. All he had from his father was a small loan of a million dollars to work with.

    A friend of mine who is a respected economist told me that Trump would probably have been about twice as wealthy had he put his father's money into Treasury bonds and left it there. My friend is admittedly left wing, but it seems plausible given how many failed companies Trump has tried to run.
    That is a post combining both an impressive degree of both stupidity and ignorance.

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed-

    Actually Trump almost single handedly revitalised Manhattan and saw the potential at a time the city was on its knees. That took real vision.

    http://nypost.com/2016/02/07/how-donald-trump-helped-save-new-york-city/
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2016
    DavidL said:

    The Megyn Kelly section on Trump University was very damaging. She is extremely bright and a proper journalist who does her research. In fact my experience of Fox is that by far the cleverest of their presenters are the ones who look most like bimbos. He had insulted her before and she retaliated, big time.

    Fox are going to have in interesting few years with a Trump Whitehouse. It will be like the BBC trying to get an interview with Alex Ferguson.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcrYrBFWoAAMv3k.png:large

    Bloody hell, Rubio's hands are freakishly big.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,422
    blackburn63 said:

    DavidL said:

    blackburn63 said:

    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    I find myself agreeing with you quite often, but I see no similarities whatsoever between Corbyn and Trump. One is a lifetime protestor/politician, the other (regardless of whether one likes him) is the epitome of the American dream who believes he can do a good job for his country.

    They're both white males of a similar age, they have nothing else in common.
    Of course they hold completely different political positions but they are both running successful campaigns as the anti-candidate, the anti-establishment, the anti-politician. Neither have any experience of running any political organisation. Both generate visceral dislike by people in the same party, both look like breaking up coalitions of interests that have made the parties electable in the past, both are achieving this by bringing new supporters into the party but in each case these new supporters are not particularly welcomed by those already there. The fact that they have both come to the party very late in their careers (which is true in each case) is the least of it.
    I'm sorry but that's just not true, Corbyn has been in politics for decades, he is not anti-politician he is the epitome of one. First a councillor, MP for decades, protested about everything and anything.
    But that's the point: he's a protester, not a power-wielder. He is not the epitome of a politician in the usual sense: he might be in Westminster but he is not of it.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    david_herdson said:

    But that's the point: he's a protester, not a power-wielder. He is not the epitome of a politician in the usual sense: he might be in Westminster but he is not of it.

    He is a political activist.

    That is not the same as a politician, not by a long shot.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,900
    CarlottaVance said:

    nigel4england said:

    Has this been on the BBC news?

    http://katm.co.uk/index.php/terror-as-coach-of-british-schoolchildren-attacked-by-calais-refugees/

    Its on the website:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-35280108

    11 January.....
    But a nano-second in the mind of a UKIPer
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,900
    edited March 2016
    Pulpstar said:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcrYrBFWoAAMv3k.png:large

    Bloody hell, Rubio's hands are freakishly big.

    Jesus Christ! this is catching.....
  • Options
    LondonBobLondonBob Posts: 467
    Pulpstar said:

    Obviously US muslims are overwhelmingly DEM/ Hillary, but those are great numbers for Trump (He is dominant on the GOP side) from a group he has said can't enter the US !!

    Foreign policy, same reason the media are in all out attack mode. Problem is the GOP should be uniting behind Trump now but because of his foreign policy stance the attacks will continue. Thing is they don't resonate with the American people, who have no trust in the media, which is why it isn't working.

    https://twitter.com/PeterBeinart/status/705597526162935808

    So we can now formally confirm Rubio is done for now.
  • Options
    AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Pulpstar said:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcrYrBFWoAAMv3k.png:large

    Bloody hell, Rubio's hands are freakishly big.

    Sooty was never the same after Harry Corbett retired.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,422
    ydoethur said:

    Indigo said:

    DecrepitJohnL said:

    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    On 2 May 1997, I walked into Downing Street as prime minister for the first time. I had never held office, not even as the most junior of junior ministers. It was my first and only job in government. -- Tony Blair, A Journey.
    Typical Blair. True while being utterly misleading.

    He was:

    Shadow Secretary of State for Energy (23 November 1988 – 2 November 1989)
    Shadow Secretary of State for Employment (2 November 1989 – 24 July 1992)
    Shadow Home Secretary (24 July 1992 – 24 October 1994)
    and he had been Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition for 3 years which includes being on the Privy Council.

    When any government has been in power for 3 terms like the Tories had is is inevitable that almost all the new government are going to have no experience in government, but they are far from inexperienced or uninformed about administration or policy, and Blair will have been briefed by civil servants as part of his job for years.
    He was however one of only two PMs in the 20th century not to have been in Cabinet before being PM, the other being Ramsay Macdonald. To that list we could add Cameron, but I think they are the only ones. Even William Pitt had been Chancellor, however briefly.
    But then for one party to hold office for 18 years was unprecedented since the Reform Act (and even then, Blair only set that record because Smith - a former cabinet minister - died).
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,396
    LondonBob said:


    That is a post combining both an impressive degree of both stupidity and ignorance.

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-03/should-donald-trump-have-indexed-

    Actually Trump almost single handedly revitalised Manhattan and saw the potential at a time the city was on its knees. That took real vision.

    http://nypost.com/2016/02/07/how-donald-trump-helped-save-new-york-city/

    One of those articles admits that my point is potentially mathematically valid although in the real world it would never happen. Incidentally, I would point out I qualified it by saying it seemed plausible, and there I was thinking of Trump's ability to make ghastly and expensive mistakes which he glosses over. The other admits that it can't tie Trump to the success of New York, although it desperately tries to.

    The personal abuse merely makes you look childish. Which is rather sad.
  • Options
    nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Roger said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    nigel4england said:

    Has this been on the BBC news?

    http://katm.co.uk/index.php/terror-as-coach-of-british-schoolchildren-attacked-by-calais-refugees/

    Its on the website:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-35280108

    11 January.....
    But a nano-second in the mind of a UKIPer
    I'd never seen it before.

    Do you think it is acceptable behavior?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,396
    david_herdson said:



    But then for one party to hold office for 18 years was unprecedented since the Reform Act (and even then, Blair only set that record because Smith - a former cabinet minister - died).

    True, although between 1840 and 1874 the Conservatives never won a majority although they had brief spells as a minority government.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,369
    CarlottaVance said:

    An alternative view in the Guardian:

    This is the game we play after every Republican debate: the mainstream press corps finds some tortured explanation for why Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz won, and then days later Donald Trump rises in the polls. In a night where CNN ran a headline reading “Donald Trump defends size of his penis,” the man has probably won yet again.


    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/04/donald-trump-republican-debate-performance-detroit

    Yes, Fox commentators made the same point. Megan gives him come credit for keeping his cool and it's agreed that the story of the debate is Trump - again. Mature, moderate voters clearly liked Kasich but I'm not sure that maturity and moderation are the dominant emotions in the GOP primaries.

    And thanks again to Speedy for his entertaining summaries. I'm not convinced that one debate will finish Trump at all, but they make great reading.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    The rise of Asia - 35 years in the world economy.......

    http://howmuch.net/articles/world-economy-as-a-living-organism
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    Must say I'm really warming to the idea of President Cruz.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I watched two thirds of it, and the running spat between Rubio and Trump was just a totally childish waste of airtime. It was like two mean girls squabbling.

    Didn't think the Trump hotel or clothing made any real dent, nor the bit about negotiations to save money.

    Trump university was awful, I winced and it went on and on. His bragging just looked very empty and blustering. Flop sweat time.

    Regarding Trump changing his position, well it'll have disappointed some - but I don't see that as fatal either.

    I'd expect a slow in his momentum for a few days, then the caravan will move on.

    Kaisch is far too chairman of the board, he doesn't make me think President. Rubio is spoilt brat, Cruz was best on the night but that's not saying much either.

  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,048
    david_herdson said:

    blackburn63 said:

    DavidL said:

    blackburn63 said:

    DavidL said:

    Peggy Noonan, always worth reading, describes this as the end of the republican party no less: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-republican-party-is-shattering-1457050017

    What occurred to me is that if you replace the word Trump with the word Corbyn so much of it holds true: a man who has never been elected to or held office (other than MP of course) being put forward as PM. A man who in some ways broadens the tent bringing in new supporters who the old team don't like very much, a man who seized a moment of anti politics when the establishment figures were discredited and inept and a man who will drive away key elements of the coalition that made his party electable.

    Just an example:

    "He is a divider of the Republican Party and yet an enlarger of the tent. His candidacy is contributing to record turnouts in primary after primary, and surely bringing in Democrats and independents. But it should concern his supporters that his brain appears to be a grab bag of impulses, and although he has many views and opinions he doesn’t seem to know anything about public policy or the way the White House or the government actually works."

    The similarities are startling.

    I find myself agreeing with you quite often, but I see no similarities whatsoever between Corbyn and Trump. One is a lifetime protestor/politician, the other (regardless of whether one likes him) is the epitome of the American dream who believes he can do a good job for his country.

    They're both white males of a similar age, they have nothing else in common.
    Of course they hold completely different political positions but they are both running successful campaigns as the anti-candidate, theparty but in each case these new supporters are not particularly welcomed by those already there. The fact that they have both come to the party very late in their careers (which is true in each case) is the least of it.
    I'm sorry but that's just not true, Corbyn has been in politics for decades, he is not anti-politician he is the epitome of one. First a councillor, MP for decades, protested about everything and anything.
    But that's the point: he's a protester, not a power-wielder. He is not the epitome of a politician in the usual sense: he might be in Westminster but he is not of it.
    That depends what you mean by 'Westminster'. I would regard someone as steeped in political culture as Corbyn as a part of it even though he has been away from power all that time, as he has shown, on occasion, that he is not immune from displaying the same tactics and behaviours of others in the political class, even if he is otherwise unconventional.
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,422
    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:



    But then for one party to hold office for 18 years was unprecedented since the Reform Act (and even then, Blair only set that record because Smith - a former cabinet minister - died).

    True, although between 1840 and 1874 the Conservatives never won a majority although they had brief spells as a minority government.
    True, but it was enough for the likes of Disraeli to gather some ministerial experience.

    We should probably also note in passing that IDS became leader of his party without having held government office.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    Plato_Says said:

    I watched two thirds of it, and the running spat between Rubio and Trump was just a totally childish waste of airtime. It was like two mean girls squabbling.

    Didn't think the Trump hotel or clothing made any real dent, nor the bit about negotiations to save money.

    Trump university was awful, I winced and it went on and on. His bragging just looked very empty and blustering. Flop sweat time.

    Regarding Trump changing his position, well it'll have disappointed some - but I don't see that as fatal either.

    I'd expect a slow in his momentum for a few days, then the caravan will move on.

    Kaisch is far too chairman of the board, he doesn't make me think President. Rubio is spoilt brat, Cruz was best on the night but that's not saying much either.

    I've been voting for Ted Cruz in all the voodoo polls for that ha'penny's worth of media manipulation ;)

    Rubio seems to be friendless there.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,009
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: last day of the final test. Drivers sound very unimpressed with the new qualifying and the failure to even nail the format down.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    ydoethur said:

    david_herdson said:



    But then for one party to hold office for 18 years was unprecedented since the Reform Act (and even then, Blair only set that record because Smith - a former cabinet minister - died).

    True, although between 1840 and 1874 the Conservatives never won a majority although they had brief spells as a minority government.
    Tories torn apart over a trade issue...
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    Good thing too:

    David Cameron has applied to register the Tories as the “Conservative and Unionist party” across Britain.

    The move comes as the Prime Minister flies into Scotland to address the Scottish Conservative conference.

    There he will hammer home the message that his is the sole political party willing to stick up for the Union in Scotland.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14320263.Tories_apply_to_become____Conservative_and_Unionist_party____across_Britain/
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2016
    nigel4england said:

    Roger said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    nigel4england said:

    Has this been on the BBC news?

    http://katm.co.uk/index.php/terror-as-coach-of-british-schoolchildren-attacked-by-calais-refugees/

    Its on the website:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-35280108

    11 January.....
    But a nano-second in the mind of a UKIPer
    I'd never seen it before.

    Do you think it is acceptable behavior?
    Don't go asking lefties questions like that, this is what happens:

    youtu.be/WCiJ0JSCnko?t=3m20s
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,048
    CarlottaVance said:

    Good thing too:

    David Cameron has applied to register the Tories as the “Conservative and Unionist party” across Britain.

    The move comes as the Prime Minister flies into Scotland to address the Scottish Conservative conference.

    There he will hammer home the message that his is the sole political party willing to stick up for the Union in Scotland.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14320263.Tories_apply_to_become____Conservative_and_Unionist_party____across_Britain/

    I thought it was already their formal name, didn't realise they would need to specifically register to use it.

    maybe they should go by SUP in Scotland, Scottish unionist party just to de-emphasise the conservative bit too though.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,787
    kle4 said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Good thing too:

    David Cameron has applied to register the Tories as the “Conservative and Unionist party” across Britain.

    The move comes as the Prime Minister flies into Scotland to address the Scottish Conservative conference.

    There he will hammer home the message that his is the sole political party willing to stick up for the Union in Scotland.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14320263.Tories_apply_to_become____Conservative_and_Unionist_party____across_Britain/

    I thought it was already their formal name, didn't realise they would need to specifically register to use it.

    maybe they should go by SUP in Scotland, Scottish unionist party just to de-emphasise the conservative bit too though.
    There was, allegedly, some lazy thinking before SINDYREF among some English Tories that if Scotland separated, then with the Scottish Labour MPs removed the Tories would have a much stronger shot at governing in England.

    Fortunately wiser Scottish heads prevailed in SINDYREF, and in 2015 the Scottish electorate, FPTP and the SNP solved the 'Scottish Labour MPs' problem.....possibly for quite some time.....
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,900
    edited March 2016
    nigel4england said:

    Roger said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    nigel4england said:

    Has this been on the BBC news?

    http://katm.co.uk/index.php/terror-as-coach-of-british-schoolchildren-attacked-by-calais-refugees/

    Its on the website:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-35280108

    11 January.....
    But a nano-second in the mind of a UKIPer
    I'd never seen it before.

    Do you think it is acceptable behavior?
    Isn't there a statute of limitations for outrage at bad behaviour by foreigners? Even UKIP outrage?
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    nigel4england said:

    Roger said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    nigel4england said:

    Has this been on the BBC news?

    http://katm.co.uk/index.php/terror-as-coach-of-british-schoolchildren-attacked-by-calais-refugees/

    Its on the website:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-35280108

    11 January.....
    But a nano-second in the mind of a UKIPer
    I'd never seen it before.

    Do you think it is acceptable behavior?
    Has anyone suggested it is acceptable? Or explained how Leave would make a difference?
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,227
    test
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Months ago, I read that nobody seems to like Rubio and I thought Meh, he can't be that bad.

    He's just so easy to dislike. All Ivy league style smugness and bratty. Whatever his parents did as a job, he gives off the most entitled vibe.
    Pulpstar said:

    Plato_Says said:

    I watched two thirds of it, and the running spat between Rubio and Trump was just a totally childish waste of airtime. It was like two mean girls squabbling.

    Didn't think the Trump hotel or clothing made any real dent, nor the bit about negotiations to save money.

    Trump university was awful, I winced and it went on and on. His bragging just looked very empty and blustering. Flop sweat time.

    Regarding Trump changing his position, well it'll have disappointed some - but I don't see that as fatal either.

    I'd expect a slow in his momentum for a few days, then the caravan will move on.

    Kaisch is far too chairman of the board, he doesn't make me think President. Rubio is spoilt brat, Cruz was best on the night but that's not saying much either.

    I've been voting for Ted Cruz in all the voodoo polls for that ha'penny's worth of media manipulation ;)

    Rubio seems to be friendless there.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,048
    I see on the BBC we're inching toward Tory politeness going away, as ids suggests, apparently, the government could be damaged post ref by remains acrimony. Whether one thinks it's fair to pin the blame on remain or not, that the other side, even those who don't want to see lingering effects, are openly explaining how they will be reacting, does not bode well for the party.
  • Options
    LondonBobLondonBob Posts: 467
    https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-announces-senator-sessions-to-serve-as-chairman-of-national

    Significant appointment. Interesting comments.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,002
    Current implied odds

    Rubio 2.39
    Trump 3.21
    Cruz 2.58
    Kasich 2.84
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited March 2016
    kle4 said:

    I see on the BBC we're inching toward Tory politeness going away, as ids suggests, apparently, the government could be damaged post ref by remains acrimony. Whether one thinks it's fair to pin the blame on remain or not, that the other side, even those who don't want to see lingering effects, are openly explaining how they will be reacting, does not bode well for the party.

    Largely depends on who succeeds Dave. Dave has done remarkably well to hold the party together. If he decides to stay on that might no longer be true("lameish" duck")

    Frankly it doesn't really matter.. They are all as bad as each other, its just that Labour are unelectable
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,584
    What a fun debate.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,584
    Off topic, I've damaged a rib laughing at this story in The Times. The EURef is going to be won by grabbing a granny


    People in their twenties and thirties are being urged to phone their grandparents to persuade them to vote to stay in the European Union.

    Sam Gyimah, the impressive education minister who turns 40 this year, is to front the early effort to woo what he calls the "easyJet generation" which he says "have more of their life ahead of them".

    As I report in today's Times, the "grab a granny" strategy is based on the success of the campaign in favour of gay marriage in the Irish referendum, when young people's lobbying of relatives is credited by some with helping to secure a 62 per cent vote in favour.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,584
    edited March 2016
    For the innocents like Miss CycleFree who have no idea about common euphemisms and innuendoes

    grab a granny night

    social event frequented by more mature women milfs, supposedly on the lookout for casual sex
    don't go to the club on a Thursday, it is grab a granny night


    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=grab+a+granny+night&defid=1921067
  • Options
    RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    The other side to the Trump 'University' story.

    Fools and their money.

    They paid thousands to listen to little more than an infomercial, and the chance to have their picture taken with a cardboard cutout of Trump at the end of the day, in the belief they would become real estate gurus and 'get rich'...

    Many, including the idiot heading the current lawsuit, were taped at the event expressing their delight and satisfaction.
    http://www.98percentapproval.com/VIDEOS.html

    Lawyers were of the opinion the complainants have a weak case, and it is being brought by an ambitious Democratic Party DA, with no real chance of going to trial.

    The DA apparently offered Trump the chance to settle the "$40 million lawsuit" for just "$5 million", but he has refused.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,900
    edited March 2016
    Isn't it remarkable that Cameron is so weak that he's forced to allow such a level of disloyalty from IDS a man with a history of disloyalty?

    It shows how weak his position in his own party is and for he has Jeremy Corbyn to thank. With even a half decent opposition IDS would be out on his ear after calling his own leader 'dishonest'
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 92,048
    edited March 2016
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've damaged a rib laughing at this story in The Times. The EURef is going to be won by grabbing a granny


    People in their twenties and thirties are being urged to phone their grandparents to persuade them to vote to stay in the European Union.

    Sam Gyimah, the impressive education minister who turns 40 this year, is to front the early effort to woo what he calls the "easyJet generation" which he says "have more of their life ahead of them".

    As I report in today's Times, the "grab a granny" strategy is based on the success of the campaign in favour of gay marriage in the Irish referendum, when young people's lobbying of relatives is credited by some with helping to secure a 62 per cent vote in favour.

    Yes, I'm sure young people will be able to get just the same level of emotional poignancy with remaining in a bureaucratic superstate wannabe as with accepting their grand children's desire for equality of marriage.

    Depends if they go with 'why are you so racist grandad!'

    That said, I do know someone who says their grandfather wanted to vote UKIP at the ge but changed his mind as he apparently felt with a mixed race grandchild it would not be right.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,164
    Plato_Says said:

    Months ago, I read that nobody seems to like Rubio and I thought Meh, he can't be that bad.

    He's just so easy to dislike. All Ivy league style smugness and bratty. Whatever his parents did as a job, he gives off the most entitled vibe.

    Pulpstar said:

    Plato_Says said:

    I watched two thirds of it, and the running spat between Rubio and Trump was just a totally childish waste of airtime. It was like two mean girls squabbling.

    Didn't think the Trump hotel or clothing made any real dent, nor the bit about negotiations to save money.

    Trump university was awful, I winced and it went on and on. His bragging just looked very empty and blustering. Flop sweat time.

    Regarding Trump changing his position, well it'll have disappointed some - but I don't see that as fatal either.

    I'd expect a slow in his momentum for a few days, then the caravan will move on.

    Kaisch is far too chairman of the board, he doesn't make me think President. Rubio is spoilt brat, Cruz was best on the night but that's not saying much either.

    I've been voting for Ted Cruz in all the voodoo polls for that ha'penny's worth of media manipulation ;)

    Rubio seems to be friendless there.
    Rubio did not attend an Ivy League college and his father was a bartender
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,009
    Mr. kle4, pester power may work. Or it may aggravate those they seek to persuade.

    It's a whiny argument, though. Not about voting for the EU because it's a good thing, but trying to persuade the true believers to badger the agnostic into voting their way.
  • Options
    SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Roger said:

    Isn't it remarkable that Cameron is so weak that he's forced to allow such a level of disloyalty from IDS a man with a history of disloyalty?

    It shows how weak his position in his own party is and for he has Jeremy Corbyn to thank. With even a half decent opposition IDS would be out on his ear after calling his own leader 'dishonest'

    No it isn't. Its the price of having won the election, allowing free debate on the EU... The Dave bashers on here are so one eyed, its scarcely readable..
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    SquareRoot said:

    Roger said:

    Isn't it remarkable that Cameron is so weak that he's forced to allow such a level of disloyalty from IDS a man with a history of disloyalty?

    It shows how weak his position in his own party is and for he has Jeremy Corbyn to thank. With even a half decent opposition IDS would be out on his ear after calling his own leader 'dishonest'

    No it isn't. Its the price of having won the election, allowing free debate on the EU... The Dave bashers on here are so one eyed, its scarcely readable..
    and the sycophants have their lips to close to his @rse they can't see what is happening in the world.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    No mercy from Quentin.
    When Mr Osborne had his turn, a delegate asked if BMW had been right to issue its unsubtle threat to its British employees over Brexit. The Chancellor affected distance. He said BMW – as he understood it – had only denounced Brexit after being begged to express a view by its workers. Believe that if you will. I know senior bankers who have been leaned on by the Treasury to big up the EU. Has it been beseeching foreign car makers to do likewise?

    A vote to leave the EU would mean our Brussels trade deals would ‘automatically fall’, said Mr Osborne with delight. ‘Having not negotiated trade deals for 40 years’ we would struggle to reconquer that art, he claimed.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3475753/M-S-man-Rose-s-favourite-comic-turn-QUENTIN-LETTS-sees-Project-Fear-action.html
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,648
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've damaged a rib laughing at this story in The Times. The EURef is going to be won by grabbing a granny


    People in their twenties and thirties are being urged to phone their grandparents to persuade them to vote to stay in the European Union.

    Sam Gyimah, the impressive education minister who turns 40 this year, is to front the early effort to woo what he calls the "easyJet generation" which he says "have more of their life ahead of them".

    As I report in today's Times, the "grab a granny" strategy is based on the success of the campaign in favour of gay marriage in the Irish referendum, when young people's lobbying of relatives is credited by some with helping to secure a 62 per cent vote in favour.

    I am doing the opposite. Phoning them to warn them of Project Fear's forthcoming tactics.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,584
    edited March 2016
    The time Nick Clegg went to a dogging site

    http://www.gripesofrathe.com/blog/2016/2/28/in-the-thick-of-it
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited March 2016
    Indigo said:

    SquareRoot said:

    Roger said:

    Isn't it remarkable that Cameron is so weak that he's forced to allow such a level of disloyalty from IDS a man with a history of disloyalty?

    It shows how weak his position in his own party is and for he has Jeremy Corbyn to thank. With even a half decent opposition IDS would be out on his ear after calling his own leader 'dishonest'

    No it isn't. Its the price of having won the election, allowing free debate on the EU... The Dave bashers on here are so one eyed, its scarcely readable..
    and the sycophants have their lips to close to his @rse they can't see what is happening in the world.
    I think that post rather confirms Mr Root’s point.
  • Options
    JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    CarlottaVance said:

    An alternative view in the Guardian:

    This is the game we play after every Republican debate: the mainstream press corps finds some tortured explanation for why Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz won, and then days later Donald Trump rises in the polls. In a night where CNN ran a headline reading “Donald Trump defends size of his penis,” the man has probably won yet again.


    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/04/donald-trump-republican-debate-performance-detroit

    Entirely accurate.

    The same was true of last night. The very reason why conventional wisdom regularly delivers the death knell to Trump's candidacy is the same reason he appeals to his supporters and continues to outflank his opponents. In that contest the risible comments by @Speedy were an object lesson. He completely misreads Trumpophilia.

    Two points I'd highlight from the debate. Firstly according to CNN research Trump dominated the airtime in the debate by a margin of 2:1 over any other candidate and secondly the killer moment for me was when the other candidates were forced to endorse a Trump candidacy if he were the nominee. The grin on Trump's face said it all - his small hands had them all by the goolies regardless of the size of their todger.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    kle4 said:

    I see on the BBC we're inching toward Tory politeness going away, as ids suggests, apparently, the government could be damaged post ref by remains acrimony. Whether one thinks it's fair to pin the blame on remain or not, that the other side, even those who don't want to see lingering effects, are openly explaining how they will be reacting, does not bode well for the party.

    Considering IDS was one of "the bastards" who made John Majors premiership a misery with their poison, he does rather have a brass neck in accusing Dave of being divisive. Or is he just completely thick?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,967
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Off topic, I've damaged a rib laughing at this story in The Times. The EURef is going to be won by grabbing a granny


    People in their twenties and thirties are being urged to phone their grandparents to persuade them to vote to stay in the European Union.

    Sam Gyimah, the impressive education minister who turns 40 this year, is to front the early effort to woo what he calls the "easyJet generation" which he says "have more of their life ahead of them".

    As I report in today's Times, the "grab a granny" strategy is based on the success of the campaign in favour of gay marriage in the Irish referendum, when young people's lobbying of relatives is credited by some with helping to secure a 62 per cent vote in favour.

    Perhaps they'll persuade their grandchildren to vote Leave.

  • Options
    runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    People in their twenties and thirties are being urged to phone their grandparents to persuade them to vote to stay in the European Union.

    Real whiff of desperation there
  • Options
    nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    foxinsoxuk said:

    kle4 said:

    I see on the BBC we're inching toward Tory politeness going away, as ids suggests, apparently, the government could be damaged post ref by remains acrimony. Whether one thinks it's fair to pin the blame on remain or not, that the other side, even those who don't want to see lingering effects, are openly explaining how they will be reacting, does not bode well for the party.

    Considering IDS was one of "the bastards" who made John Majors premiership a misery with their poison, he does rather have a brass neck in accusing Dave of being divisive. Or is he just completely thick?
    No, just honest.
  • Options
    Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Cabinet Office
    This week we published 2 policy papers ahead of the #EUreferendum on 23 June. Catch up here: https://t.co/RIyrpmAFGO https://t.co/aXBa1VXesp
  • Options
    mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    foxinsoxuk said:

    kle4 said:

    I see on the BBC we're inching toward Tory politeness going away, as ids suggests, apparently, the government could be damaged post ref by remains acrimony. Whether one thinks it's fair to pin the blame on remain or not, that the other side, even those who don't want to see lingering effects, are openly explaining how they will be reacting, does not bode well for the party.

    Considering IDS was one of "the bastards" who made John Majors premiership a misery with their poison, he does rather have a brass neck in accusing Dave of being divisive. Or is he just completely thick?
    foxinsoxuk said:

    kle4 said:

    I see on the BBC we're inching toward Tory politeness going away, as ids suggests, apparently, the government could be damaged post ref by remains acrimony. Whether one thinks it's fair to pin the blame on remain or not, that the other side, even those who don't want to see lingering effects, are openly explaining how they will be reacting, does not bode well for the party.

    Considering IDS was one of "the bastards" who made John Majors premiership a misery with their poison, he does rather have a brass neck in accusing Dave of being divisive. Or is he just completely thick?
    The evidence suggests that he's really rather stupid.
  • Options
    SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    The time Nick Clegg went to a dogging site

    http://www.gripesofrathe.com/blog/2016/2/28/in-the-thick-of-it

    Go on, admit it, Trump has hired you as a consultant hasn’t he? :lol:
This discussion has been closed.