So far four polls have shown double digit leads and the possibility of a Tory land slide 100 seat majority, but the seats the Tories need to take for that to happen include both Newport seats and Bishop Auckland, whilst the North East and Wakes are trending towards the Tories in the long term how likely is they will gain these seats?!
A think we need an analysis in why it is unlikely they will win a 100 seat majority considering the ones they would need to gain and as a poster said yesterday considering the different demographics of the urban vs. Rural seats.
No party will win a 100 seat Majority again Discuss.
Unless the Tories become popular in the cities, or Labour in rural villages.
Did someone mention "tinpot dictators"? Well Erdogan is showing how tinpot dictators get firmly established.
The threat of an emerging islamist Turkey far outweighs anything from Russia. But of course, the left don;t want you to see that. It's the ultimate foreign policy 'look squirrel'
The left welcomed Islam with open arms because Christianity was the biggest impediment to the establishment of their gramascian new world order and the Muslims were exploited for votes and so they were able to claim that Christianity was just one religion among many (multiculturalism) and it helped their aim of disestablishing Christianity and driving it from the public sphere.
Unforturtunately having taken the trojan horse within their city the left have lost control of it and discovered those within it regard them as useful idiots.
That is nonsense. For years the churches have been very supportive of left wing causes such as the welfare state, redistributive taxes, arms control, housing the homeless, overseas aid, aiding refugees etc. Certainly the mainstream churcheshave been rather more behind the curve on social issues. There has always been a strong Christian influence in both Labour and Liberal parties too, though orientated to earthly mission rather than evangelism.
The Left (like the Right) is not a single strand of thought and it is foolish to align eithervside with the Church. This is not the era of a Century ago when religion was much more a tool of the establishment and in opposition to the workers.
The Samaritans are not polytheists - they were Jews that stayed in Palestine when the Babylonians captured the bulk of the Jewish population. This is why they recognise only the Pentateuch, as "mainstream" Judaism (as they see it) was tainted by contact with the Babylonians.
I would have thought the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten invented monotheism
In that case clearly I am confusing the Samaritans with another religion. Which one though? Also I clearly have some more reading to do on this subject - any suggestions?
Apologies if already posted, but this is a very good book re the origins of Islam:
The campaign to boot Trump until he is crippled is only just starting. Whats more, many in his own party are going to be doing the lifting.
Sad news from France regarding events yesterday. According to news reports French authorities were searching for one of the attackers because they had been warned by an external Intelligence service that he was on the verge of making an attack. Apparently there was a picture but no supporting info. So the French had the guy's face but had to try to match it up.
If this is verified, there is a fair educated guess at the source and method of acquiring the information but it was just really unlucky that a little additional fragment wasn't there.
That campaign is going on for over a year now, with no results predictably.
Trump has defeated and humiliated the following people and groups so far:
Romney The entire Bush family Fox News Rubio Kasich Cruz Fiorina Graham McCain Obama The entire political consultant class Nate Silver Evangelicals Rioters The congressional GOP The Koch brothers and other billionaire donors Talk Radio (Limbaugh, Levin, ect) The Press
You have to give the man credit, no one is left to give him the boot, especially from his own party.
Who is going to give him the boot ? The media who has called him "Hitler" for months and failed ?
Hillary has been running almost 17000 TV ads to Trump's zero and she's losing to him. Ted Cruz only last week tried to knife him in the back and it backfired on him.
The campaign to boot Trump until he is crippled is only just starting. Whats more, many in his own party are going to be doing the lifting.
Sad news from France regarding events yesterday. According to news reports French authorities were searching for one of the attackers because they had been warned by an external Intelligence service that he was on the verge of making an attack. Apparently there was a picture but no supporting info. So the French had the guy's face but had to try to match it up.
If this is verified, there is a fair educated guess at the source and method of acquiring the information but it was just really unlucky that a little additional fragment wasn't there.
That campaign is going on for over a year now, with no results predictably.
Trump has defeated and humiliated the following people and groups so far:
Romney The entire Bush family Fox News Rubio Kasich Cruz Fiorina Graham McCain Obama The entire political consultant class Nate Silver Evangelicals Rioters The congressional GOP The Koch brothers and other billionaire donors Talk Radio (Limbaugh, Levin, ect) The Press
You have to give the man credit, no one is left to give him the boot, especially from his own party.
Who is going to give him the boot ? The media who has called him "Hitler" for months and failed ?
Hillary has been running almost 17000 TV ads to Trump's zero and she's losing to him.
Not forgetting your good self who, with the solemn certainty of the unchallengeable expert, pronounced him toast after some gaffe before one of the primaries.
The campaign to boot Trump until he is crippled is only just starting. Whats more, many in his own party are going to be doing the lifting.
Sad news from France regarding events yesterday. According to news reports French authorities were searching for one of the attackers because they had been warned by an external Intelligence service that he was on the verge of making an attack. Apparently there was a picture but no supporting info. So the French had the guy's face but had to try to match it up.
If this is verified, there is a fair educated guess at the source and method of acquiring the information but it was just really unlucky that a little additional fragment wasn't there.
That campaign is going on for over a year now, with no results predictably.
Trump has defeated and humiliated the following people and groups so far:
Romney The entire Bush family Fox News Rubio Kasich Cruz Fiorina Graham McCain Obama The entire political consultant class Nate Silver Evangelicals Rioters The congressional GOP The Koch brothers and other billionaire donors Talk Radio (Limbaugh, Levin, ect) The Press
You have to give the man credit, no one is left to give him the boot, especially from his own party.
Who is going to give him the boot ? The media who has called him "Hitler" for months and failed ?
Hillary has been running almost 17000 TV ads to Trump's zero and she's losing to him.
Not forgetting your good self who, with the solemn certainty of the unchallengeable expert, pronounced him toast after some gaffe before one of the primaries.
I remember that. It was the third Fox debate, when they forced him to make statements that were immediately struck down with the use of video evidence.
It was brutal to watch as Trump said one thing and then the Fox journalist immediately showed the video on the big screen with Trump saying the complete opposite.
That Trump survived that, probably means voters are simply using him to express their dissatisfaction with things. With 70-75% of americans dissatisfied with the course of their country, there are a lot of protest votes.
People are not voting for Trump, they are voting against those in power (the Democrats, the Billionaires, the GOP establishment, the Media). Sanders was a mirror image of that, but he was less forceful than Trump.
Bishop Auckland would only require a small movement from Labour to UKIP for the Tories to sneak down the middle... Given UKIP + the conservatives only had 49% of the 2015 vote between them and 57% in County Durham as a whole voted LEAVE, I think its a possible Tory win..
But isn´t a Leave vote an anti-Tory vote? I mean, the mainstays of the Remain campaign were Cameron and Osborne.
Did someone mention "tinpot dictators"? Well Erdogan is showing how tinpot dictators get firmly established.
The threat of an emerging islamist Turkey far outweighs anything from Russia. But of course, the left don;t want you to see that. It's the ultimate foreign policy 'look squirrel'
The left welcomed Islam with open arms because Christianity was the biggest impediment to the establishment of their gramascian new world order and the Muslims were exploited for votes and so they were able to claim that Christianity was just one religion among many (multiculturalism) and it helped their aim of disestablishing Christianity and driving it from the public sphere.
Unforturtunately having taken the trojan horse within their city the left have lost control of it and discovered those within it regard them as useful idiots.
That is nonsense. For years the churches have been very supportive of left wing causes such as the welfare state, redistributive taxes, arms control, housing the homeless, overseas aid, aiding refugees etc. Certainly the mainstream churcheshave been rather more behind the curve on social issues. There has always been a strong Christian influence in both Labour and Liberal parties too, though orientated to earthly mission rather than evangelism.
The Left (like the Right) is not a single strand of thought and it is foolish to align eithervside with the Church. This is not the era of a Century ago when religion was much more a tool of the establishment and in opposition to the workers.
The Labour Party was founded as an alliance between Methodism and Marxism, was it not? Someone upthread referenced George Lansbury (although he became an Anglican).
So far four polls have shown double digit leads and the possibility of a Tory land slide 100 seat majority, but the seats the Tories need to take for that to happen include both Newport seats and Bishop Auckland, whilst the North East and Wakes are trending towards the Tories in the long term how likely is they will gain these seats?!
A think we need an analysis in why it is unlikely they will win a 100 seat majority considering the ones they would need to gain and as a poster said yesterday considering the different demographics of the urban vs. Rural seats.
No party will win a 100 seat Majority again Discuss.
Bishop Auckland would only require a small movement from Labour to UKIP for the Tories to sneak down the middle... Given UKIP + the conservatives only had 49% of the 2015 vote between them and 57% in County Durham as a whole voted LEAVE, I think its a possible Tory win..
The Tories had a good candidate in Bishop and he wants to stand again. Goodman isn't universally popular - including within the CLP. Don't forget the seat includes some very Tory areas in Teesdale.
The campaign to boot Trump until he is crippled is only just starting. Whats more, many in his own party are going to be doing the lifting.
Sad news from France regarding events yesterday. According to news reports French authorities were searching for one of the attackers because they had been warned by an external Intelligence service that he was on the verge of making an attack. Apparently there was a picture but no supporting info. So the French had the guy's face but had to try to match it up.
If this is verified, there is a fair educated guess at the source and method of acquiring the information but it was just really unlucky that a little additional fragment wasn't there.
That campaign is going on for over a year now, with no results predictably.
Trump has defeated and humiliated the following people and groups so far:
Romney The entire Bush family Fox News Rubio Kasich Cruz Fiorina Graham McCain Obama The entire political consultant class Nate Silver Evangelicals Rioters The congressional GOP The Koch brothers and other billionaire donors Talk Radio (Limbaugh, Levin, ect) The Press
You have to give the man credit, no one is left to give him the boot, especially from his own party.
Who is going to give him the boot ? The media who has called him "Hitler" for months and failed ?
Hillary has been running almost 17000 TV ads to Trump's zero and she's losing to him.
Not forgetting your good self who, with the solemn certainty of the unchallengeable expert, pronounced him toast after some gaffe before one of the primaries.
I remember that. It was the third Fox debate, when they forced him to make statements that were immediately struck down with the use of video evidence.
It was brutal to watch as Trump said one thing and then the Fox journalist immediately showed the video on the big screen with Trump saying the complete opposite.
That Trump survived that, probably means voters are simply using him to express their dissatisfaction with things. With 70-75% of americans dissatisfied with the course of their country, there are a lot of protest votes.
People are not voting for Trump, they are voting against those in power (the Democrats, the Billionaires, the GOP establishment, the Media). Sanders was a mirror image of that, but he was less forceful than Trump.
The campaign to boot Trump until he is crippled is only just starting. Whats more, many in his own party are going to be doing the lifting.
Sad news from France regarding events yesterday. According to news reports French authorities were searching for one of the attackers because they had been warned by an external Intelligence service that he was on the verge of making an attack. Apparently there was a picture but no supporting info. So the French had the guy's face but had to try to match it up.
If this is verified, there is a fair educated guess at the source and method of acquiring the information but it was just really unlucky that a little additional fragment wasn't there.
That campaign is going on for over a year now, with no results predictably.
Trump has defeated and humiliated the following people and groups so far:
Romney The entire Bush family Fox News Rubio Kasich Cruz Fiorina Graham McCain Obama The entire political consultant class Nate Silver Evangelicals Rioters The congressional GOP The Koch brothers and other billionaire donors Talk Radio (Limbaugh, Levin, ect) The Press
You have to give the man credit, no one is left to give him the boot, especially from his own party.
Who is going to give him the boot ? The media who has called him "Hitler" for months and failed ?
Hillary has been running almost 17000 TV ads to Trump's zero and she's losing to him.
Not forgetting your good self who, with the solemn certainty of the unchallengeable expert, pronounced him toast after some gaffe before one of the primaries.
I remember that. It was the third Fox debate, when they forced him to make statements that were immediately struck down with the use of video evidence.
It was brutal to watch as Trump said one thing and then the Fox journalist immediately showed the video on the big screen with Trump saying the complete opposite.
That Trump survived that, probably means voters are simply using him to express their dissatisfaction with things. With 70-75% of americans dissatisfied with the course of their country, there are a lot of protest votes.
People are not voting for Trump, they are voting against those in power (the Democrats, the Billionaires, the GOP establishment, the Media). Sanders was a mirror image of that, but he was less forceful than Trump.
Trump is a billionaire
He's a millionaire, he's one of the little people.
So far four polls have shown double digit leads and the possibility of a Tory land slide 100 seat majority, but the seats the Tories need to take for that to happen include both Newport seats and Bishop Auckland, whilst the North East and Wakes are trending towards the Tories in the long term how likely is they will gain these seats?!
A think we need an analysis in why it is unlikely they will win a 100 seat majority considering the ones they would need to gain and as a poster said yesterday considering the different demographics of the urban vs. Rural seats.
No party will win a 100 seat Majority again Discuss.
Bishop Auckland would only require a small movement from Labour to UKIP for the Tories to sneak down the middle... Given UKIP + the conservatives only had 49% of the 2015 vote between them and 57% in County Durham as a whole voted LEAVE, I think its a possible Tory win..
The Tories had a good candidate in Bishop and he wants to stand again. Goodman isn't universally popular - including within the CLP. Don't forget the seat includes some very Tory areas in Teesdale.
Don’t be surprised by a Tory gain.
Bishop Auckland will almost certainly not exist after the boundary review , There will probadly be a new seat created from parts of Hexham and Bishop A ,
The campaign to boot Trump until he is crippled is only just starting. Whats more, many in his own party are going to be doing the lifting.
Sad news from France regarding events yesterday. According to news reports French authorities were searching for one of the attackers because they had been warned by an external Intelligence service that he was on the verge of making an attack. Apparently there was a picture but no supporting info. So the French had the guy's face but had to try to match it up.
If this is verified, there is a fair educated guess at the source and method of acquiring the information but it was just really unlucky that a little additional fragment wasn't there.
That campaign is going on for over a year now, with no results predictably.
Trump has defeated and humiliated the following people and groups so far:
Romney The entire Bush family Fox News Rubio Kasich Cruz Fiorina Graham McCain Obama The entire political consultant class Nate Silver Evangelicals Rioters The congressional GOP The Koch brothers and other billionaire donors Talk Radio (Limbaugh, Levin, ect) The Press
You have to give the man credit, no one is left to give him the boot, especially from his own party.
Who is going to give him the boot ? The media who has called him "Hitler" for months and failed ?
Hillary has been running almost 17000 TV ads to Trump's zero and she's losing to him.
Not forgetting your good self who, with the solemn certainty of the unchallengeable expert, pronounced him toast after some gaffe before one of the primaries.
I remember that. It was the third Fox debate, when they forced him to make statements that were immediately struck down with the use of video evidence.
It was brutal to watch as Trump said one thing and then the Fox journalist immediately showed the video on the big screen with Trump saying the complete opposite.
That Trump survived that, probably means voters are simply using him to express their dissatisfaction with things. With 70-75% of americans dissatisfied with the course of their country, there are a lot of protest votes.
People are not voting for Trump, they are voting against those in power (the Democrats, the Billionaires, the GOP establishment, the Media). Sanders was a mirror image of that, but he was less forceful than Trump.
Trump is a billionaire
I know. It's amazing isn't it that a billionaire can become a successful populist.
Like I wrote last year, Trump is the american Berlusconi. If Berlusconi did it, so can Trump.
I'm sure the viewing figures will shatter all records.
Of political nerds maybe but it will have had a far higher viewership in the US last night. He is still the best speaker on the political circuit today, if he was running again not Hillary it would be a Clinton landslide!
The campaign to boot Trump until he is crippled is only just starting. Whats more, many in his own party are going to be doing the lifting.
Sad news from France regarding events yesterday. According to news reports French authorities were searching for one of the attackers because they had been warned by an external Intelligence service that he was on the verge of making an attack. Apparently there was a picture but no supporting info. So the French had the guy's face but had to try to match it up.
If this is verified, there is a fair educated guess at the source and method of acquiring the information but it was just really unlucky that a little additional fragment wasn't there.
That campaign is going on for over a year now, with no results predictably.
Trump has defeated and humiliated the following people and groups so far:
Romney The entire Bush family Fox News Rubio Kasich Cruz Fiorina Graham McCain Obama The entire political consultant class Nate Silver Evangelicals Rioters The congressional GOP The Koch brothers and other billionaire donors Talk Radio (Limbaugh, Levin, ect) The Press
You have to give the man credit, no one is left to give him the boot, especially from his own party.
Who is going to give him the boot ? The media who has called him "Hitler" for months and failed ?
Hillary has been running almost 17000 TV ads to Trump's zero and she's losing to him.
Not forgetting your good self who, with the solemn certainty of the unchallengeable expert, pronounced him toast after some gaffe before one of the primaries.
Plus pronounced him dead on SC primary night before the first results had come in!
He's not wrong about that. Talks a lot of sense, really.
And to forestall the inevitable responses of 'He lost, get over it', he does make a point of emphasizing that:
The campaign is over. The Brexiteers have won. With victory comes responsibility — and some really hard choices too....Brexit is real, we actually have to do it. That means grappling with the challenges and dilemmas it presents
Did someone mention "tinpot dictators"? Well Erdogan is showing how tinpot dictators get firmly established.
The threat of an emerging islamist Turkey far outweighs anything from Russia. But of course, the left don;t want you to see that. It's the ultimate foreign policy 'look squirrel'
You have to be joking - Putin's Russia robbed bits off Georgia and Ukraine.
The Democrats new line is to try to link Trump to Putin. Pretty desperate I would imagine but for the MSM pumping this for all it's worth.
And liable to badly backfire. Liberals hate Putin because he has repudiated western progressiven/social liberalism and replaced it with the values of Russian Orthodox Christianity and pride in all things Russian.
Democrat liberals still cling to the idea that parogressivism/liberalism is self evidently the only way to run modern society and worse still that the majority concur.
They are in for a wake up call
Yes, I am sure 70 year old Republican voters are desperate for a president who is friendly with Russia.
To abuse a quote from Steve Jobs, "People don't know what they want until you show it to them."
Once the taboo is broken, the argument will not be favourable to those who think it's a good idea to refight the Cold War. Especially when Hillary's record after the red reset button (with the mistranslated label) is so poor.
There is a problem with trying to re-fight the cold war with old enemies.
A. Russia is not a Superpower anymore, but a Great Power. B. Russia is not a Communist country, but a conservative-capitalist one.
It is difficult ideologically to explain to conservatives why a country with a 10% flat tax and a church in every business, should be their enemy.
Putin has implemented in Russia all the policies the Republican party has ever espoused and dreamed of. That's why most republicans are jealous of Russia's policies and leaders.
If you want a new cold war try an islamist power, Turkey is readily available and already hostile.
Yes - even the Lubyanka (home of the KGB now FSB) has had a church installed within the premises - and attendence is advisable if you wish your career to progress.
The FSB also see themselves very much now as Defenders of The Faith. Russian National(ist) sentiment and Russian Orthodoxy now being inextricably linked.
Spiritual Chekism is how detractors have deacribed it.
Secular Liberals in the west would do well to ponder how the most secular, atheist, hostile to Christianity in the world turned into the most muscular Christian regime in a few short years (The Conversion of Russia - prophesised and prayed for at the end of every Catholic Mass for decades). How many divisions has the Pope asked Stalin?
The campaign to boot Trump until he is crippled is only just starting. Whats more, many in his own party are going to be doing the lifting.
Sad news from France regarding events yesterday. According to news reports French authorities were searching for one of the attackers because they had been warned by an external Intelligence service that he was on the verge of making an attack. Apparently there was a picture but no supporting info. So the French had the guy's face but had to try to match it up.
If this is verified, there is a fair educated guess at the source and method of acquiring the information but it was just really unlucky that a little additional fragment wasn't there.
That campaign is going on for over a year now, with no results predictably.
Trump has defeated and humiliated the following people and groups so far:
Romney The entire Bush family Fox News Rubio Kasich Cruz Fiorina Graham McCain Obama The entire political consultant class Nate Silver Evangelicals Rioters The congressional GOP The Koch brothers and other billionaire donors Talk Radio (Limbaugh, Levin, ect) The Press
You have to give the man credit, no one is left to give him the boot, especially from his own party.
Who is going to give him the boot ? The media who has called him "Hitler" for months and failed ?
Hillary has been running almost 17000 TV ads to Trump's zero and she's losing to him.
Not forgetting your good self who, with the solemn certainty of the unchallengeable expert, pronounced him toast after some gaffe before one of the primaries.
I remember that. It was the third Fox debate, when they forced him to make statements that were immediately struck down with the use of video evidence.
It was brutal to watch as Trump said one thing and then the Fox journalist immediately showed the video on the big screen with Trump saying the complete opposite.
That Trump survived that, probably means voters are simply using him to express their dissatisfaction with things. With 70-75% of americans dissatisfied with the course of their country, there are a lot of protest votes.
People are not voting for Trump, they are voting against those in power (the Democrats, the Billionaires, the GOP establishment, the Media). Sanders was a mirror image of that, but he was less forceful than Trump.
Trump is a billionaire
He's a millionaire, he's one of the little people.
Whether he is worth 8 billion, 3 billion or 800 million he would still be wealthier than most of the super rich let alone the rest of us!
So far four polls have shown double digit leads and the possibility of a Tory land slide 100 seat majority, but the seats the Tories need to take for that to happen include both Newport seats and Bishop Auckland, whilst the North East and Wakes are trending towards the Tories in the long term how likely is they will gain these seats?!
A think we need an analysis in why it is unlikely they will win a 100 seat majority considering the ones they would need to gain and as a poster said yesterday considering the different demographics of the urban vs. Rural seats.
No party will win a 100 seat Majority again Discuss.
Bishop Auckland would only require a small movement from Labour to UKIP for the Tories to sneak down the middle... Given UKIP + the conservatives only had 49% of the 2015 vote between them and 57% in County Durham as a whole voted LEAVE, I think its a possible Tory win..
The Tories had a good candidate in Bishop and he wants to stand again. Goodman isn't universally popular - including within the CLP. Don't forget the seat includes some very Tory areas in Teesdale.
Don’t be surprised by a Tory gain.
Bishop Auckland will almost certainly not exist after the boundary review , There will probadly be a new seat created from parts of Hexham and Bishop A ,
Sedgefield is likely to be the seat that would be destroyed in the boundary review - the seat already forms a doughnut shape around Darlington....
The campaign to boot Trump until he is crippled is only just starting. Whats more, many in his own party are going to be doing the lifting.
Sad news from France regarding events yesterday. According to news reports French authorities were searching for one of the attackers because they had been warned by an external Intelligence service that he was on the verge of making an attack. Apparently there was a picture but no supporting info. So the French had the guy's face but had to try to match it up.
If this is verified, there is a fair educated guess at the source and method of acquiring the information but it was just really unlucky that a little additional fragment wasn't there.
That campaign is going on for over a year now, with no results predictably.
Trump has defeated and humiliated the following people and groups so far:
Romney The entire Bush family Fox News Rubio Kasich Cruz Fiorina Graham McCain Obama The entire political consultant class Nate Silver Evangelicals Rioters The congressional GOP The Koch brothers and other billionaire donors Talk Radio (Limbaugh, Levin, ect) The Press
You have to give the man credit, no one is left to give him the boot, especially from his own party.
Who is going to give him the boot ? The media who has called him "Hitler" for months and failed ?
Hillary has been running almost 17000 TV ads to Trump's zero and she's losing to him.
Not forgetting your good self who, with the solemn certainty of the unchallengeable expert, pronounced him toast after some gaffe before one of the primaries.
I remember that. It was the third Fox debate, when they forced him to make statements that were immediately struck down with the use of video evidence. .
Trump is a billionaire
I know. It's amazing isn't it that a billionaire can become a successful populist.
Like I wrote last year, Trump is the american Berlusconi. If Berlusconi did it, so can Trump.
Or he could be the next Perot. Berlusconi did win elections, in 1994, 2001 and 2008 but he also lost them too, narrowly losing to Prodi in 2006 and Bersani in 2013
The campaign to boot Trump until he is crippled is only just starting. Whats more, many in his own party are going to be doing the lifting.
Sad news from France regarding events yesterday. According to news reports French authorities were searching for one of the attackers because they had been warned by an external Intelligence service that he was on the verge of making an attack. Apparently there was a picture but no supporting info. So the French had the guy's face but had to try to match it up.
If this is verified, there is a fair educated guess at the source and method of acquiring the information but it was just really unlucky that a little additional fragment wasn't there.
That campaign is going on for over a year now, with no results predictably.
Trump has defeated and humiliated the following people and groups so far:
Romney The entire Bush family Fox News Rubio Kasich Cruz Fiorina Graham McCain Obama The entire political consultant class Nate Silver Evangelicals Rioters The congressional GOP The Koch brothers and other billionaire donors Talk Radio (Limbaugh, Levin, ect) The Press
You have to give the man credit, no one is left to give him the boot, especially from his own party.
Who is going to give him the boot ? The media who has called him "Hitler" for months and failed ?
Hillary has been running almost 17000 TV ads to Trump's zero and she's losing to him. Ted Cruz only last week tried to knife him in the back and it backfired on him.
The Democrats new line is to try to link Trump to Putin. Pretty desperate I would imagine but for the MSM pumping this for all it's worth.
And liable to badly backfire. Liberals hate Putin because he has repudiated western progressiven/social liberalism and replaced it with the values of Russian Orthodox Christianity and pride in all things Russian.
Democrat liberals still cling to the idea that parogressivism/liberalism is self evidently the only way to run modern society and worse still that the majority concur.
They are in for a wake up call
Yes, I am sure 70 year old Republican voters are desperate for a president who is friendly with Russia.
To abuse a quote from Steve Jobs, "People don't know what they want until you show it to them."
Once the taboo is broken, the argument will not be favourable to those who think it's a good idea to refight the Cold War. Especially when Hillary's record after the red reset button (with the mistranslated label) is so poor.
There is a problem with trying to re-fight the cold war with old enemies.
A. Russia is not a Superpower anymore, but a Great Power. B. Russia is not a Communist country, but a conservative-capitalist one.
It is difficult ideologically to explain to conservatives why a country with a 10% flat tax and a church in every business, should be their enemy.
Putin has implemented in Russia all the policies the Republican party has ever espoused and dreamed of. That's why most republicans are jealous of Russia's policies and leaders.
If you want a new cold war try an islamist power, Turkey is readily available and already hostile.
Yes - even the Lubyanka (home of the KGB now FSB) has had a church installed within the premises - and attendence is advisable if you wish your career to progress.
The FSB also see themselves very much now as Defenders of The Faith. Russian National(ist) sentiment and Russian Orthodoxy now being inextricably linked.
Spiritual Chekism is how detractors have deacribed it.
Secular Liberals in the west would do well to ponder how the most secular, atheist, hostile to Christianity in the world turned into the most muscular Christian regime in a few short years (The Conversion of Russia - prophesised and prayed for at the end of every Catholic Mass for decades). How many divisions has the Pope asked Stalin?
Even by PB's standards of supporting all opponents of Liberalism everywhere from Trump to Geert Wilders, it seems a strong tonic to cheer on Putin for being such a good Christian...
He's not wrong about that. Talks a lot of sense, really.
And to forestall the inevitable responses of 'He lost, get over it', he does make a point of emphasizing that:
The campaign is over. The Brexiteers have won. With victory comes responsibility — and some really hard choices too....Brexit is real, we actually have to do it. That means grappling with the challenges and dilemmas it presents
Juncker's really playing hardball: Nick has just received his pension projection..
Did someone mention "tinpot dictators"? Well Erdogan is showing how tinpot dictators get firmly established.
The threat of an emerging islamist Turkey far outweighs anything from Russia. But of course, the left don;t want you to see that. It's the ultimate foreign policy 'look squirrel'
The left welcomed Islam with open arms because Christianity was the biggest impediment to the establishment of their gramascian new world order and the Muslims were exploited for votes and so they were able to claim that Christianity was just one religion among many (multiculturalism) and it helped their aim of disestablishing Christianity and driving it from the public sphere.
Unforturtunately having taken the trojan horse within their city the left have lost control of it and discovered those within it regard them as useful idiots.
That is nonsense. For years the churches have been very supportive of left wing causes such as the welfare state, redistributive taxes, arms control, housing the homeless, overseas aid, aiding refugees etc. Certainly the mainstream churcheshave been rather more behind the curve on social issues. There has always been a strong Christian influence in both Labour and Liberal parties too, though orientated to earthly mission rather than evangelism.
The Left (like the Right) is not a single strand of thought and it is foolish to align eithervside with the Church. This is not the era of a Century ago when religion was much more a tool of the establishment and in opposition to the workers.
The Labour Party was founded as an alliance between Methodism and Marxism, was it not? Someone upthread referenced George Lansbury (although he became an Anglican).
Yes I should have said the Gramascian/sixties Radical left. The sorts that ran inner city councils in the 80s.
'Save the Hillary', actress Elizabeth Banks made an appeal for donations after the Bill Clinton speech 'even a dollar can made a difference'. Then a whole host of stars sing the Hillary campaign song on video! Meryl Streep now speaking to close the evening
He's not wrong about that. Talks a lot of sense, really.
And to forestall the inevitable responses of 'He lost, get over it', he does make a point of emphasizing that:
The campaign is over. The Brexiteers have won. With victory comes responsibility — and some really hard choices too....Brexit is real, we actually have to do it. That means grappling with the challenges and dilemmas it presents
Indeed, free movement, the single market, a whole range of key decisions to be made. He also says he told Hannan and Carswell they were the 'new Brexit establishment' and apparently they were a little taken aback!
Blaenau Gwent: Owen Smith Runnymeade and Weybridge : Smith 22 Corbyn 11 Croydon Central: Corbyn 49 Smith 36 East Surrey: Corbyn 25 Smith 15 Abstention 2 Chippenham: Corbyn North Somerset: Corbyn Hereford and South Herefordshire: Corbyn Salinsbury: Corbyn
The Democrats new line is to try to link Trump to Putin. Pretty desperate I would imagine but for the MSM pumping this for all it's worth.
They are in for a wake up call
Yes, I am sure 70 year old Republican voters are desperate for a president who is friendly with Russia.
To abuse a quote from Steve Jobs, "People don't know what they want until you show it to them."
Once the taboo is broken, the argument will not be favourable to those who think it's a good idea to refight the Cold War. Especially when Hillary's record after the red reset button (with the mistranslated label) is so poor.
There is a problem with trying to re-fight the cold war with old enemies.
A. Russia is not a Superpower anymore, but a Great Power. B. Russia is not a Communist country, but a conservative-capitalist one.
It is difficult ideologically to explain to conservatives why a country with a 10% flat tax and a church in every business, should be their enemy.
Putin has implemented in Russia all the policies the Republican party has ever espoused and dreamed of. That's why most republicans are jealous of Russia's policies and leaders.
If you want a new cold war try an islamist power, Turkey is readily available and already hostile.
Yes - even the Lubyanka (home of the KGB now FSB) has had a church installed within the premises - and attendence is advisable if you wish your career to progress.
The FSB also see themselves very much now as Defenders of The Faith. Russian National(ist) sentiment and Russian Orthodoxy now being inextricably linked.
Spiritual Chekism is how detractors have deacribed it.
Secular Liberals in the west would do well to ponder how the most secular, atheist, hostile to Christianity in the world turned into the most muscular Christian regime in a few short years (The Conversion of Russia - prophesised and prayed for at the end of every Catholic Mass for decades). How many divisions has the Pope asked Stalin?
Even by PB's standards of supporting all opponents of Liberalism everywhere from Trump to Geert Wilders, it seems a strong tonic to cheer on Putin for being such a good Christian...
I think to be fair it is a radically different form of Christianity to the dear old C of E or even Catholicism as experienced in western countries unless you go back about three hundred years.
Pretty radical by modern standards in both doctrine and expectations of believers.
And they see it as Russias divine duty to rechristianise decadent Europe.
I love it when LibDems do their pious so and so is well advised to take such a course of action lectures.
Given they had no prospect of government for donkey's years, and are back in that position, pious lectures is all they can do, unlike Labour who can have greater ambitions.
Did someone mention "tinpot dictators"? Well Erdogan is showing how tinpot dictators get firmly established.
The threat of an emerging islamist Turkey far outweighs anything from Russia. But of course, the left don;t want you to see that. It's the ultimate foreign policy 'look squirrel'
You have to be joking - Putin's Russia robbed bits off Georgia and Ukraine.
Turkey has been occupying Northern Cyprus since 1974 in case you didn't know...
The Democrats new line is to try to link Trump to Putin. Pretty desperate I would imagine but for the MSM pumping this for all it's worth.
They are in for a wake up call
Yes, I am sure 70 year old Republican voters are desperate for a president who is friendly with Russia.
To abuse a quote from Steve Jobs, "People don't know what they want until you show it to them."
Once the taboo is broken, the argument will not be favourable to those who think it's a good idea to refight the Cold War. Especially when Hillary's record after the red reset button (with the mistranslated label) is so poor.
There is a problem with trying to re-fight the cold war with old enemies.
A. Russia is not a Superpower anymore, but a Great Power. B. Russia is not a Communist country, but a conservative-capitalist one.
It is difficult ideologically to explain to conservatives why a country with a 10% flat tax and a church in every business, should be their enemy.
Putin has implemented in Russia all the policies the Republican party has ever espoused and dreamed of. That's why most republicans are jealous of Russia's policies and leaders.
If you want a new cold war try an islamist power, Turkey is readily available and already hostile.
Yes - even the Lubyanka (home of the KGB now FSB) has had a church installed within the premises - and attendence is advisable if you wish your career to progress.
The FSB also see themselves very much now as Defenders of The Faith. Russian National(ist) sentiment and Russian Orthodoxy now being inextricably linked.
Spiritual Chekism is how detractors have deacribed it.
Even by PB's standards of supporting all opponents of Liberalism everywhere from Trump to Geert Wilders, it seems a strong tonic to cheer on Putin for being such a good Christian...
I think to be fair it is a radically different form of Christianity to the dear old C of E or even Catholicism as experienced in western countries unless you go back about three hundred years.
Pretty radical by modern standards in both doctrine and expectations of believers.
And they see it as Russias divine duty to rechristianise decadent Europe.
I never approved of the Great Schism in the first place.
Blaenau Gwent: Owen Smith Runnymeade and Weybridge : Smith 22 Corbyn 11 Croydon Central: Corbyn 49 Smith 36 East Surrey: Corbyn 25 Smith 15 Abstention 2 Chippenham: Corbyn North Somerset: Corbyn Hereford and South Herefordshire: Corbyn Salinsbury: Corbyn
Apologies if I missed them, but have the Ilford seats declared yet?
So far four polls have shown double digit leads and the possibility of a Tory land slide 100 seat majority, but the seats the Tories need to take for that to happen include both Newport seats and Bishop Auckland, whilst the North East and Wakes are trending towards the Tories in the long term how likely is they will gain these seats?!
A think we need an analysis in why it is unlikely they will win a 100 seat majority considering the ones they would need to gain and as a poster said yesterday considering the different demographics of the urban vs. Rural seats.
No party will win a 100 seat Majority again Discuss.
Bishop Auckland would only require a small movement from Labour to UKIP for the Tories to sneak down the middle... Given UKIP + the conservatives only had 49% of the 2015 vote between them and 57% in County Durham as a whole voted LEAVE, I think its a possible Tory win..
The Tories had a good candidate in Bishop and he wants to stand again. Goodman isn't universally popular - including within the CLP. Don't forget the seat includes some very Tory areas in Teesdale.
Don’t be surprised by a Tory gain.
Bishop Auckland will almost certainly not exist after the boundary review , There will probadly be a new seat created from parts of Hexham and Bishop A ,
Sedgefield is likely to be the seat that would be destroyed in the boundary review - the seat already forms a doughnut shape around Darlington....
Sedgefield will probably have to take in Billingham , Darlington is exactly the right size to stay unchanged The remainder of Durham will be an abortion because the allowed variation in xize is too tight to allow for sensible constituencies .
The Democrats new line is to try to link Trump to Putin. Pretty desperate I would imagine but for the MSM pumping this for all it's worth.
They are in for a wake up call
Yes, I am sure 70 year old Republican voters are desperate for a president who is friendly with Russia.
To abuse a quote from Steve Jobs, "People don't know what they want until you show it to them."
Once the taboo is broken, the argument will not be favourable to those who think it's a good idea to refight the Cold War. Especially when Hillary's record after the red reset button (with the mistranslated label) is so poor.
There is a problem with trying to re-fight the cold war with old enemies.
A. Russia is not a Superpower anymore, but a Great Power. B. Russia is not a Communist country, but a conservative-capitalist one.
It is difficult ideologically to explain to conservatives why a country with a 10% flat tax and a church in every business, should be their enemy.
Putin has implemented in Russia all the policies the Republican party has ever espoused and dreamed of. That's why most republicans are jealous of Russia's policies and leaders.
If you want a new cold war try an islamist power, Turkey is readily available and already hostile.
Yes - even the Lubyanka (home of the KGB now FSB) has had a church installed within the premises - and attendence is advisable if you wish your career to progress.
The FSB also see themselves very much now as Defenders of The Faith. Russian National(ist) sentiment and Russian Orthodoxy now being inextricably linked.
Spiritual Chekism is how detractors have deacribed it.
Even by PB's standards of supporting all opponents of Liberalism everywhere from Trump to Geert Wilders, it seems a strong tonic to cheer on Putin for being such a good Christian...
I think to be fair it is a radically different form of Christianity to the dear old C of E or even Catholicism as experienced in western countries unless you go back about three hundred years.
Pretty radical by modern standards in both doctrine and expectations of believers.
And they see it as Russias divine duty to rechristianise decadent Europe.
I never approved of the Great Schism in the first place.
I still have a faint hope it might be ended in my lifetime.
As if it's only the Left who are concerned about Putin. Believe it or not, you can be concerned about many things at the same time. You can want to end Islamic Terror, dislike what's going on in Turkey (I personally hoped that the military coup would succeed) and be concerned about Russia as well.
I keep on reading that Trump is good with voters, but he appears to have terrible ratings with several demographics in America. I don't believe either Clinton or Trump are 'good' with voters overall. Neither candidate is particular unifying: both seem like they would be fairly mediocre leaders and both are proving to be divisive figures. Outside of the 'Make America Great' people (who didn't seem to be singing that tune towards the end of the Bush presidency), it doesn't seem like many Americans are particularly enthused by this election or the candidates it offers.
"Mediocre" is one of the greatest understatements of all time.
So I presume you're not too impressed with either Clinton or Trump, then?
If I were American I'd abstain. They're both terrible candidates - mediocre is far too kind.
Tbh I don't think I could ever abstain in any election. My family always told me it's always better to vote, even if it's for the lesser evil. In this case, I'd vote for Hilary, who I regard as the lesser evil. Trump's rhetoric - particularly towards women and minorities - scares me. As well as his attitude towards Russia.
Oh OK, put a gun to my head, I'll vote Johnson. Russia doesn't bother me particularly. Turkey does.
I kind of see a vote for Johnson or Stein as a wasted vote. Unless it really didn't bother you who becomes President out of Clinton or Trump.
Whether a vote for the libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson (or the green Gill Stein) is a wasted vote is to early to say, in this election.
However support of any type between now and the debates that may get ether over the threshold of 15% Is most defiantly not wasted. at the very least having Johnson on the stage will oblige each party to reassert their support for what they are meant to be good at, the democrats a liberal society, the republicans a liberal economy. and at my most optimistic could propel him in the opinion poles where he could win the half dozen states he needs to deny any candidate a victory in the electoral collage, so it will go to the house of representatives, where Johnson could win it!!! IMHO
Blaenau Gwent: Owen Smith Runnymeade and Weybridge : Smith 22 Corbyn 11 Croydon Central: Corbyn 49 Smith 36 East Surrey: Corbyn 25 Smith 15 Abstention 2 Chippenham: Corbyn North Somerset: Corbyn Hereford and South Herefordshire: Corbyn Salinsbury: Corbyn
Apologies if I missed them, but have the Ilford seats declared yet?
The Democrats new line is to try to link Trump to Putin. Pretty desperate I would imagine but for the MSM pumping this for all it's worth.
And liable to badly backfire. Liberals hate Putin because he has repudiated western progressiven/social liberalism and replaced it with the values of Russian Orthodox Christianity and pride in all things Russian.
Democrat liberals still cling to the idea that parogressivism/liberalism is self evidently the only way to run modern society and worse still that the majority concur.
They are in for a wake up call
Yes, I am sure 70 year old Republican voters are desperate for a president who is friendly with Russia.
To abuse a quote from Steve Jobs, "People don't know what they want until you show it to them."
Once the taboo is broken, the argument will not be favourable to those who think it's a good idea to refight the Cold War. Especially when Hillary's record after the red reset button (with the mistranslated label) is so poor.
There is a problem with trying to re-fight the cold war with old enemies.
A. Russia is not a Superpower anymore, but a Great Power. B. Russia is not a Communist country, but a conservative-capitalist one.
snip for space Turkey is readily available and already hostile.
Yes - even the Lubyanka (home of the KGB now FSB) has had a church installed within the premises - and attendence is advisable if you wish your career to progress.
The FSB also see themselves very much now as Defenders of The Faith. Russian National(ist) sentiment and Russian Orthodoxy now being inextricably linked.
Spiritual Chekism is how detractors have deacribed it.
Secular Liberals in the west would do well to ponder how the most secular, atheist, hostile to Christianity in the world turned into the most muscular Christian regime in a few short years (The Conversion of Russia - prophesised and prayed for at the end of every Catholic Mass for decades). How many divisions has the Pope asked Stalin?
And if Putin endorsed Goldbach's conjecture, should we take that as evidence that the conjecture is true?
I am afraid that none of the major branches of the church seems to share your view of it as a bulwark against the infidel. After Welby's bleating yesterday we have the pope today fatuously claiming that "All religions want peace, it's the others who want war", according to the beeb.
Blaenau Gwent: Owen Smith Runnymeade and Weybridge : Smith 22 Corbyn 11 Croydon Central: Corbyn 49 Smith 36 East Surrey: Corbyn 25 Smith 15 Abstention 2 Chippenham: Corbyn North Somerset: Corbyn Hereford and South Herefordshire: Corbyn Salinsbury: Corbyn
Apologies if I missed them, but have the Ilford seats declared yet?
As if it's only the Left who are concerned about Putin. Believe it or not, you can be concerned about many things at the same time. You can want to end Islamic Terror, dislike what's going on in Turkey (I personally hoped that the military coup would succeed) and be concerned about Russia as well.
I keep on reading that Trump is good with voters, but he appears to have terrible ratings with several demographic
"Mediocre" is one of the greatest understatements of all time.
So I presume you're not too impressed with either Clinton or Trump, then?
If I were American I'd abstain. They're both terrible candidates - mediocre is far too kind.
Tbh I don't think I could ever abstain in any election. My family always told me it's always better to vote, even if it's for the lesser evil. In this case, I'd vote for Hilary, who I regard as the lesser evil. Trump's rhetoric - particularly towards women and minorities - scares me. As well as his attitude towards Russia.
Oh OK, put a gun to my head, I'll vote Johnson. Russia doesn't bother me particularly. Turkey does.
I kind of see a vote for Johnson or Stein as a wasted vote. Unless it really didn't bother you who becomes President out of Clinton or Trump.
Whether a vote for the libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson (or the green Gill Stein) is a wasted vote is to early to say, in this election.
However support of any type between now and the debates that may get ether over the threshold of 15% Is most defiantly not wasted. at the very least having Johnson on the stage will oblige each party to reassert their support for what they are meant to be good at, the democrats a liberal society, the republicans a liberal economy. and at my most optimistic could propel him in the opinion poles where he could win the half dozen states he needs to deny any candidate a victory in the electoral collage, so it will go to the house of representatives, where Johnson could win it!!! IMHO
Johnson could put up a reasonable performance in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and New Hampshire and maybe Florid aand California but I don't see him winning any states
The Democrats new line is to try to link Trump to Putin. Pretty desperate I would imagine but for the MSM pumping this for all it's worth.
And liable to badly backfire. Liberals hate Putin because he has repudiated western progressiven/social liberalism and replaced it with the values of Russian Orthodox Christianity and pride in all things Russian.
Democrat liberals still cling to the idea that parogressivism/liberalism is self evidently the only way to run modern society and worse still that the majority concur.
They are in for a wake up call
Even Trump though has not taken as hard a line on homosexuality as Putin, under whom it is legal in name only
The Democrats new line is to try to link Trump to Putin. Pretty desperate I would imagine but for the MSM pumping this for all it's worth.
And liable to badly backfire. Liberals hate Putin because he has repudiated western progressiven/social liberalism and replaced it with the values of Russian Orthodox Christianity and pride in all things Russian.
Democrat liberals still cling to the idea that parogressivism/liberalism is self evidently the only way to run modern society and worse still that the majority concur.
They are in for a wake up call
Even Trump though has not taken as hard a line on homosexuality as Putin, under whom it is legal in name only
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
Blaenau Gwent: Owen Smith Runnymeade and Weybridge : Smith 22 Corbyn 11 Croydon Central: Corbyn 49 Smith 36 East Surrey: Corbyn 25 Smith 15 Abstention 2 Chippenham: Corbyn North Somerset: Corbyn Hereford and South Herefordshire: Corbyn Salinsbury: Corbyn
Apologies if I missed them, but have the Ilford seats declared yet?
They will both declare for Smith then a lot of the key people will vote Corbyn, just like last time.
The Democrats new line is to try to link Trump to Putin. Pretty desperate I would imagine but for the MSM pumping this for all it's worth.
And liable to badly backfire. Liberals hate Putin because he has repudiated western progressiven/social liberalism and replaced it with the values of Russian Orthodox Christianity and pride in all things Russian.
Democrat liberals still cling to the idea that parogressivism/liberalism is self evidently the only way to run modern society and worse still that the majority concur.
They are in for a wake up call
Even Trump though has not taken as hard a line on homosexuality as Putin, under whom it is legal in name only
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
So far four polls have shown double digit leads and the possibility of a Tory land slide 100 seat majority, but the seats the Tories need to take for that to happen include both Newport seats and Bishop Auckland, whilst the North East and Wakes are trending towards the Tories in the long term how likely is they will gain these seats?!
A think we need an analysis in why it is unlikely they will win a 100 seat majority considering the ones they would need to gain and as a poster said yesterday considering the different demographics of the urban vs. Rural seats.
No party will win a 100 seat Majority again Discuss.
Bishop Auckland would only require a small movement from Labour to UKIP for the Tories to sneak down the middle... Given UKIP + the conservatives only had 49% of the 2015 vote between them and 57% in County Durham as a whole voted LEAVE, I think its a possible Tory win..
The Tories had a good candidate in Bishop and he wants to stand again. Goodman isn't universally popular - including within the CLP. Don't forget the seat includes some very Tory areas in Teesdale.
Don’t be surprised by a Tory gain.
Bishop Auckland will almost certainly not exist after the boundary review , There will probadly be a new seat created from parts of Hexham and Bishop A ,
Sedgefield is likely to be the seat that would be destroyed in the boundary review - the seat already forms a doughnut shape around Darlington....
In the abortive 2013 review, Sedgefield was abolished and distributed fairly evenly among the remaining Durham seats IIRC, No guarantee the same thing would happen in the next review of course.
Interestingly enough, if recent polling was translated into a result, on current boundaries, on a uniform swing, Sedgefield would go Tory. That would be quite something.
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Or, in full context:
But it's the plight of individual boys and girls which worries me most. Too often, our children don't get the education they need—the education they deserve.
And in the inner cities—where youngsters must have a decent education if they are to have a better future—that opportunity is all too often snatched from them by hard left education authorities and extremist teachers.
And children who need to be able to count and multiply are learning anti-racist mathematics—whatever that may be.
Children who need to be able to express themselves in clear English are being taught political slogans.
Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay.
And children who need encouragement—and children do so much need encouragement—so many children—they are being taught that our society offers them no future.
All of those children are being cheated of a sound start in life—yes cheated.
Of course—in the country as a whole—there are plenty of excellent teachers and successful schools.
And in every good school, and every good teacher, is a reminder of what too many young people are denied.
I believe that government must take the primary responsibility for setting standards for the education of our children. And that's why we are establishing a national curriculum for basic subjects.
Johnson could put up a reasonable performance in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and New Hampshire and maybe Florid aand California but I don't see him winning any states
I think this states that he could do well in 9and have an out side chance in are as follows:
New Mexico, his home state and where he was governor.
Utah, where his is poling well, and normally conservative Mormons, are tacking a very dim vow of Trump.
Massachusetts, where his VP was governor. (these last to really come in to play if Mitt Romney endorses him)
Nevada and Colorado, to states that are close to his home state, have above average number of Mormons, and are known for having libertarian policies (gambling and Pot) that are popular locally.
if you add in Washington state, which is a bit tenues except for the legalising Pot I admit, then a victory in those 6 states (53 electoral collage votes) would be enough to mean that ether of the main two candidates would have to win all of their 'normal' safe seats, and all 4 big swing states, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. and I think that there is a reasonable chance that both main candidates will lose at least one of these 4 states
I agree with you that New Hampshire is also possible, with outside possibility's in Mane, Alaska, and Wyoming.
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Or, in full context:
But it's the plight of individual boys and girls which worries me most. Too often, our children don't get the education they need—the education they deserve.
And in the inner cities—where youngsters must have a decent education if they are to have a better future—that opportunity is all too often snatched from them by hard left education authorities and extremist teachers.
And children who need to be able to count and multiply are learning anti-racist mathematics—whatever that may be.
Children who need to be able to express themselves in clear English are being taught political slogans.
Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay.
And children who need encouragement—and children do so much need encouragement—so many children—they are being taught that our society offers them no future.
All of those children are being cheated of a sound start in life—yes cheated.
Of course—in the country as a whole—there are plenty of excellent teachers and successful schools.
And in every good school, and every good teacher, is a reminder of what too many young people are denied.
I believe that government must take the primary responsibility for setting standards for the education of our children. And that's why we are establishing a national curriculum for basic subjects.
'Traditional moral values'. Bigotry, I think she meant.
I keep on reading that Trump is good with voters, but he appears to have terrible ratings with several demographics in America. I don't believe either Clinton or Trump are 'good' with voters overall. Neither candidate is particular unifying: both seem like they would be fairly mediocre leaders and both are proving to be divisive figures. Outside of the 'Make America Great' people (who didn't seem to be singing that tune towards the end of the Bush presidency), it doesn't seem like many Americans are particularly enthused by this election or the candidates it offers.
"Mediocre" is one of the greatest understatements of all time.
So I presume you're not too impressed with either Clinton or Trump, then?
If I were American I'd abstain. They're both terrible candidates - mediocre is far too kind.
Tbh I don't think I could ever abstain in any election. My family always told me it's always better to vote, even if it's for the lesser evil. In this case, I'd vote for Hilary, who I regard as the lesser evil. Trump's rhetoric - particularly towards women and minorities - scares me. As well as his attitude towards Russia.
Oh OK, put a gun to my head, I'll vote Johnson. Russia doesn't bother me particularly. Turkey does.
I kind of see a vote for Johnson or Stein as a wasted vote. Unless it really didn't bother you who becomes President out of Clinton or Trump.
Whether a vote for the libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson (or the green Gill Stein) is a wasted vote is to early to say, in this election.
However support of any type between now and the debates that may get ether over the threshold of 15% Is most defiantly not wasted. at the very least having Johnson on the stage will oblige each party to reassert their support for what they are meant to be good at, the democrats a liberal society, the republicans a liberal economy. and at my most optimistic could propel him in the opinion poles where he could win the half dozen states he needs to deny any candidate a victory in the electoral collage, so it will go to the house of representatives, where Johnson could win it!!! IMHO
That depends on what you see the purpose of the vote as being. At the worst, it'd be less wasted than the 40-50% who won't vote at all. But there does come a point when the least worst option who might win is so bad and the range of candidates who might win are relatively close in badness that sending a message of support elsewhere is more important than influencing the topline outcome.
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Or, in full context:
Does that make it better? Sorry Richard but there's no way you can give her a pass for the sentence, 'Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay.'
There are several clear implications in this, none of which reflect well on her.
Maybe Amber Rudd's pledge to get rid of coal energy by 2020 wasn't so potty after all. UK Grid Templar shows that coal currently accounts for just 2.93%:
Johnson could put up a reasonable performance in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and New Hampshire and maybe Florid aand California but I don't see him winning any states
I think this states that he could do well in 9and have an out side chance in are as follows:
New Mexico, his home state and where he was governor.
Utah, where his is poling well, and normally conservative Mormons, are tacking a very dim vow of Trump.
Massachusetts, where his VP was governor. (these last to really come in to play if Mitt Romney endorses him)
Nevada and Colorado, to states that are close to his home state, have above average number of Mormons, and are known for having libertarian policies (gambling and Pot) that are popular locally.
if you add in Washington state, which is a bit tenues except for the legalising Pot I admit, then a victory in those 6 states (53 electoral collage votes) would be enough to mean that ether of the main two candidates would have to win all of their 'normal' safe seats, and all 4 big swing states, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. and I think that there is a reasonable chance that both main candidates will lose at least one of these 4 states
I agree with you that New Hampshire is also possible, with outside possibility's in Mane, Alaska, and Wyoming.
Maybe, although Massachusetts is a liberal, not libertarian state. However to have a chance of winning a state he would really need to be polling about 25%+ nationally, he is nowhere near that at the moment
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
There were certainly plenty of them in the Tory Party at the time, and many of them adored her.
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Or, in full context:
But it's the plight of individual boys and girls which worries me most. Too often, our children don't get the education they need—the education they deserve.
And in the inner cities—where youngsters must have a decent education if they are to have a better future—that opportunity is all too often snatched from them by hard left education authorities and extremist teachers.
And children who need to be able to count and multiply are learning anti-racist mathematics—whatever that may be.
Children who need to be able to express themselves in clear English are being taught political slogans.
Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay.
And children who need encouragement—and children do so much need encouragement—so many children—they are being taught that our society offers them no future.
All of those children are being cheated of a sound start in life—yes cheated.
Of course—in the country as a whole—there are plenty of excellent teachers and successful schools.
And in every good school, and every good teacher, is a reminder of what too many young people are denied.
I believe that government must take the primary responsibility for setting standards for the education of our children. And that's why we are establishing a national curriculum for basic subjects.
'Traditional moral values'. Bigotry, I think she meant.
Quite apart from anything else, she was rather liberal in social matters for her time. It's a complete travesty of history to think otherwise, uncomfortable though it is for the left - so keen to demonise her - to recognise it.
Maybe Amber Rudd's pledge to get rid of coal energy by 2020 wasn't so potty after all. UK Grid Templar shows that coal currently accounts for just 2.93%:
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
There were certainly plenty of them in the Tory Party at the time, and many of them adored her.
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
There were certainly plenty of them in the Tory Party at the time, and many of them adored her.
On Newsnight is a Labour MP in England speaking with a strong scottish accent about how Labour need to re-connect. Why Kate Green are you not in SLAB fighting to regain Scotland?
Well that's one to watch, r/the_donald are having an AMA (ask me anything) with Donald Trump. At 7pm Eastern time he will answer the highest rated questions on the thread.
Johnson could put up a reasonable performance in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and New Hampshire and maybe Florid aand California but I don't see him winning any states
I think this states that he could do well in 9and have an out side chance in are as follows:
New Mexico, his home state and where he was governor.
Utah, where his is poling well, and normally conservative Mormons, are tacking a very dim vow of Trump.
Massachusetts, where his VP was governor. (these last to really come in to play if Mitt Romney endorses him)
Nevada and Colorado, to states that are close to his home state, have above average number of Mormons, and are known for having libertarian policies (gambling and Pot) that are popular locally.
if you add in Washington state, which is a bit tenues except for the legalising Pot I admit, then a victory in those 6 states (53 electoral collage votes) would be enough to mean that ether of the main two candidates would have to win all of their 'normal' safe seats, and all 4 big swing states, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. and I think that there is a reasonable chance that both main candidates will lose at least one of these 4 states
I agree with you that New Hampshire is also possible, with outside possibility's in Mane, Alaska, and Wyoming.
And if it goes to the House, then what? It would surely be something of an outrage to pass over both Trump and Clinton to put the third-placed candidate in the White House. It would be hard enough to pass over Hillary, who would in all probability have a clear plurality of votes - though with more GOP states, that'd probably be the outcome.
Quite apart from anything else, she was rather liberal in social matters for her time. It's a complete travesty of history to think otherwise, uncomfortable though it is for the left - so keen to demonise her - to recognise it.
You can talk about "her time" Richard, but there is no doubt that in that speech children "being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay" is portrayed as a bad thing.
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Or, in full context:
Does that make it better? Sorry Richard but there's no way you can give her a pass for the sentence, 'Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay.'
There are several clear implications in this, none of which reflect well on her.
Yes, I give her a full moral pass. As you can see from the context, she was complaining about the loony-left teachers blighting children's futures by teaching all sorts of moralistic claptrap, and not actually doing their job of teaching them to read, write, reason, and understand science.
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
Can you cite any examples of this oppression?
As already mentioned arrests of visitors suspected of homosexuality, banning the adoption of children by not only gay couples but couples from nations where gay marriage is legal and the removal of children from a parent suspected to be homosexual http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
FPT It is worth noting that the sanctions available to the EU against Poland in relation to this matter are set out in Article 7 TEU. These are surrounded with a thicket of different qualified majorities etc and in at least 1 case requires unanimity of the European Council of which Poland is of course a member. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:12012M007
The bite after all this faff is the potential suspension of Poland's voting rights in the Ministers in Council. Not exactly sending the tanks in.
The irony of the unelected EU Commission acting as the arbiter and protector of democratic rights is hard to miss.
Judges are not elected. Are you suggesting that they should be?
In america they are, I think.
At the state level, it is split between states which elect and those which appoint:
At the federal level, most judges are appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the US Senate, although magistrates and bankruptcy judges are nominated by lower courts rather than the Admininstration:
Quite apart from anything else, she was rather liberal in social matters for her time. It's a complete travesty of history to think otherwise, uncomfortable though it is for the left - so keen to demonise her - to recognise it.
You can talk about "her time" Richard, but there is no doubt that in that speech children "being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay" is portrayed as a bad thing.
Yes, in contrast to teaching them something useful, such as reading and writing.
Quite apart from anything else, she was rather liberal in social matters for her time. It's a complete travesty of history to think otherwise, uncomfortable though it is for the left - so keen to demonise her - to recognise it.
That speech was made at the height of her political power and the excerpt I quoted was the precursor to the government passing Section 28 stating that LAs "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
If she didn't want to be demonised, she should have recognised how toxic and ridiculous this legislation was. In political terms it was a generational mistake which the Tories were still paying for in 2002 when Theresa May made her 'nasty party' speech.
Johnson could put up a reasonable performance in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and New Hampshire and maybe Florid aand California but I don't see him winning any states
I think this states that he could do well in 9and have an out side chance in are as follows:
New Mexico, his home state and where he was governor.
Utah, where his is poling well, and normally conservative Mormons, are tacking a very dim vow of Trump.
Massachusetts, where his VP was governor. (these last to really come in to play if Mitt Romney endorses him)
Nevada and Colorado, to states that are close to his home state, have above average number of Mormons, and are known for having libertarian policies (gambling and Pot) that are popular locally.
if you add in Washington state, which is a bit tenues except for the legalising Pot I admit, then a victory in those 6 states (53 electoral collage votes) would be enough to mean that ether of the main two candidates would have to win all of their 'normal' safe seats, and all 4 big swing states, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. and I think that there is a reasonable chance that both main candidates will lose at least one of these 4 states
I agree with you that New Hampshire is also possible, with outside possibility's in Mane, Alaska, and Wyoming.
And if it goes to the House, then what? It would surely be something of an outrage to pass over both Trump and Clinton to put the third-placed candidate in the White House. It would be hard enough to pass over Hillary, who would in all probability have a clear plurality of votes - though with more GOP states, that'd probably be the outcome.
Obama won a larger margin in the EC than the popular vote in 2012
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
Can you cite any examples of this oppression?
As already mentioned arrests of visitors suspected of homosexuality, banning the adoption of children by not only gay couples but couples from nations where gay marriage is legal and the removal of children from a parent suspected to be homosexual http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
Can you cite one visitor arrested on suspicion of homosexuality?
"Apple today announced that it recently sold its one-billionth iPhone, marking a major milestone for the company. CEO Tim Cook shared the news with employees at a staff meeting this morning, as noted in a news story published by Apple. In a statement, Cook called the iPhone one of the most successful, world-changing products in history, echoing similar sentiments from yesterday's earnings call where he said believes the iPhone is becoming a device that people can't live without. "
Quite apart from anything else, she was rather liberal in social matters for her time. It's a complete travesty of history to think otherwise, uncomfortable though it is for the left - so keen to demonise her - to recognise it.
That speech was made at the height of her political power and the excerpt I quoted was the precursor to the government passing Section 28 stating that LAs "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
If she didn't want to be demonised, she should have recognised how toxic and ridiculous this legislation was. In political terms it was a generational mistake which the Tories were still paying for in 2002 when Theresa May made her 'nasty party' speech.
Yes, it was a silly piece of legislation, albeit one harmless in practice. And, yes, it did give ammunition to Labour.
Quite apart from anything else, she was rather liberal in social matters for her time. It's a complete travesty of history to think otherwise, uncomfortable though it is for the left - so keen to demonise her - to recognise it.
Quite apart from anything else, she was rather liberal in social matters for her time. It's a complete travesty of history to think otherwise, uncomfortable though it is for the left - so keen to demonise her - to recognise it.
That speech was made at the height of her political power and the excerpt I quoted was the precursor to the government passing Section 28 stating that LAs "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
If she didn't want to be demonised, she should have recognised how toxic and ridiculous this legislation was. In political terms it was a generational mistake which the Tories were still paying for in 2002 when Theresa May made her 'nasty party' speech.
Though for all the heat on both sides no-one was ever prosecuted under section 28.
Comments
That's the only way.
The Left (like the Right) is not a single strand of thought and it is foolish to align eithervside with the Church. This is not the era of a Century ago when religion was much more a tool of the establishment and in opposition to the workers.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Shadow-Sword-Battle-Global-Ancient/dp/0349122350
Trump has defeated and humiliated the following people and groups so far:
Romney
The entire Bush family
Fox News
Rubio
Kasich
Cruz
Fiorina
Graham
McCain
Obama
The entire political consultant class
Nate Silver
Evangelicals
Rioters
The congressional GOP
The Koch brothers and other billionaire donors
Talk Radio (Limbaugh, Levin, ect)
The Press
You have to give the man credit, no one is left to give him the boot, especially from his own party.
Who is going to give him the boot ?
The media who has called him "Hitler" for months and failed ?
Hillary has been running almost 17000 TV ads to Trump's zero and she's losing to him.
Ted Cruz only last week tried to knife him in the back and it backfired on him.
https://twitter.com/AngrySalmond/status/758395441188839425
It was the third Fox debate, when they forced him to make statements that were immediately struck down with the use of video evidence.
It was brutal to watch as Trump said one thing and then the Fox journalist immediately showed the video on the big screen with Trump saying the complete opposite.
That Trump survived that, probably means voters are simply using him to express their dissatisfaction with things.
With 70-75% of americans dissatisfied with the course of their country, there are a lot of protest votes.
People are not voting for Trump, they are voting against those in power (the Democrats, the Billionaires, the GOP establishment, the Media).
Sanders was a mirror image of that, but he was less forceful than Trump.
Don’t be surprised by a Tory gain.
Even OGH has abandoned hope that Smith can win without the judges help.
It's amazing isn't it that a billionaire can become a successful populist.
Like I wrote last year, Trump is the american Berlusconi.
If Berlusconi did it, so can Trump.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/nick-clegg-the-honeymoon-will-be-short-if-may-can-t-tame-the-tory-right-a3305706.html
And to forestall the inevitable responses of 'He lost, get over it', he does make a point of emphasizing that:
The campaign is over. The Brexiteers have won. With victory comes responsibility — and some really hard choices too....Brexit is real, we actually have to do it. That means grappling with the challenges and dilemmas it presents
The FSB also see themselves very much now as Defenders of The Faith. Russian National(ist) sentiment and Russian Orthodoxy now being inextricably linked.
Spiritual Chekism is how detractors have deacribed it.
Secular Liberals in the west would do well to ponder how the most secular, atheist, hostile to Christianity in the world turned into the most muscular Christian regime in a few short years (The Conversion of Russia - prophesised and prayed for at the end of every Catholic Mass for decades). How many divisions has the Pope asked Stalin?
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy
Blaenau Gwent: Owen Smith
Runnymeade and Weybridge : Smith 22 Corbyn 11
Croydon Central: Corbyn 49 Smith 36
East Surrey: Corbyn 25 Smith 15 Abstention 2
Chippenham: Corbyn
North Somerset: Corbyn
Hereford and South Herefordshire: Corbyn
Salinsbury: Corbyn
Game- Set- Match‼️
Hillary gets played‼️…
And not by Bill this time…
#DemsInPhilly https://t.co/qSQWOm6Fkp
Pretty radical by modern standards in both doctrine and expectations of believers.
And they see it as Russias divine duty to rechristianise decadent Europe.
However support of any type between now and the debates that may get ether over the threshold of 15% Is most defiantly not wasted. at the very least having Johnson on the stage will oblige each party to reassert their support for what they are meant to be good at, the democrats a liberal society, the republicans a liberal economy. and at my most optimistic could propel him in the opinion poles where he could win the half dozen states he needs to deny any candidate a victory in the electoral collage, so it will go to the house of representatives, where Johnson could win it!!! IMHO
I am afraid that none of the major branches of the church seems to share your view of it as a bulwark against the infidel. After Welby's bleating yesterday we have the pope today fatuously claiming that "All religions want peace, it's the others who want war", according to the beeb.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
In the abortive 2013 review, Sedgefield was abolished and distributed fairly evenly among the remaining Durham seats IIRC, No guarantee the same thing would happen in the next review of course.
Interestingly enough, if recent polling was translated into a result, on current boundaries, on a uniform swing, Sedgefield would go Tory. That would be quite something.
But it's the plight of individual boys and girls which worries me most. Too often, our children don't get the education they need—the education they deserve.
And in the inner cities—where youngsters must have a decent education if they are to have a better future—that opportunity is all too often snatched from them by hard left education authorities and extremist teachers.
And children who need to be able to count and multiply are learning anti-racist mathematics—whatever that may be.
Children who need to be able to express themselves in clear English are being taught political slogans.
Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay.
And children who need encouragement—and children do so much need encouragement—so many children—they are being taught that our society offers them no future.
All of those children are being cheated of a sound start in life—yes cheated.
Of course—in the country as a whole—there are plenty of excellent teachers and successful schools.
And in every good school, and every good teacher, is a reminder of what too many young people are denied.
I believe that government must take the primary responsibility for setting standards for the education of our children. And that's why we are establishing a national curriculum for basic subjects.
I think this states that he could do well in 9and have an out side chance in are as follows:
New Mexico, his home state and where he was governor.
Utah, where his is poling well, and normally conservative Mormons, are tacking a very dim vow of Trump.
Massachusetts, where his VP was governor. (these last to really come in to play if Mitt Romney endorses him)
Nevada and Colorado, to states that are close to his home state, have above average number of Mormons, and are known for having libertarian policies (gambling and Pot) that are popular locally.
if you add in Washington state, which is a bit tenues except for the legalising Pot I admit, then a victory in those 6 states (53 electoral collage votes) would be enough to mean that ether of the main two candidates would have to win all of their 'normal' safe seats, and all 4 big swing states, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. and I think that there is a reasonable chance that both main candidates will lose at least one of these 4 states
I agree with you that New Hampshire is also possible, with outside possibility's in Mane, Alaska, and Wyoming.
There are several clear implications in this, none of which reflect well on her.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106941
Quite apart from anything else, she was rather liberal in social matters for her time. It's a complete travesty of history to think otherwise, uncomfortable though it is for the left - so keen to demonise her - to recognise it.
Well that's one to watch, r/the_donald are having an AMA (ask me anything) with Donald Trump. At 7pm Eastern time he will answer the highest rated questions on the thread.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
If she didn't want to be demonised, she should have recognised how toxic and ridiculous this legislation was. In political terms it was a generational mistake which the Tories were still paying for in 2002 when Theresa May made her 'nasty party' speech.
"Apple today announced that it recently sold its one-billionth iPhone, marking a major milestone for the company. CEO Tim Cook shared the news with employees at a staff meeting this morning, as noted in a news story published by Apple.
In a statement, Cook called the iPhone one of the most successful, world-changing products in history, echoing similar sentiments from yesterday's earnings call where he said believes the iPhone is becoming a device that people can't live without. "
http://www.macrumors.com/