5/17-5/18 Rasmussen 2016 General Election Trump 42% Clinton 37%
Second consecutive poll showing Trump in the lead...
It's strange that Romney only stood for one term.
Rasmussen's 2012 performance was garbage.
Indeed Rasmussen's final 2012 poll had Romney beating Obama, Fox had it tied, Obama won by 3. 9%. The gap is closing but Hillary still leads the RCP average this evening by 3.3%, the RCP average has correctly predicted the winner of the last 3 presidential elections
It's obviously not their main objective (Neither is Bojo leading the Leave campaign from the blues entirely about the country...), but I'm happy the assorted shits and bastards have used their power to offer a veto over TTIP to the NHS.
They can't veto it. It is by QMV. The best they can do is get a majority of the other countries to support them. That is the only way they can stop it.
I think TTIP is pretty much in the long grass already.
Didn't he also perform poorly at our May 2015 General Election?
Yes but this failure is worse, the data wasn't really pointing to a Tory majority - only a few (Matt Singh, @Tissue_Price) spotted it prior to the event... and it was quite hidden.
Donald Trump had a big New Hampshire lead - one of the best indicators to GOP nominee in recent times.
Trump GOP nominee is alot clearer than Con Majority was.
Hillary was listed as one of the best lawyers of her generation, has a 145 IQ, was twice elected Senator for New York and was Secretary of State. People may dislike them but Trump and Clinton are probably the most experienced and capable candidates to have run for president in years (though Trump inherited much of his wealth so his business success should not be too hyped up)
I think that's an exaggeration. Most presidents are pretty smart or they don't get close to start with. The only real idiot I can think of is Harding, and he may well have been dyslexic rather than stupid.
What is true is that while both candidates have undoubted qualities, they are also deeply flawed in other ways. Trump is erratic and at times flops alarmingly into pub bore rhetoric including racism and misogyny. Clinton is rude, arrogant and intellectually lazy (and also had, oddly, a misogynist meltdown of her own this week). They are also I think the oldest average age of any two candidates.
The point is perhaps not that the two candidates are useless. They're not. But they are neither suitable to be POTUS either, so it's a poor choice for the American people.
Wow that is incredibly surprising. I didn't think Chromebooks had gained much traction.
They're very popular in US education.
Oh yes, and OGH uses one to edit the site with. I was very tempted by one of these, but bottled it and went for one of these instead.
Are you happy with your Surface? I bought a new laptop a few months ago, and I was tempted, but in the end I just went with the old trusty choice i.e. top of the range dell, which is now 4k, 16gb, m.2 jobbie.
David Cameron tonight revealed he was trying to talk to Jeremy Corbyn about Latin America when he was given the cold shoulder by the Labour leader ahead of the Queen's Speech yesterday.
As the pair made the short walk from the House of Commons to the House of Lords to attend the State Opening of Parliament yesterday - usually a chance for the two leaders to share a rare bit of light-hearted conversation - the PM was left red-faced as Mr Corbyn rejected several efforts to engage in the traditional small talk.
Asked tonight what he had said, Mr Cameron replied: 'I was asking about whether he had time to see the Chilean President when she was in town because I know he’s got a great passion for Latin America and things that are happening there.
'So we talked about Chile. We talked about Colombia. I was about to get on to Venezuela but we didn’t… maybe that’s what went wrong. But that’s sort of the thing we were talking about.'
Hillary was listed as one of the best lawyers of her generation, has a 145 IQ, was twice elected Senator for New York and was Secretary of State. People may dislike them but Trump and Clinton are probably the most experienced and capable candidates to have run for president in years (though Trump inherited much of his wealth so his business success should not be too hyped up)
I think that's an exaggeration. Most presidents are pretty smart or they don't get close to start with. The only real idiot I can think of is Harding, and he may well have been dyslexic rather than stupid.
What is true is that while both candidates have undoubted qualities, they are also deeply flawed in other ways. Trump is erratic and at times flops alarmingly into pub bore rhetoric including racism and misogyny. Clinton is rude, arrogant and intellectually lazy (and also had, oddly, a misogynist meltdown of her own this week). They are also I think the oldest average age of any two candidates.
The point is perhaps not that the two candidates are useless. They're not. But they are neither suitable to be POTUS either, so it's a poor choice for the American people.
Whichever wins, they'll likely be a one-term President.
It's obviously not their main objective (Neither is Bojo leading the Leave campaign from the blues entirely about the country...), but I'm happy the assorted shits and bastards have used their power to offer a veto over TTIP to the NHS.
They can't veto it. It is by QMV. The best they can do is get a majority of the other countries to support them. That is the only way they can stop it.
I think TTIP is pretty much in the long grass already.
plus booking fee, check-in fee, disabled person transportation supplement, card processing fee, Michael O'Leary pension fee...
As long as they don't give free food or drink on the plane - treating.
Mind you - with Ryanair it would probably count as treating if they DIDN'T give any food or drink out.
The constant hard sell of everything under the sun from food / drink, to maps, to lotto tickets is the worst part about a RyanAir flight. It is like being stuck having to watch infomercials for 2-3hrs. Luckily I have a really good set of active noise cancelling headphones so I can block it all out.
5/17-5/18 Rasmussen 2016 General Election Trump 42% Clinton 37%
Second consecutive poll showing Trump in the lead...
It's strange that Romney only stood for one term.
Rasmussen's 2012 performance was garbage.
Indeed Rasmussen's final 2012 poll had Romney beating Obama, Fox had it tied, Obama won by 3. 9%. The gap is closing but Hillary still leads the RCP average this evening by 3.3%, the RCP average has correctly predicted the winner of the last 3 presidential elections
I'm yet to be convinced of the path to the Presidency for Trump.
But Hillary is more beatable (as a candidate) than Obama.
It's obviously not their main objective (Neither is Bojo leading the Leave campaign from the blues entirely about the country...), but I'm happy the assorted shits and bastards have used their power to offer a veto over TTIP to the NHS.
They can't veto it. It is by QMV. The best they can do is get a majority of the other countries to support them. That is the only way they can stop it.
I think TTIP is pretty much in the long grass already.
It's AMAZING how much is in the long grass at the moment - but I suspect the EU will get out the petrol strimmer on June 24th
5/17-5/18 Rasmussen 2016 General Election Trump 42% Clinton 37%
Second consecutive poll showing Trump in the lead...
It's strange that Romney only stood for one term.
Rasmussen's 2012 performance was garbage.
Indeed Rasmussen's final 2012 poll had Romney beating Obama, Fox had it tied, Obama won by 3. 9%. The gap is closing but Hillary still leads the RCP average this evening by 3.3%, the RCP average has correctly predicted the winner of the last 3 presidential elections
I'm yet to be convinced of the path to the Presidency for Trump.
But Hillary is more beatable (as a candidate) than Obama.
Well yes but then Trump is arguably more beatable than Romney too
Hillary was listed as one of the best lawyers of her generation, has a 145 IQ, was twice elected Senator for New York and was Secretary of State. People may dislike them but Trump and Clinton are probably the most experienced and capable candidates to have run for president in years (though Trump inherited much of his wealth so his business success should not be too hyped up)
I think that's an exaggeration. Most presidents are pretty smart or they don't get close to start with. The only real idiot I can think of is Harding, and he may well have been dyslexic rather than stupid.
What is true is that while both candidates have undoubted qualities, they are also deeply flawed in other ways. Trump is erratic and at times flops alarmingly into pub bore rhetoric including racism and misogyny. Clinton is rude, arrogant and intellectually lazy (and also had, oddly, a misogynist meltdown of her own this week). They are also I think the oldest average age of any two candidates.
The point is perhaps not that the two candidates are useless. They're not. But they are neither suitable to be POTUS either, so it's a poor choice for the American people.
Whichever wins, they'll likely be a one-term President.
You would hope so. But how many thought that of Reagan or Truman? One commentator even confidently predict Landon would win in 1936, suggesting in charming fashion that the Republicans 'could beat Roosevelt with a Chinaman'. It's not always easy to get incumbent presidents out, even when they're completely useless.
David Cameron tonight revealed he was trying to talk to Jeremy Corbyn about Latin America when he was given the cold shoulder by the Labour leader ahead of the Queen's Speech yesterday.
As the pair made the short walk from the House of Commons to the House of Lords to attend the State Opening of Parliament yesterday - usually a chance for the two leaders to share a rare bit of light-hearted conversation - the PM was left red-faced as Mr Corbyn rejected several efforts to engage in the traditional small talk.
Asked tonight what he had said, Mr Cameron replied: 'I was asking about whether he had time to see the Chilean President when she was in town because I know he’s got a great passion for Latin America and things that are happening there.
'So we talked about Chile. We talked about Colombia. I was about to get on to Venezuela but we didn’t… maybe that’s what went wrong. But that’s sort of the thing we were talking about.'
Cameron's a cad and a sneak. He has no respect for privacy and decency as his PR stunt with Her Majesty the other week showed. Corbyn should have turned Dave's ham face red by bringing up Panama if the heir to Blair was so eager to discuss Latin America.
Hillary was listed as one of the best lawyers of her generation, has a 145 IQ, was twice elected Senator for New York and was Secretary of State. People may dislike them but Trump and Clinton are probably the most experienced and capable candidates to have run for president in years (though Trump inherited much of his wealth so his business success should not be too hyped up)
I think that's an exaggeration. Most presidents are pretty smart or they don't get close to start with. The only real idiot I can think of is Harding, and he may well have been dyslexic rather than stupid.
What is true is that while both candidates have undoubted qualities, they are also deeply flawed in other ways. Trump is erratic and at times flops alarmingly into pub bore rhetoric including racism and misogyny. Clinton is rude, arrogant and intellectually lazy (and also had, oddly, a misogynist meltdown of her own this week). They are also I think the oldest average age of any two candidates.
The point is perhaps not that the two candidates are useless. They're not. But they are neither suitable to be POTUS either, so it's a poor choice for the American people.
Well you obviously have to be above average to get to be president but if you look at recent candidates none have exactly had truly outstanding careers before. Obama was a community organiser and lecturer, Dubya ran a baseball team (a post his father gave him), Kerry was a pretty average DA in Boston, Gore was a middle ranking journalist, Clinton was essentially a professional politician from a young age apart from a brief spell with an Arkansas law firm between governorships (Hillary got better grades than Bill at Yale and had a more distinguished legal career) etc. Romney is perhaps an exception but even he is not in Trump's league, he never made the billionaires' club!
Hillary was listed as one of the best lawyers of her generation, has a 145 IQ, was twice elected Senator for New York and was Secretary of State. People may dislike them but Trump and Clinton are probably the most experienced and capable candidates to have run for president in years (though Trump inherited much of his wealth so his business success should not be too hyped up)
I think that's an exaggeration. Most presidents are pretty smart or they don't get close to start with. The only real idiot I can think of is Harding, and he may well have been dyslexic rather than stupid.
What is true is that while both candidates have undoubted qualities, they are also deeply flawed in other ways. Trump is erratic and at times flops alarmingly into pub bore rhetoric including racism and misogyny. Clinton is rude, arrogant and intellectually lazy (and also had, oddly, a misogynist meltdown of her own this week). They are also I think the oldest average age of any two candidates.
The point is perhaps not that the two candidates are useless. They're not. But they are neither suitable to be POTUS either, so it's a poor choice for the American people.
Whichever wins, they'll likely be a one-term President.
I disagree, if Hillary wins the GOP will likely pick Cruz in 2020, if Trump wins the Democrats Warren (or Sanders if he still has his faculties), both are beatable and most presidents normally get re-elected after only one term of their party in the White House
5/17-5/18 Rasmussen 2016 General Election Trump 42% Clinton 37%
Second consecutive poll showing Trump in the lead...
Take any polls when one nominee is in place but another isn't with a mammoth dollop of salt.
Supporters of Trump's opponents within the party are at the point where they're begrudgingly getting behind him. Same can not be said for Hillary.
So true....Problem is, Bernie's supporters may well get behind The Donald!
Indeed. I saw a poll suggesting up to 35% of his support in WV will go to Trump. Not that that will make one iota of difference to the make up of the Electoral College.
The thing about Trump, is that he is like a room that only holds one big, red button.
That has DO NOT PRESS on it.
You just desperately want to know what happens if you do press the button/elect him as President....whether intrigued or appalled at the possibility, it is just too tantalising to pass up!
What do we know a bout Trump?
He has a genius level IQ.
He built a multi billion dollar company.
He has written bestselling books.
Has had a hit TV show for years.
Has pumped and dumped numerous supermodels.
IOW he is extremely competent*.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he actually understands the problems facing america and he will attempt to impliment sensible policies.
*compare and contrast with Clinton, what has she ever actually achieved apart from marrying an extremely talented politician.
Hillary was listed as one of the best lawyers of her generation, has a 145 IQ, was twice elected Senator for New York and was Secretary of State. People may dislike them but Trump and Clinton are probably the most experienced and capable candidates to have run for president in years (though Trump inherited much of his wealth so his business success should not be too hyped up)
Hillary is dull as dishwater, whereas Trump has charisma though.
Neither are particularly likeable and Hillary has Bill who is more charismatic than both!
5/17-5/18 Rasmussen 2016 General Election Trump 42% Clinton 37%
Second consecutive poll showing Trump in the lead...
Take any polls when one nominee is in place but another isn't with a mammoth dollop of salt.
Supporters of Trump's opponents within the party are at the point where they're begrudgingly getting behind him. Same can not be said for Hillary.
So true....Problem is, Bernie's supporters may well get behind The Donald!
Indeed. I saw a poll suggesting up to 35% of his support in WV will go to Trump. Not that that will make one iota of difference to the make up of the Electoral College.
The thing about Trump, is that he is like a room that only holds one big, red button.
That has DO NOT PRESS on it.
You just desperately want to know what happens if you do press the button/elect him as President....whether intrigued or appalled at the possibility, it is just too tantalising to pass up!
What do we know a bout Trump?
He has a genius level IQ.
He built a multi billion dollar company.
He has written bestselling books.
Has had a hit TV show for years.
Has pumped and dumped numerous supermodels.
IOW he is extremely competent*.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he actually understands the problems facing america and he will attempt to impliment sensible policies.
*compare and contrast with Clinton, what has she ever actually achieved apart from marrying an extremely talented politician.
Hillary was listed as one of the best lawyers of her generation, has a 145 IQ, was twice elected Senator for New York and was Secretary of State. People may dislike them but Trump and Clinton are probably the most experienced and capable candidates to have run for president in years (though Trump inherited much of his wealth so his business success should not be too hyped up)
And this is where people go wrong.
Being a lawyer is no great achievement, what has Clinton ever done with her IQ, and winning elections is no great feat for politicians when most voters go for the party no matter what. You do know all these things don't pretend you don't.
Also Trump didn't inherit much of his wealth. His father died in 1999 and left his estate of about $300m which i assume was split 4 ways.
House of Lords has just lost another 4 Peers - new rule under the 2014 Act - if you don't attend at all in a whole session (ie a year) you are out.
Result: one Lab, one LD, two Crossbenchers out.
There have been a lot of departures in the last few months - in 2016 there had already previously been 6 deaths, 11 retirements, 5 have gone on Leave of Absence and one suspended.
So 27 out in less than 5 months. Result is that the number of Peers is now back down to 803.
We often hear about Cameron appointing numerous Peers but, perhaps surprisingly, that is an increase of just 15 over the last 5 years (there were 788 in June 2011).
State of the Parties is now: Con 247, Lab 210, LD 108, Crossbench 173.
If Cameron wins the EU referendum and remains PM reports have suggested a big wave of new appointments soon afterwards.
Wow that is incredibly surprising. I didn't think Chromebooks had gained much traction.
They're very popular in US education.
Oh yes, and OGH uses one to edit the site with. I was very tempted by one of these, but bottled it and went for one of these instead.
I have a Chromebook, a £200 model that I bought out of interest and now find that I use for all kinds of casual stuff. I really like it, it's a beautifully simple, well-designed platform. I'm very tempted to get a Pixel and move as much of my work to Chrome as I can.
The perfect vision of an elderly Englishmen in Europe. Paxman walking through beautiful parts of Brussels past idyllic chocolate shops impersonating Victor Meldrew on BBC 1.
We often hear about Cameron appointing numerous Peers but, perhaps surprisingly, that is an increase of just 15 over the last 5 years (there were 788 in June 2011).
So plenty of room "upstairs" for anyone who loses out due to the boundary review.
David Cameron tonight revealed he was trying to talk to Jeremy Corbyn about Latin America when he was given the cold shoulder by the Labour leader ahead of the Queen's Speech yesterday.
As the pair made the short walk from the House of Commons to the House of Lords to attend the State Opening of Parliament yesterday - usually a chance for the two leaders to share a rare bit of light-hearted conversation - the PM was left red-faced as Mr Corbyn rejected several efforts to engage in the traditional small talk.
Asked tonight what he had said, Mr Cameron replied: 'I was asking about whether he had time to see the Chilean President when she was in town because I know he’s got a great passion for Latin America and things that are happening there.
'So we talked about Chile. We talked about Colombia. I was about to get on to Venezuela but we didn’t… maybe that’s what went wrong. But that’s sort of the thing we were talking about.'
Hillary was listed as one of the best lawyers of her generation, has a 145 IQ, was twice elected Senator for New York and was Secretary of State. People may dislike them but Trump and Clinton are probably the most experienced and capable candidates to have run for president in years (though Trump inherited much of his wealth so his business success should not be too hyped up)
I think that's an exaggeration. Most presidents are pretty smart or they don't get close to start with. The only real idiot I can think of is Harding, and he may well have been dyslexic rather than stupid.
What is true is that while both candidates have undoubted qualities, they are also deeply flawed in other ways. Trump is erratic and at times flops alarmingly into pub bore rhetoric including racism and misogyny. Clinton is rude, arrogant and intellectually lazy (and also had, oddly, a misogynist meltdown of her own this week). They are also I think the oldest average age of any two candidates.
The point is perhaps not that the two candidates are useless. They're not. But they are neither suitable to be POTUS either, so it's a poor choice for the American people.
Whichever wins, they'll likely be a one-term President.
Interestingly, I don't think thats true. Trump seems fit enough to stay on for two full terms whereas Clinton looks ill. (not that I think she has any chance of winning anyway).
Jeremy Paxman is showing the ridiculous EU transporting two hundred miles to Strasbourg every month. It shows what a farce the EU is that it can't fix something so barmy.
5/17-5/18 Rasmussen 2016 General Election Trump 42% Clinton 37%
Second consecutive poll showing Trump in the lead...
Take any polls when one nominee is in plac
So true....Problem is, Bernie's supporters may well get behind The Donald!
Indeed. I saw a poll suggesting up to 35% of his support in .
The thing about Trump, is that he is like a room that only holds one big, red button.
That has DO NOT PRESS on it.
You just desperately want to know what happens if you do press the button/elect him as President....whether intrigued or appalled at the possibility, it is just too tantalising to pass up!
What do we know a bout Trump?
He has a genius level IQ.
He built a multi billion dollar company.
He has written bestselling books.
Has had a hit TV show for years.
Has pumped and dumped numerous supermodels.
IOW he is extremely competent*.
It is not beyond the bo
Hillary was listed as one of the best lawyers of her generation, has a 145 IQ, was twice elected Senator for New York and was Secretary of State. People may dislike them but Trump and Clinton are probably the most experienced and capable candidates to have run for president in years (though Trump inherited much of his wealth so his business success should not be too hyped up)
And this is where people go wrong.
Being a lawyer is no great achievement, what has Clinton ever done with her IQ, and winning elections is no great feat for politicians when most voters go for the party no matter what. You do know all these things don't pretend you don't.
Also Trump didn't inherit much of his wealth. His father died in 1999 and left his estate of about $300m which i assume was split 4 ways.
Also, in 1977, President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Corporation, a federal program charged with expanding access to legal aid. Hillary was the first woman to chair the corporation, and under her leadership, funding more than tripled from $90 million to $300 million. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allida-black/blazing-a-trail-hillary-clinton_b_5610884.html
5/17-5/18 Rasmussen 2016 General Election Trump 42% Clinton 37%
Second consecutive poll showing Trump in the lead...
Take any polls when one nominee is in place but another isn't with a mammoth dollop of salt.
Supporters of Trump's opponents within the party are at the point where they're begrudgingly getting behind him. Same can not be said for Hillary.
So true....Problem is, Bernie's supporters may well get behind The Donald!
Indeed. I saw a poll suggesting up to 35% of his support in WV will go to Trump. Not that that will make one iota of difference to the make up of the Electoral College.
The thing about Trump, is that he is like a room that only holds one big, red button.
That has DO NOT PRESS on it.
You just desperately want to know what happens if you do press the button/elect him as President....whether intrigued or appalled at the possibility, it is just too tantalising to pass up!
What do we know a bout Trump?
He has a genius level IQ.
He built a multi billion dollar company.
He has written bestselling books.
Has had a hit TV show for years.
Has pumped and dumped numerous supermodels.
IOW he is extremely competent*.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he actually understands the problems facing america and he will attempt to impliment sensible policies.
*compare and contrast with Clinton, what has she ever actually achieved apart from marrying an extremely talented politician.
Hillary was listed as one of the best lawyers of her generation, has a 145 IQ, was twice elected Senator for New York and was Secretary of State. People may dislike them but Trump and Clinton are probably the most experienced and capable candidates to have run for president in years (though Trump inherited much of his wealth so his business success should not be too hyped up)
Hillary is dull as dishwater, whereas Trump has charisma though.
Neither are particularly likeable and Hillary has Bill who is more charismatic than both!
Bill is a damn sight better than his wife ever will be, but he looks old now and unwell last time I saw him. He was definitely a good pres tho.
5/17-5/18 Rasmussen 2016 General Election Trump 42% Clinton 37%
Second consecutive poll showing Trump in the lead...
Take any polls when one nominee is in place but another isn't with a mammoth dollop of salt.
Supporters of Trump's opponents within the party are at the point where they're begrudgingly getting behind him. Same can not be said for Hillary.
So true....Problem is, Bernie's supporters may well get behind The Donald!
Indeed. I saw a poll suggesting up to 35% of his support in WV will go to Trump. Not that that will make one iota of difference to the make up of the Electoral College.
The thing about Trump, is that he is like a room that only holds one big, red button.
That has DO NOT PRESS on it.
You just desperately want to know what happens if you do press the button/elect him as President....whether intrigued or appalled at the possibility, it is just too tantalising to pass up!
What do we know a bout Trump?
He has a genius level IQ.
He built a multi billion dollar company.
He has written bestselling books.
Has had a hit TV show for years.
Has pumped and dumped numerous supermodels.
IOW he is extremely competent*.
It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he actually understands the problems facing america and he will attempt to impliment sensible policies.
*compare and contrast with Clinton, what has she ever actually achieved apart from marrying an extremely talented politician.
Hillary was listed as one of the best lawyers of her generation, has a 145 IQ, was twice elected Senator for New York and was Secretary of State. People may dislike them but Trump and Clinton are probably the most experienced and capable candidates to have run for president in years (though Trump inherited much of his wealth so his business success should not be too hyped up)
Hillary is dull as dishwater, whereas Trump has charisma though.
Neither are particularly likeable and Hillary has Bill who is more charismatic than both!
Bill is a damn sight better than his wife ever will be, but he looks old now and unwell last time I saw him. He was definitely a good pres tho.
Well you obviously have to be above average to get to be president but if you look at recent candidates none have exactly had truly outstanding careers before. Obama was a community organiser and lecturer, Dubya ran a baseball team (a post his father gave him), Kerry was a pretty average DA in Boston, Gore was a middle ranking journalist, Clinton was essentially a professional politician from a young age apart from a brief spell with an Arkansas law firm between governorships (Hillary got better grades than Bill at Yale and had a more distinguished legal career) etc. Romney is perhaps an exception but even he is not in Trump's league, he never made the billionaires' club!
Agreed, but have either of these really had what you could consider 'outstanding' careers as well? Trump has made money, but then he had a lot to start with (just as Rupert Murdoch cannot hold a candle to Keith, and James is less impressive than Rupert). Getting together a million dollars is a lot harder than getting it to make a hundred million dollars later, and Donald never had to do that first bit. I don't credit him with the patience or the nerve to build up a business from absolutely nothing.
As for Clinton, the only real landmarks in her career have been - working on Watergate (where she had a walk-on part) dismally failing to get healthcare reform through Congress, and being a singularly inept Secretary of State. Hardly a glittering record, for all her ability.
They look pretty close to the mean to me, I have to say. But then, the mean is probably higher than most people realise. As Obama once said, being President is a bit like being on American Idol, but with everyone else playing Simon Cowell.
Wow that is incredibly surprising. I didn't think Chromebooks had gained much traction.
They're very popular in US education.
Oh yes, and OGH uses one to edit the site with. I was very tempted by one of these, but bottled it and went for one of these instead.
I have a Chromebook, a £200 model that I bought out of interest and now find that I use for all kinds of casual stuff. I really like it, it's a beautifully simple, well-designed platform. I'm very tempted to get a Pixel and move as much of my work to Chrome as I can.
Her Indoors has a Toshiba Chromebook which I sometimes use as a spare. it's pretty basic but works OK, except for scanning, which I've pretty given up on trying to link it to my Epson printer which works perfectly with my Lenovo Windows 10 laptop. Having read others' experiences, it seems that scanning and chromebooks simply don't mix. If however any PBers know otherwise, please let me know what I'm doing wrong.
5/17-5/18 Rasmussen 2016 General Election Trump 42% Clinton 37%
Second consecutive poll showing Trump in the lead...
Take any polls when one nominee is in plac
So true....Problem is, Bernie's supporters may well get behind The Donald!
Indeed. I saw a poll suggesting up to 35% of his support in .
, red button.
IOW he is extremely competent*.
It is not beyond the bo
Hillary was listed as one of the best lawyers of her generation, has a 145 IQ, was twice elected Senator for New York and was Secretary of State. People may dislike them but Trump and Clinton are probably the most experienced and capable candidates to have run for president in years (though Trump inherited much of his wealth so his business success should not be too hyped up)
And this is where people go wrong.
Being a lawyer is no great achievement, what has Clinton ever done with her IQ, and winning elections is no great feat for politicians when most voters go for the party no matter what. You do know all these things don't pretend you don't.
Also Trump didn't inherit much of his wealth. His father died in 1999 and left his estate of about $300m which i assume was split 4 ways.
Also, in 1977, President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Corporation, a federal program charged with expanding access to legal aid. Hillary was the first woman to chair the corporation, and under her leadership, funding more than tripled from $90 million to $300 million. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allida-black/blazing-a-trail-hillary-clinton_b_5610884.html
Trump certainly got a leg up from his father, however loads of lottery winners have also come into loadsamoney and none of them have gone on to make billions.
Being appointed as a penpusher because of her husbands political connections and having her budget increased due to political decisions hardly shows great merit, more like Buggins turn.
Wow that is incredibly surprising. I didn't think Chromebooks had gained much traction.
They're very popular in US education.
Oh yes, and OGH uses one to edit the site with. I was very tempted by one of these, but bottled it and went for one of these instead.
I have a Chromebook, a £200 model that I bought out of interest and now find that I use for all kinds of casual stuff. I really like it, it's a beautifully simple, well-designed platform. I'm very tempted to get a Pixel and move as much of my work to Chrome as I can.
Her Indoors has a Toshiba Chromebook which I sometimes use as a spare. it's pretty basic but works OK, except for scanning, which I've pretty given up on trying to link it to my Epson printer which works perfectly with my Lenovo Windows 10 laptop. Having read others' experiences, it seems that scanning and chromebooks simply don't mix. If however any PBers know otherwise, please let me know what I'm doing wrong.
I can imagine that would be an issue. I don't scan or print so I haven't come across it.
Well you obviously have to be above average to get to be president but if you look at recent candidates none have exactly had truly outstanding careers before. Obama was a community organiser and lecturer, Dubya ran a ba
Agreed, but have either of these really had what you could consider 'outstanding' careers as well? Trump has made money, but then he had a lot to start with (just as Rupert Murdoch cannot hold a candle to Keith, and James is less impressive than Rupert). Getting together a million dollars is a lot harder than getting it to make a hundred million dollars later, and Donald never had to do that first bit. I don't credit him with the patience or the nerve to build up a business from absolutely nothing.
As for Clinton, the only real landmarks in her career have been - working on Watergate (where she had a walk-on part) dismally failing to get healthcare reform through Congress, and being a singularly inept Secretary of State. Hardly a glittering record, for all her ability.
They look pretty close to the mean to me, I have to say. But then, the mean is probably higher than most people realise. As Obama once said, being President is a bit like being on American Idol, but with everyone else playing Simon Cowell.
Well you obviously have to be above average to get to be president but if you look at recent candidates none have exactly had truly outstanding careers before. Obama was a community organiser and lecturer, Dubya ran a base
Agreed, but have either As for Clinton, the only real landmarks in her career have been - working on Watergate (where she had a walk-on part) dismally failing to get healthcare reform through Congress, and being a singularly inept Secretary of State. Hardly a glittering record, for all her ability.
They look pretty close to the mean to me, I have to say. But then, the mean is probably higher than most people realise. As Obama once said, being President is a bit like being on American Idol, but with everyone else playing Simon Cowell.
Well you are never going to get perfect candidates, few will be self-made billionaires or on the Supreme Court but of recent candidates they are certainly in the top tier. Of post war presidents only really Eisenhower (the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe) and maybe Bush Snr, former Head of the CIA really had outstanding careers before they were elected to the office
She may very well have encountered someone who is racist (unlike Gillian Duffy), but the way she wrote off the whole place as racist is damming.
It was the comment "where ever this place is" which is the killer line.
If she had said "crickey I have just had a terribly racist individual come up to me, but I am sure that person isn't typical of those that live here" there wouldn't have been half the fuss.
I have heard what the individual is supposed to have said and to paraphrase it was basically, well all my neighbours are Polish and lazy and they are only here for the benefits. So not racist, more xenophobic. I don't know, perhaps that perhaps neighbours really are lazy.
Another weasel-worded non apology from an elite Labour MP. Lady Bucket Mk II.
To call Pat Glass elite is to cause epistemological problems of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.
When is it going to stop raining at Headingly?
How much have you laid the draw for ?
£60*, my standard cricket bet, changed from £50 in honour of the Convicts' meek capitulation for that score in the Ashes test last year.
*actually I forgot about there being a Test in May and am out of cash, so virtual betting on the spreadsheet for this Test.
Any thoughts on England's first inning total. I'm thinking around 225.
Sorry for late reply, went out and just seen this. 225 seems low, the pitch was quite good for the batsman, it's just that three of ours never got into their stride. If the current partnership can last an hour in the morning then 275-300 should be doable. But this is England, we lost three wickets for 2 runs this morning!
It's obviously not their main objective (Neither is Bojo leading the Leave campaign from the blues entirely about the country...), but I'm happy the assorted shits and bastards have used their power to offer a veto over TTIP to the NHS.
They can't veto it. It is by QMV. The best they can do is get a majority of the other countries to support them. That is the only way they can stop it.
I think TTIP is pretty much in the long grass already.
It's AMAZING how much is in the long grass at the moment - but I suspect the EU will get out the petrol strimmer on June 24th
It's as much on the US side as on the European side. There's something for everyone to dislike and no-one is investing any moral authority to make it happen..
It's almost too good to be true, but I've read that if Donald Trump had sat back and invested his inheritance in a balanced portfolio, his net worth would be almost the same as it is today. He only inherited a few hundred million, but that was before the inflation of the 1970s and the equity booms.
It's almost too good to be true, but I've read that if Donald Trump had sat back and invested his inheritance in a balanced portfolio, his net worth would be almost the same as it is today. He only inherited a few hundred million, but that was before the inflation of the 1970s and the equity booms.
I am surprised there hasn't been more noise about his claim of giving $100 million to charity. It has been pulled apart and basically he gave a few million, the rest included things like giving away free rounds of golf at his own courses, over valuing land etc etc etc that he put some enormous value on. It seems like it is mostly tax reduction strategy.
Since the first day of his presidential campaign, Donald Trump has said that he gave more than $102 million to charity in the past five years.
To back up that claim, Trump’s campaign compiled a list of his contributions — 4,844 of them, filling 93 pages.
But, in that massive list, one thing was missing.
Not a single one of those donations was actually a personal gift of Trump’s own money.
It's almost too good to be true, but I've read that if Donald Trump had sat back and invested his inheritance in a balanced portfolio, his net worth would be almost the same as it is today. He only inherited a few hundred million, but that was before the inflation of the 1970s and the equity booms.
I assumed from the Pat Glass story that she'd be some hi-falutin inner London MP, but she's MP for Durham North West. She's from Esh Winning. I can't imagine the views of her constituents on immigratioo are massively different to those she encountered today.
5/17-5/18 Rasmussen 2016 General Election Trump 42% Clinton 37%
Second consecutive poll showing Trump in the lead...
Take any polls when one nominee is in plac
So true....Problem is, Bernie's supporters may well get behind The Donald!
Indeed. I saw a poll suggesting up to 35% of his support in .
, red button.
IOW he is extremely competent*.
It is not beyond the bo
Hillary was listed as one of the best lawyers of her generation, has a 145 IQ, was twice elected Senator for New York and was Secretary of State. People may dislike them but Trump and Clinton are probably the most experienced and capable candidates to have run for president in years (though Trump inherited much of his wealth so his business success should not be too hyped up)
And this is where people go wrong.
Being a lawyer is no great achievement, what has Clinton ever done with her IQ, and winning elections is no grea.
Also, in 1977, President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Corporation, a federal program charged with expanding access to legal aid. Hillary was the first woman to chair the corporation, and under her leadership, funding more than tripled from $90 million to $300 million. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allida-black/blazing-a-trail-hillary-clinton_b_5610884.html
Trump certainly got a leg up from his father, however loads of lottery winners have also come into loadsamoney and none of them have gone on to make billions.
Being appointed as a penpusher because of her husbands political connections and having her budget increased due to political decisions hardly shows great merit, more like Buggins turn.
It's almost too good to be true, but I've read that if Donald Trump had sat back and invested his inheritance in a balanced portfolio, his net worth would be almost the same as it is today. He only inherited a few hundred million, but that was before the inflation of the 1970s and the equity booms.
I am surprised there hasn't been more noise about his claim of giving $100 million to charity. It has been pulled apart and basically he gave a few million, the rest included things like giving away free rounds of golf at his own courses, over valuing land etc etc etc that he put some enormous value on.
That's what the tax returns chat is about, right? The speculation is that he is failing to release tax returns because they will reveal a much smaller charitable donation amount than he claimed. However 1. he has probably gotten away with worse - like reneging on his pledge to forgo political donations or saying he liked veterance who weren't captured - and 2. he may simply be playing the media.
I assumed from the Pat Glass story that she'd be some hi-falutin inner London MP, but she's MP for Durham North West. She's from Esh Winning. I can't imagine the views of her constituents on immigratioo are massively different to those she encountered today.
Its a mindset among some, anybody who waves an England flag, racist...anybody who mentions immigration, racist....etc etc etc
It's almost too good to be true, but I've read that if Donald Trump had sat back and invested his inheritance in a balanced portfolio, his net worth would be almost the same as it is today. He only inherited a few hundred million, but that was before the inflation of the 1970s and the equity booms.
I am surprised there hasn't been more noise about his claim of giving $100 million to charity. It has been pulled apart and basically he gave a few million, the rest included things like giving away free rounds of golf at his own courses, over valuing land etc etc etc that he put some enormous value on.
That's what the tax returns chat is about, right? The speculation is that he is failing to release tax returns because they will reveal a much smaller charitable donation amount than he claimed. However 1. he has probably gotten away with worse - like reneging on his pledge to forgo political donations or saying he liked veterance who weren't captured - and 2. he may simply be playing the media.
No, thats separate. He released 100 page document on his charitable giving, and like a lot of his property deals, there is bugger all of his own money in it.
The tax stuff is the speculation that a) he aint as rich as he says he is and b) he might have been rather aggressive in minimizing his tax (which is actually very standard in US, as pretty much everybody does some sort of personal tax returns in US and the norm is to get an accountant to write off as much as possible).
Excellent documentary on the EU by Paxman. Showed the difference between the underlying values of each side more clearly than anything I've seen so far.
She may very well have encountered someone who is racist (unlike Gillian Duffy), but the way she wrote off the whole place as racist is damming.
It was the comment "where ever this place is" which is the killer line.
If she had said "crickey I have just had a terribly racist individual come up to me, but I am sure that person isn't typical of those that live here" there wouldn't have been half the fuss.
I have heard what the individual is supposed to have said and to paraphrase it was basically, well all my neighbours are Polish and lazy and they are only here for the benefits. So not racist, more xenophobic. I don't know, perhaps that perhaps neighbours really are lazy.
Quite often our prejudices on a number of subjects are determined by the world around us. I know someone (a Brit) living it up on benefits. From that I know I should not take them as representative of the whole demographic, but I know some people who will not have it said that anybody enjoys the benefits lifestyle.
It's almost too good to be true, but I've read that if Donald Trump had sat back and invested his inheritance in a balanced portfolio, his net worth would be almost the same as it is today. He only inherited a few hundred million, but that was before the inflation of the 1970s and the equity booms.
I am surprised there hasn't been more noise about his claim of giving $100 million to charity. It has been pulled apart and basically he gave a few million, the rest included things like giving away free rounds of golf at his own courses, over valuing land etc etc etc that he put some enormous value on.
That's what the tax returns chat is about, right? The speculation is that he is failing to release tax returns because they will reveal a much smaller charitable donation amount than he claimed. However 1. he has probably gotten away with worse - like reneging on his pledge to forgo political donations or saying he liked veterance who weren't captured - and 2. he may simply be playing the media.
No, thats separate. He released 100 page document on his charitable giving, and like a lot of his property deals, there is bugger all of his own money in it.
The tax stuff is the speculation that a) he aint as rich as he says he is and b) he might have been rather aggressive in minimizing his tax (which is actually very standard in US, as pretty much everybody does some sort of personal tax returns in US and the norm is to get an accountant to write off as much as possible).
Yeah, ok. He sounded quite specific about how much he was worth in his self-nomination speech, so a) would be a big oopsie. I wonder whether people have already priced in b) but of course not everyone knows everything about him yet. I doubt it would be that advantageous for Clinton of the Clinton Foundation to bang on about it.
Excellent documentary on the EU by Paxman. Showed the difference between the underlying values of each side more clearly than anything I've seen so far.
Couldn't agree more. He put the arguments for each side better in an hour than either campaign has done in 2 months. Frist class, well balanced and informative.
It's almost too good to be true, but I've read that if Donald Trump had sat back and invested his inheritance in a balanced portfolio, his net worth would be almost the same as it is today. He only inherited a few hundred million, but that was before the inflation of the 1970s and the equity booms.
I am surprised there hasn't been more noise about his claim of giving $100 million to charity. It has been pulled apart and basically he gave a few million, the rest included things like giving away free rounds of golf at his own courses, over valuing land etc etc etc that he put some enormous value on.
That's what the tax returns chat is about, right? The speculation is that he is failing to release tax returns because they will reveal a much smaller charitable donation amount than he claimed. However 1. he has probably gotten away with worse - like reneging on his pledge to forgo political donations or saying he liked veterance who weren't captured - and 2. he may simply be playing the media.
No, thats separate. He released 100 page document on his charitable giving, and like a lot of his property deals, there is bugger all of his own money in it.
The tax stuff is the speculation that a) he aint as rich as he says he is and b) he might have been rather aggressive in minimizing his tax (which is actually very standard in US, as pretty much everybody does some sort of personal tax returns in US and the norm is to get an accountant to write off as much as possible).
Yeah, ok. He sounded quite specific about how much he was worth in his self-nomination speech, so a) would be a big oopsie. I wonder whether people have already priced in b) but of course not everyone knows everything about him yet. I doubt it would be that advantageous for Clinton of the Clinton Foundation to bang on about it.
No idea. Just thought it was a bit strange nobody has really gone big on the charity stuff during the campaign, it is his own documents that could be used against him...i.e. the claims he makes don't stand up, $100 million when he actually gave perhaps $4-5 million...that is a lot more than a bit of boasting say being worst $750 million and claiming to be worth a $1bn.
Now might be too late as you say Clinton's have some interesting financial arrangements and financial dealings.
It's almost too good to be true, but I've read that if Donald Trump had sat back and invested his inheritance in a balanced portfolio, his net worth would be almost the same as it is today. He only inherited a few hundred million, but that was before the inflation of the 1970s and the equity booms.
I am surprised there hasn't been more noise about his claim of giving $100 million to charity. It has been pulled apart and basically he gave a few million, the rest included things like giving away free rounds of golf at his own courses, over valuing land etc etc etc that he put some enormous value on.
That's what the tax returns chat is about, right? The speculation is that he is failing to release tax returns because they will reveal a much smaller charitable donation amount than he claimed. However 1. he has probably gotten away with worse - like reneging on his pledge to forgo political donations or saying he liked veterance who weren't captured - and 2. he may simply be playing the media.
No, thats separate. He released 100 page document on his charitable giving, and like a lot of his property deals, there is bugger all of his own money in it.
The tax stuff is the speculation that a) he aint as rich as he says he is and b) he might have been rather aggressive in minimizing his tax (which is actually very standard in US, as pretty much everybody does some sort of personal tax returns in US and the norm is to get an accountant to write off as much as possible).
Trump still has to file regular financial disclosure statements with the Federal Election Commission, which contain a reasonably accurate picture of his assets etc.
His taxes are audited every year (which is normal for super rich people here) and NO attorney would allow their client to release their return while under audit.
He is plenty rich, don't worry. He gives quite a bit to charity.
It's almost too good to be true, but I've read that if Donald Trump had sat back and invested his inheritance in a balanced portfolio, his net worth would be almost the same as it is today. He only inherited a few hundred million, but that was before the inflation of the 1970s and the equity booms.
I am surprised there hasn't been more noise about his claim of giving $100 million to charity. It has been pulled apart and basically he gave a few million, the rest included things like giving away free rounds of golf at his own courses, over valuing land etc etc etc that he put some enormous value on.
That's what the tax returns chat is about, right? The speculation is that he is failing to release tax returns because they will reveal a much smaller charitable donation amount than he claimed. However 1. he has probably gotten away with worse - like reneging on his pledge to forgo political donations or saying he liked veterance who weren't captured - and 2. he may simply be playing the media.
No, thats separate. He released 100 page document on his charitable giving, and like a lot of his property deals, there is bugger all of his own money in it.
The tax stuff is the speculation that a) he aint as rich as he says he is and b) he might have been rather aggressive in minimizing his tax (which is actually very standard in US, as pretty much everybody does some sort of personal tax returns in US and the norm is to get an accountant to write off as much as possible).
Trump still has to file regular financial disclosure statements with the Federal Election Commission, which contain a reasonably accurate picture of his assets etc.
His taxes are audited every year (which is normal for super rich people here) and NO attorney would allow their client to release their return while under audit.
He is plenty rich, don't worry. He gives quite a bit to charity.
I don't doubt he is rich, boasting about the size of his wealth perhaps. However, this charity thing though shows that he didn't give anywhere near what he claimed, the documents he released himself with a boast of $100 million show nothing close to that.
My point was I am surprised his opponents didn't attack him on that as it is a clear point of making a specific claim and it not standing up.
Excellent documentary on the EU by Paxman. Showed the difference between the underlying values of each side more clearly than anything I've seen so far.
Couldn't agree more. He put the arguments for each side better in an hour than either campaign has done in 2 months. Frist class, well balanced and informative.
What was it? I might have a look.
Just got back from a vote.leave event with Priti Patel. Not my cup of tea really, but wanted to get a feel how things are going.
I assumed from the Pat Glass story that she'd be some hi-falutin inner London MP, but she's MP for Durham North West. She's from Esh Winning. I can't imagine the views of her constituents on immigratioo are massively different to those she encountered today.
Its a mindset among some, anybody who waves an England flag, racist...anybody who mentions immigration, racist....etc etc etc
The other mystery is that she apparently said all this on local radio - it wasn't a simple matter of private thoughts inadvertently becoming public a la Gordon Brown. Presumably she thinks that there are more votes to be gained than lost by sneering at provincial attitudes.
I am surprised there hasn't been more noise about his claim of giving $100 million to charity. It has been pulled apart and basically he gave a few million, the rest included things like giving away free rounds of golf at his own courses, over valuing land etc etc etc that he put some enormous value on.
That's what the tax returns chat is about, right? The speculation is that he is failing to release tax returns because they will reveal a much smaller charitable donation amount than he claimed. However 1. he has probably gotten away with worse - like reneging on his pledge to forgo political donations or saying he liked veterance who weren't captured - and 2. he may simply be playing the media.
No, thats separate. He released 100 page document on his charitable giving, and like a lot of his property deals, there is bugger all of his own money in it.
The tax stuff is the speculation that a) he aint as rich as he says he is and b) he might have been rather aggressive in minimizing his tax (which is actually very standard in US, as pretty much everybody does some sort of personal tax returns in US and the norm is to get an accountant to write off as much as possible).
Yeah, ok. He sounded quite specific about how much he was worth in his self-nomination speech, so a) would be a big oopsie. I wonder whether people have already priced in b) but of course not everyone knows everything about him yet. I doubt it would be that advantageous for Clinton of the Clinton Foundation to bang on about it.
No idea. Just thought it was a bit strange nobody has really gone big on the charity stuff during the campaign, it is his own documents that could be used against him...i.e. the claims he makes don't stand up, $100 million when he actually gave perhaps $4-5 million...that is a lot more than a bit of boasting say being worst $750 million and claiming to be worth a $1bn.
Now might be too late as you say Clinton's have some interesting financial arrangements and financial dealings.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The Clinton's interesting and opaque financial arrangements tend to involve the Foundation rather than their tax returns. The Foundation makes something of an industry of refiling prior year taxes when questions are asked. Charity navigator - the Gold Standard of charity rating - will not touch the Clinton Foundation as it is not set up as a charity.
There's not much mystery about Trump's financial standing.
I assumed from the Pat Glass story that she'd be some hi-falutin inner London MP, but she's MP for Durham North West. She's from Esh Winning. I can't imagine the views of her constituents on immigratioo are massively different to those she encountered today.
Its a mindset among some, anybody who waves an England flag, racist...anybody who mentions immigration, racist....etc etc etc
The other mystery is that she apparently said all this on local radio - it wasn't a simple matter of private thoughts inadvertently becoming public a la Gordon Brown. Presumably she thinks that there are more votes to be gained than lost by sneering at provincial attitudes.
Tim_b - not confusing the two...see down thread I say tax return totally separate & is all rumour / speculation. I am talking very specifically about a document trump released about his charitable giving which he claims shows something that isn't true.
My point was given he is attacked for the tiniest thing surprised.they didn't go much bigger on this charity stuff.
Excellent documentary on the EU by Paxman. Showed the difference between the underlying values of each side more clearly than anything I've seen so far.
Couldn't agree more. He put the arguments for each side better in an hour than either campaign has done in 2 months. Frist class, well balanced and informative.
What was it? I might have a look.
Just got back from a vote.leave event with Priti Patel. Not my cup of tea really, but wanted to get a feel how things are going.
It was called Paxman in Brussels and was on Beeb 1 I think.
I suspect both sides were shouting at the TV at times but overall it was very informative and an excellent explanation of both the system and the arguments for and against.
My only slight complaint was he was unnecessarily rude to the British Commissioner Lord Hill. Even though I disagreed with what Hill was saying Paxman didn't have to be quite so dismissive of him.
Excellent documentary on the EU by Paxman. Showed the difference between the underlying values of each side more clearly than anything I've seen so far.
Couldn't agree more. He put the arguments for each side better in an hour than either campaign has done in 2 months. Frist class, well balanced and informative.
What was it? I might have a look.
Just got back from a vote.leave event with Priti Patel. Not my cup of tea really, but wanted to get a feel how things are going.
Excellent documentary on the EU by Paxman. Showed the difference between the underlying values of each side more clearly than anything I've seen so far.
Couldn't agree more. He put the arguments for each side better in an hour than either campaign has done in 2 months. Frist class, well balanced and informative.
What was it? I might have a look.
Just got back from a vote.leave event with Priti Patel. Not my cup of tea really, but wanted to get a feel how things are going.
It was called Paxman in Brussels and was on Beeb 1 I think.
I suspect both sides were shouting at the TV at times but overall it was very informative and an excellent explanation of both the system and the arguments for and against.
My only slight complaint was he was unnecessarily rude to the British Commissioner Lord Hill. Even though I disagreed with what Hill was saying Paxman didn't have to be quite so dismissive of him.
I think paxman thinks it is trademark to be rude thus he must do it in any show he is on. It.is like frankie Boyle not doing any offensive jokes.
It's almost too good to be true, but I've read that if Donald Trump had sat back and invested his inheritance in a balanced portfolio, his net worth would be almost the same as it is today. He only inherited a few hundred million, but that was before the inflation of the 1970s and the equity booms.
I am surprised there hasn't been more noise about his claim of giving $100 million to charity. It has been pulled apart and basically he gave a few million, the rest included things like giving away free rounds of golf at his own courses, over valuing land etc etc etc that he put some enormous value on.
That's what the tax returns chat is about, right? The speculation is that he is failing to release tax returns because they will reveal a much smaller charitable donation amount than he claimed. However 1. he has probably gotten away with worse - like reneging on his pledge to forgo political donations or saying he liked veterance who weren't captured - and 2. he may simply be playing the media.
No, thats separate. He released 100 page document on his charitable giving, and like a lot of his property deals, there is bugger all of his own money in it.
The tax stuff is the speculation that a) he aint as rich as he says he is and b) he might have been rather aggressive in minimizing his tax (which is actually very standard in US, as pretty much everybody does some sort of personal tax returns in US and the norm is to get an accountant to write off as much as possible).
Trump still has to file regular financial disclosure statements with the Federal Election Commission, which contain a reasonably accurate picture of his assets etc.
His taxes are audited every year (which is normal for super rich people here) and NO attorney would allow their client to release their return while under audit.
He is plenty rich, don't worry. He gives quite a bit to charity.
He could give tax returns for previous years. Seems like a pathetic excuse to me.
Wow that is incredibly surprising. I didn't think Chromebooks had gained much traction.
They're very popular in US education.
Oh yes, and OGH uses one to edit the site with. I was very tempted by one of these, but bottled it and went for one of these instead.
I have a Chromebook, a £200 model that I bought out of interest and now find that I use for all kinds of casual stuff. I really like it, it's a beautifully simple, well-designed platform. I'm very tempted to get a Pixel and move as much of my work to Chrome as I can.
Her Indoors has a Toshiba Chromebook which I sometimes use as a spare. it's pretty basic but works OK, except for scanning, which I've pretty given up on trying to link it to my Epson printer which works perfectly with my Lenovo Windows 10 laptop. Having read others' experiences, it seems that scanning and chromebooks simply don't mix. If however any PBers know otherwise, please let me know what I'm doing wrong.
PB has been run solely on Chromebooks for more than 4 years and I've just spent part of my Sadiq Khan winnings on one of the fastest available a Dell 13 with super fast processor and 8gb of RAM.
Only hassle on printing is that you have to have a compatible Google cloud print machine. Once that's set up then you can print with any number of Chromebooks without any extra hassle.
They start up in 6 seconds, you don't need an anti-virus software and the range of Google office apps is constantly updated and is free. Only hassle is that you always need an internet connection which with widespread 4G is almost always possible by using your phone as a hotspot.
Comments
Oh yes, and OGH uses one to edit the site with. I was very tempted by one of these, but bottled it and went for one of these instead.
Donald Trump had a big New Hampshire lead - one of the best indicators to GOP nominee in recent times.
Trump GOP nominee is alot clearer than Con Majority was.
What is true is that while both candidates have undoubted qualities, they are also deeply flawed in other ways. Trump is erratic and at times flops alarmingly into pub bore rhetoric including racism and misogyny. Clinton is rude, arrogant and intellectually lazy (and also had, oddly, a misogynist meltdown of her own this week). They are also I think the oldest average age of any two candidates.
The point is perhaps not that the two candidates are useless. They're not. But they are neither suitable to be POTUS either, so it's a poor choice for the American people.
As the pair made the short walk from the House of Commons to the House of Lords to attend the State Opening of Parliament yesterday - usually a chance for the two leaders to share a rare bit of light-hearted conversation - the PM was left red-faced as Mr Corbyn rejected several efforts to engage in the traditional small talk.
Asked tonight what he had said, Mr Cameron replied: 'I was asking about whether he had time to see the Chilean President when she was in town because I know he’s got a great passion for Latin America and things that are happening there.
'So we talked about Chile. We talked about Colombia. I was about to get on to Venezuela but we didn’t… maybe that’s what went wrong. But that’s sort of the thing we were talking about.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3599518/David-Cameron-reveals-Jeremy-Corbyn-gave-cold-shoulder-Queen-s-Speech-trying-talk-Latin-America-Labour-leader-s-favourite-topic.html
Mind you - with Ryanair it would probably count as treating if they DIDN'T give any food or drink out.
Another reason to Leave.
But Hillary is more beatable (as a candidate) than Obama.
Dems Primary
Clinton 54 Sanders 40
General Election
Clinton 45 Trump 38
Sanders 49 Trump 37
https://www.qu.edu/images/polling/nj/nj05192016_Nwh73tr.pdf
Clinton 41 .. Trump 36
Clinton 52 .. Sanders 43
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/2016ReutersTrackingCorePolitical5182016.pdf
Being a lawyer is no great achievement, what has Clinton ever done with her IQ, and winning elections is no great feat for politicians when most voters go for the party no matter what. You do know all these things don't pretend you don't.
Also Trump didn't inherit much of his wealth. His father died in 1999 and left his estate of about $300m which i assume was split 4 ways.
Result: one Lab, one LD, two Crossbenchers out.
There have been a lot of departures in the last few months - in 2016 there had already previously been 6 deaths, 11 retirements, 5 have gone on Leave of Absence and one suspended.
So 27 out in less than 5 months. Result is that the number of Peers is now back down to 803.
We often hear about Cameron appointing numerous Peers but, perhaps surprisingly, that is an increase of just 15 over the last 5 years (there were 788 in June 2011).
State of the Parties is now: Con 247, Lab 210, LD 108, Crossbench 173.
If Cameron wins the EU referendum and remains PM reports have suggested a big wave of new appointments soon afterwards.
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/non-attending-lords/
Very interesting thread though my head crashed
It wasn't rudeness, he was merely embarresed about the outcome of Venezuela trying out his policies.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/chuka-umunna-accuses-nigel-farage-of-echoing-enoch-powell-a3251936.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/election-2016/tenth-republican-debate-highlights/donald-trump-inheritance
Also, in 1977, President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Corporation, a federal program charged with expanding access to legal aid. Hillary was the first woman to chair the corporation, and under her leadership, funding more than tripled from $90 million to $300 million.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allida-black/blazing-a-trail-hillary-clinton_b_5610884.html
Now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
As for Clinton, the only real landmarks in her career have been - working on Watergate (where she had a walk-on part) dismally failing to get healthcare reform through Congress, and being a singularly inept Secretary of State. Hardly a glittering record, for all her ability.
They look pretty close to the mean to me, I have to say. But then, the mean is probably higher than most people realise. As Obama once said, being President is a bit like being on American Idol, but with everyone else playing Simon Cowell.
Being appointed as a penpusher because of her husbands political connections and having her budget increased due to political decisions hardly shows great merit, more like Buggins turn.
If she had said "crickey I have just had a terribly racist individual come up to me, but I am sure that person isn't typical of those that live here" there wouldn't have been half the fuss.
I have heard what the individual is supposed to have said and to paraphrase it was basically, well all my neighbours are Polish and lazy and they are only here for the benefits. So not racist, more xenophobic. I don't know, perhaps that perhaps neighbours really are lazy.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/biography/clinton-hillary/
The tax stuff is the speculation that a) he aint as rich as he says he is and b) he might have been rather aggressive in minimizing his tax (which is actually very standard in US, as pretty much everybody does some sort of personal tax returns in US and the norm is to get an accountant to write off as much as possible).
Now might be too late as you say Clinton's have some interesting financial arrangements and financial dealings.
His taxes are audited every year (which is normal for super rich people here) and NO attorney would allow their client to release their return while under audit.
He is plenty rich, don't worry. He gives quite a bit to charity.
My point was I am surprised his opponents didn't attack him on that as it is a clear point of making a specific claim and it not standing up.
Just got back from a vote.leave event with Priti Patel. Not my cup of tea really, but wanted to get a feel how things are going.
There's not much mystery about Trump's financial standing.
My point was given he is attacked for the tiniest thing surprised.they didn't go much bigger on this charity stuff.
I suspect both sides were shouting at the TV at times but overall it was very informative and an excellent explanation of both the system and the arguments for and against.
My only slight complaint was he was unnecessarily rude to the British Commissioner Lord Hill. Even though I disagreed with what Hill was saying Paxman didn't have to be quite so dismissive of him.
Only hassle on printing is that you have to have a compatible Google cloud print machine. Once that's set up then you can print with any number of Chromebooks without any extra hassle.
They start up in 6 seconds, you don't need an anti-virus software and the range of Google office apps is constantly updated and is free. Only hassle is that you always need an internet connection which with widespread 4G is almost always possible by using your phone as a hotspot.
I will never go back to a Windows.
https://facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153487016861121