The strange logic of the Boundary Commission !! Having perused the report on the South East , I was bemused for the reason given for transferring Nelson ward instead of the obvious Baffins ward from Portsmouth North to South ." We propose to include Nelson ward in Portsmouth South so that more of the Harbour is in one constituency " As Portsmouth Harbour is just water and contains no actual voters this seems plain bizarre .
Presumably they mean harbourside residents? Seems logical.
The strange logic of the Boundary Commission !! Having perused the report on the South East , I was bemused for the reason given for transferring Nelson ward instead of the obvious Baffins ward from Portsmouth North to South ." We propose to include Nelson ward in Portsmouth South so that more of the Harbour is in one constituency " As Portsmouth Harbour is just water and contains no actual voters this seems plain bizarre .
By the same logic they could propose a long thin narrow constituency consisting of only people who can see the sea from their homes, and call it England Coastal. Could be UKIP's best chance?
Talk about spin! This same Mori poll has 68% seeing May as capable compared to just 24% saying the same of Corbyn. 58% of Labour supporters see May as capable, more than the 46% who say the same of Corbyn. 80% of Tory voters are satisfied with May's performance as PM. 57% of the public are satisfied with her compared to 31% with Corbyn. 60% say the like May, more than the 38% who like Labour. Only 37% like Corbyn compared to almost 50% who like Labour.
To cap it off the only shift of any Tory voters has been to UKIP, who are even more pro grammar than the Tory Party!
Is this also therefore a reason why trust in their values is corroding and anti-liberals (in the small l sense of the word) such as Trump, Farage and Le Pen are prospering and now starting to even win elections?
It feels like we are very much in the middle of a tipping point across 'the west', to a sort of authoritarian populism vs metropolitanism, as opposed to the traditional left right axis. Hofer's close run was perhaps the warning shot, Brexit the first big reaction, and we shall soon see how things pan out with Trump and Hofer, indicating the chances for MLP in France next year. Despite them all often being associated with being 'right wing' or 'far-right', there isn't really much solid evidence that it's the case. Even in mainstream centre-right governments it's the case that they are taking populist/anti-business turns. Look at May and the increasing possibility of a hard brexit, to satisfy 'the people' at the expense of 'big business'.
Interesting to imagine whether Trump, Le Pen, and Putin would actually lead to a shift/realignment in international relations, or whether much would really change at all long term.
If Trump and Le Pen won the EU and NAFTA and probably NATO and the WTO would collapse, so no not much change in international relations there then!
So Trump only needs to lead in one extra state for him to push above 270.
Deplorable.
As well as Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa (all of which have leads of 0.5 <- 2%) He needs Nevada (Clinton is ferrying millions of Democrats over from California to Campaign) and one from New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Virgina and Wisconsin.
Virginia had a Clinton lead of +3 with a recent poll Wisconsin had a Clinton lead of +10 (Google) with a recent poll Pennsylvania has had no recent polls - which I think is incredible Colorado had a Clinton lead of +7 (Google) Michigan had a Clinton lead of +4 (Google) New Hampshire had a Clinton lead of +2 (net Trump +1) in a pre-Clinton Crash poll.
(We don't know of course how accurate Google is and there are a massive number of 'undecideds')
It would be ironic if the first state to hold Primaries provided the key to the Election.
Is this also therefore a reason why trust in their values is corroding and anti-liberals (in the small l sense of the word) such as Trump, Farage and Le Pen are prospering and now starting to even win elections?
Caw canny, none of them has won elections yet.
Funny - I could have sworn UKIP won the last EU elections in the UK.
You want to be cautious about NBC reports on the campaign. Their doctoring of the 9/11 video (only showing the first stumble off the kerb but presenting it as if that were the whole incident) is the most breathtaking bit of dishonesty I have ever seen in a serious news report.
That's right when you don't like what happened blame the MSM right out of the delusional Farage and Corbyn play book.
I expect you will now wish to withdraw and apologise for your stupid and bad-mannered post.
Do you deny what Trump said in Fox news which NBC simply reported?The MSM media aren't biased against Trump they simply report what he says, then he complains he was misreported. I suspect you think the BBC is biased as well when they get complaints from both ukippeea and Corbynistas, they can't be biased against both. But you can continue with your conspiracy theories if you want to.
Each day that passes we seem to get more evidence that the British public was right to vote for leave.
Surely he's about to pop out in N Zealand the way he's digging. This pompous hauteur and utter disdain for anyone who doesn't get with his grand project (galloping populism) is breathtaking really.
There will be bumps along the way (and I suspect were heading for a harder Brexit than ideal for both sides at present given Juncker et al's need to stop the perceived rot unless hopefully calmer heads prevail), but sod 'em. I feel really even more comfortable with my vote on June 23rd than ever.
The strange logic of the Boundary Commission !! Having perused the report on the South East , I was bemused for the reason given for transferring Nelson ward instead of the obvious Baffins ward from Portsmouth North to South ." We propose to include Nelson ward in Portsmouth South so that more of the Harbour is in one constituency " As Portsmouth Harbour is just water and contains no actual voters this seems plain bizarre .
If Trump and Le Pen won the EU and NAFTA and probably NATO and the WTO would collapse, so no not much change in international relations there then!
That raises a question: does a US president actually have the power to withdraw the US from international treaties without congressional approval?
Trump would likely have a GOP Congress anyway and the House could well back him. The Senate maybe less so but while Senate approval is needed to sign Treaties I am not sure if the same applies to withdrawing from them?
Is this also therefore a reason why trust in their values is corroding and anti-liberals (in the small l sense of the word) such as Trump, Farage and Le Pen are prospering and now starting to even win elections?
Caw canny, none of them has won elections yet.
Funny - I could have sworn UKIP won the last EU elections in the UK.
UKIP got 28% as I recall, so while ahead of other parties, a long way from a plurality of voters.
If Trump and Le Pen won the EU and NAFTA and probably NATO and the WTO would collapse, so no not much change in international relations there then!
That raises a question: does a US president actually have the power to withdraw the US from international treaties without congressional approval?
Terminating Treaties The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted.
The strange logic of the Boundary Commission !! Having perused the report on the South East , I was bemused for the reason given for transferring Nelson ward instead of the obvious Baffins ward from Portsmouth North to South ." We propose to include Nelson ward in Portsmouth South so that more of the Harbour is in one constituency " As Portsmouth Harbour is just water and contains no actual voters this seems plain bizarre .
That's the sort of reasoning beloved of the Boundary Commission down the ages. They renamed Richmond & Barnes "Richmond Park" in 1997 because the park was in the centre of the constituency, despite the fact that it's mainly deer living there.
Is this also therefore a reason why trust in their values is corroding and anti-liberals (in the small l sense of the word) such as Trump, Farage and Le Pen are prospering and now starting to even win elections?
Caw canny, none of them has won elections yet.
Funny - I could have sworn UKIP won the last EU elections in the UK.
UKIP got 28% as I recall, so while ahead of other parties, a long way from a plurality of voters.
As commonly used in an electoral context, I thought this was the very definition of a plurality?
its going to be an incredibly tight US election. hopefully that racist prick trump loses. a humiliating loss would have been better but better that that a white nationalist as president
Is this also therefore a reason why trust in their values is corroding and anti-liberals (in the small l sense of the word) such as Trump, Farage and Le Pen are prospering and now starting to even win elections?
Caw canny, none of them has won elections yet.
Funny - I could have sworn UKIP won the last EU elections in the UK.
UKIP got 28% as I recall, so while ahead of other parties, a long way from a plurality of voters.
So is the 37% the tories got in 2015 but they won a majority
There will be bumps along the way (and I suspect were heading for a harder Brexit than ideal for both sides at present given Juncker et al's need to stop the perceived rot unless hopefully calmer heads prevail), but sod 'em. I feel really even more comfortable with my vote on June 23rd than ever.
I was a bit unsure on the 24th, but not at all now. Hard Brexit? Bring it on.
I'm not devoted to anyone I'm just not a conspiracy theorist like many Trump supporters on here seem to be, support him if you want to but please drop the nutcase biased liberal media meme, anyone can make that claim doesn't mean its true.
If Trump and Le Pen won the EU and NAFTA and probably NATO and the WTO would collapse, so no not much change in international relations there then!
That raises a question: does a US president actually have the power to withdraw the US from international treaties without congressional approval?
Terminating Treaties The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted.
Is this also therefore a reason why trust in their values is corroding and anti-liberals (in the small l sense of the word) such as Trump, Farage and Le Pen are prospering and now starting to even win elections?
Caw canny, none of them has won elections yet.
Funny - I could have sworn UKIP won the last EU elections in the UK.
Ah, I'd forgotten that; it's hard to think of an election that propels David Coburn to 'power' as a victory.
Poor old UKIP, their only taste of political prominence (& money) disappearing rapidly over the horizon.
I'm not devoted to anyone I'm just not a conspiracy theorist like many Trump supporters on here seem to be, support him if you want to but please drop the nutcase biased liberal media meme, anyone can make that claim doesn't mean its true.
Perish the thought that the BBC and the main US stations might have a liberal bias
Is this also therefore a reason why trust in their values is corroding and anti-liberals (in the small l sense of the word) such as Trump, Farage and Le Pen are prospering and now starting to even win elections?
Caw canny, none of them has won elections yet.
Funny - I could have sworn UKIP won the last EU elections in the UK.
Ah, I'd forgotten that; it's hard to think of an election that propels David Coburn to 'power' as a victory.
Poor old UKIP, their only taste of political prominence (& money) disappearing rapidly over the horizon.
They achieved what they set out to do. More than can be said for a certain other Nationalist psrty I can think of.
Only loved by the deplorables and their ilk. This is the touchstone really, no conservative would ever express support for someone like that. Breitbart is their bible, they aren't conservatives they are right wing anarchists/extremists.
If Trump and Le Pen won the EU and NAFTA and probably NATO and the WTO would collapse, so no not much change in international relations there then!
That raises a question: does a US president actually have the power to withdraw the US from international treaties without congressional approval?
Terminating Treaties The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted.
Trump will say in the lead until the first debate, unless Clinton has another medical incident in which case Trump wins.
At the debate, assuming Clinton will do 90 mins without dying, she will have demonstrated that 9/11 was a temporary thing and the polls will roll back to her.
You want to be cautious about NBC reports on the campaign. Their doctoring of the 9/11 video (only showing the first stumble off the kerb but presenting it as if that were the whole incident) is the most breathtaking bit of dishonesty I have ever seen in a serious news report.
That's right when you don't like what happened blame the MSM right out of the delusional Farage and Corbyn play book.
I expect you will now wish to withdraw and apologise for your stupid and bad-mannered post.
Do you deny what Trump said in Fox news which NBC simply reported?The MSM media aren't biased against Trump they simply report what he says, then he complains he was misreported. I suspect you think the BBC is biased as well when they get complaints from both ukippeea and Corbynistas, they can't be biased against both. But you can continue with your conspiracy theories if you want to.
Do stop being a twit. I wasn't there, I have only the NBC report to go by and as I have said, and proved by a couple of links, NBC is not to be trusted. I can see no reason why you would conclude from that you can guess my beliefs about the BBC, and you are stupid for drawing that conclusion and bad mannered for stating it.
Despite your denial to Sunil, I suspect you are a bit more invested in all this than I am.
Cholesterol 169: Good level <200 is target HDL Cholesterol 63: Good level >60 is target LDL Cholesterol 94: Good level <100 is target Triglycerides 61 : Exceptionally low < 150 is target PSA 0.15 Low (good): A value of 4 used to be trigger point Blood pressure 116/70 : Not elevated Blood Sugar 99: Well in the average range Testosterone 441.6 : Below absolute average but in the average range. Calcium Score of 98: mild (just) evidence of CAT.
NB I am NOT a doctor, this info is gleaned from the www so DYOR.
I'm not devoted to anyone I'm just not a conspiracy theorist like many Trump supporters on here seem to be, support him if you want to but please drop the nutcase biased liberal media meme, anyone can make that claim doesn't mean its true.
Perish the thought that the BBC and the main US stations might have a liberal bias
And what about Fox news and the British tabloids? And both the corbynista and Tories complain about BBC news so they are probably fair, also BBC was better then Sky after the Jo Cox killing.
There will be bumps along the way (and I suspect were heading for a harder Brexit than ideal for both sides at present given Juncker et al's need to stop the perceived rot unless hopefully calmer heads prevail), but sod 'em. I feel really even more comfortable with my vote on June 23rd than ever.
I was a bit unsure on the 24th, but not at all now. Hard Brexit? Bring it on.
Hard Brexit will now probably mean not only no free movement at all and no single market access at all but also probably no free trade deal either, at least not in the short term. May will not do soft Brexit but it is clear she wants to avoid hard Brexit too as she has said she wants a trade deal for UK goods and services as well as controls on migration
Trump will say in the lead until the first debate, unless Clinton has another medical incident in which case Trump wins.
At the debate, assuming Clinton will do 90 mins without dying, she will have demonstrated that 9/11 was a temporary thing and the polls will roll back to her.
9/11 was a temporary thing?
Tell that to the relatives of the 2,996 souls wot perished that day!
Breitbart is their bible, they aren't conservatives they are right wing anarchists/extremists.
Breitbart gets 31 million unique hits. That's a lot of anarchists.
Meanwhile the economist is at Waterloo station trying to drum up interest.
The publications that are calling others anarchists and extremists are becoming less mainstream. They are becoming marginalised. They are the ones that are moving to the edges.
I'm not devoted to anyone I'm just not a conspiracy theorist like many Trump supporters on here seem to be, support him if you want to but please drop the nutcase biased liberal media meme, anyone can make that claim doesn't mean its true.
The media in the US is massively liberal. Pointing that out doesn't make anyone a Trump supporter, but it does help understand what may be fuelling some of the injustice Trump supporters feel. The deplorables speech feeds into that as well, which is why it was such a misstep.
I can tell you now, I'm not a Trump supporter. I have no enthusiasm for Hillary, I'd vote for her but that's about it. I can see why Trump exists, he is a symptom of globalisation, high immigration, cultural deterioration and stagnating long term wages for the lower middle classes. He is not the cause of dysfunction in the US, Hillary and her ilk are. Until the Dems recognise this then someone like Trump will be back in 2020 even if they scrape a win this time. The US needs an economy that works for everyone, not one that works for the very rich, subsidises poverty and does nothing for millions of people who work hard, play by the rules and get shat on, just like those Ford workers who's jobs are about to be outsourced to Mexico, enabled by NAFTA.
Is this also therefore a reason why trust in their values is corroding and anti-liberals (in the small l sense of the word) such as Trump, Farage and Le Pen are prospering and now starting to even win elections?
Caw canny, none of them has won elections yet.
Funny - I could have sworn UKIP won the last EU elections in the UK.
Ah, I'd forgotten that; it's hard to think of an election that propels David Coburn to 'power' as a victory.
Poor old UKIP, their only taste of political prominence (& money) disappearing rapidly over the horizon.
They achieved what they set out to do. More than can be said for a certain other Nationalist psrty I can think of.
They achieved it? I thought all the high minded, principled, not-racist, not-xenophobic Leavers were running away from Breaking Point as fast as their short, hairy legs can carry them.
Pneumonia is curable with antibiotics and consistent with symptoms demonstrated by HRC. Trouble is, you can only change the official line a couple of times before even the truth becomes worthless.
For all the chatter of Trumps pending death and conspiracy theories to that effect, only one presidential candidate has been videoed incapable of standing unsupported, then collapsing moments before being thrown into a vehicle and driven off, leaving her footwear lying in the gutter. Ill health may not necessarily damage a candidates chances of winning, however being dishonest about it and then forced to admit the truth will damage their chances.
Cholesterol 169: Good level <200 is target HDL Cholesterol 63: Good level >60 is target LDL Cholesterol 94: Good level <100 is target Triglycerides 61 : Exceptionally low < 150 is target PSA 0.15 Low (good): A value of 4 used to be trigger point Blood pressure 116/70 : Not elevated Blood Sugar 99: Well in the average range Testosterone 441.6 : Below absolute average but in the average range. Calcium Score of 98: mild (just) evidence of CAT.
NB I am NOT a doctor, this info is gleaned from the www so DYOR.</p>
Also not a doctor, but I don't see why he is taking a statin on those scores. Then again there's a school of thought that everyone over a certain age should take statins.
Breitbart is their bible, they aren't conservatives they are right wing anarchists/extremists.
Breitbart gets 31 million unique hits. That's a lot of anarchists.
Meanwhile the economist is at Waterloo station trying to drum up interest.
The publications that are calling others anarchists and extremists are becoming less mainstream. They are becoming marginalised. They are the ones that are moving to the edges.
I'm not a publication, just pointing out what is obvious. Breitbart is a far right website that is the trusted organ of (which is not the same as read by) the far (or alt as they now seem to try and call it) right. On Farage I'd categorise him as hard right, he's beyond traditional conservatism by some way.
If that worked we would have perpetual Labour governments.
Indeed. Those secretly (or not so secretly) longing for the elderly to die so that the "progressives" can take over always forget the tendency for your average voter to grow more conservative as they age.
I'm not devoted to anyone I'm just not a conspiracy theorist like many Trump supporters on here seem to be, support him if you want to but please drop the nutcase biased liberal media meme, anyone can make that claim doesn't mean its true.
The media in the US is massively liberal. Pointing that out doesn't make anyone a Trump supporter, but it does help understand what may be fuelling some of the injustice Trump supporters feel. The deplorables speech feeds into that as well, which is why it was such a misstep.
I can tell you now, I'm not a Trump supporter. I have no enthusiasm for Hillary, I'd vote for her but that's about it. I can see why Trump exists, he is a symptom of globalisation, high immigration, cultural deterioration and stagnating long term wages for the lower middle classes. He is not the cause of dysfunction in the US, Hillary and her ilk are. Until the Dems recognise this then someone like Trump will be back in 2020 even if they scrape a win this time. The US needs an economy that works for everyone, not one that works for the very rich, subsidises poverty and does nothing for millions of people who work hard, play by the rules and get shat on, just like those Ford workers who's jobs are about to be outsourced to Mexico, enabled by NAFTA.
You may be right but why is this aimed at the Democrats rather than the Republican moderates, Republican religious wing, Republican Establishment wing and Republican Tea Party wing -- all of whom Trump beat to become the candidate?
The last might be significant if Trump won because he is a better outsider than Ted Cruz, if he has taken the NOTA mantle from the batshit-crazy tea partiers.
Is this also therefore a reason why trust in their values is corroding and anti-liberals (in the small l sense of the word) such as Trump, Farage and Le Pen are prospering and now starting to even win elections?
Caw canny, none of them has won elections yet.
Funny - I could have sworn UKIP won the last EU elections in the UK.
Ah, I'd forgotten that; it's hard to think of an election that propels David Coburn to 'power' as a victory.
Poor old UKIP, their only taste of political prominence (& money) disappearing rapidly over the horizon.
They achieved what they set out to do. More than can be said for a certain other Nationalist psrty I can think of.
They achieved it? I thought all the high minded, principled, not-racist, not-xenophobic Leavers were running away from Breaking Point as fast as their short, hairy legs can carry them.
I'm not devoted to anyone I'm just not a conspiracy theorist like many Trump supporters on here seem to be, support him if you want to but please drop the nutcase biased liberal media meme, anyone can make that claim doesn't mean its true.
The media in the US is massively liberal. Pointing that out doesn't make anyone a Trump supporter, but it does help understand what may be fuelling some of the injustice Trump supporters feel. The deplorables speech feeds into that as well, which is why it was such a misstep.
I can tell you now, I'm not a Trump supporter. I have no enthusiasm for Hillary, I'd vote for her but that's about it. I can see why Trump exists, he is a symptom of globalisation, high immigration, cultural deterioration and stagnating long term wages for the lower middle classes. He is not the cause of dysfunction in the US, Hillary and her ilk are. Until the Dems recognise this then someone like Trump will be back in 2020 even if they scrape a win this time. The US needs an economy that works for everyone, not one that works for the very rich, subsidises poverty and does nothing for millions of people who work hard, play by the rules and get shat on, just like those Ford workers who's jobs are about to be outsourced to Mexico, enabled by NAFTA.
You may be right but why is this aimed at the Democrats rather than the Republican moderates, Republican religious wing, Republican Establishment wing and Republican Tea Party wing -- all of whom Trump beat to become the candidate?
The last might be significant if Trump won because he is a better outsider than Ted Cruz, if he has taken the NOTA mantle from the batshit-crazy tea partiers.
Indeed, though if Trump loses Cruz will be frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2020
If Trump and Le Pen won the EU and NAFTA and probably NATO and the WTO would collapse, so no not much change in international relations there then!
That raises a question: does a US president actually have the power to withdraw the US from international treaties without congressional approval?
Terminating Treaties The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted.
It seems that in 1978 Carter terminated a defence treaty with Taiwan and got away with it.
And here is Carter explaining to Walter Cronkite why he thought he could get away with it.
Although after that, Carter abrogated the Bancroft Treaties (preventing dual citizenship, which SCOTUS had ruled unconstitutional) in 1980 "acting in consultation with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations" (Wikipedia) which suggests he later felt it was sensible to include Congress in some way.
If that worked we would have perpetual Labour governments.
Except voters tend to be more likely to vote Tory the older they get
Partly that, but not the only factor in play. Life expectancy for Tory voters is longer, so the non-Tories tend to die off first. And people's political outlook is shaped during late teenage and early adulthood, which for the current elderly was at a time when the two-party system was at its peak.
I'm not devoted to anyone I'm just not a conspiracy theorist like many Trump supporters on here seem to be, support him if you want to but please drop the nutcase biased liberal media meme, anyone can make that claim doesn't mean its true.
The media in the US is massively liberal. Pointing that out doesn't make anyone a Trump supporter, but it does help understand what may be fuelling some of the injustice Trump supporters feel. The deplorables speech feeds into that as well, which is why it was such a misstep.
I can tell you now, I'm not a Trump supporter. I have no enthusiasm for Hillary, I'd vote for her but that's about it. I can see why Trump exists, he is a symptom of globalisation, high immigration, cultural deterioration and stagnating long term wages for the lower middle classes. He is not the cause of dysfunction in the US, Hillary and her ilk are. Until the Dems recognise this then someone like Trump will be back in 2020 even if they scrape a win this time. The US needs an economy that works for everyone, not one that works for the very rich, subsidises poverty and does nothing for millions of people who work hard, play by the rules and get shat on, just like those Ford workers who's jobs are about to be outsourced to Mexico, enabled by NAFTA.
You may be right but why is this aimed at the Democrats rather than the Republican moderates, Republican religious wing, Republican Establishment wing and Republican Tea Party wing -- all of whom Trump beat to become the candidate?
The last might be significant if Trump won because he is a better outsider than Ted Cruz, if he has taken the NOTA mantle from the batshit-crazy tea partiers.
Because lower middle classes used to be the Dems bread and butter before they were abandoned for Latinos.
If Trump and Le Pen won the EU and NAFTA and probably NATO and the WTO would collapse, so no not much change in international relations there then!
That raises a question: does a US president actually have the power to withdraw the US from international treaties without congressional approval?
Terminating Treaties The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted.
It seems that in 1978 Carter terminated a defence treaty with Taiwan and got away with it.
And here is Carter explaining to Walter Cronkite why he thought he could get away with it.
Although after that, Carter abrogated the Bancroft Treaties (preventing dual citizenship, which SCOTUS had ruled unconstitutional) in 1980 "acting in consultation with the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations" (Wikipedia) which suggests he later felt it was sensible to include Congress in some way.
The worry is, of course, is the scarcity of evidence Trump would ever do anything "because it felt sensible."
I'm not devoted to anyone I'm just not a conspiracy theorist like many Trump supporters on here seem to be, support him if you want to but please drop the nutcase biased liberal media meme, anyone can make that claim doesn't mean its true.
The media in the US is massively liberal. Pointing that out doesn't make anyone a Trump supporter, but it does help understand what may be fuelling some of the injustice Trump supporters feel. The deplorables speech feeds into that as well, which is why it was such a misstep.
I can tell you now, I'm not a Trump supporter. I have no enthusiasm for Hillary, I'd vote for her but that's about it. I can see why Trump exists, he is a symptom of globalisation, high immigration, cultural deterioration and stagnating long term wages for the lower middle classes. He is not the cause of dysfunction in the US, Hillary and her ilk are. Until the Dems recognise this then someone like Trump will be back in 2020 even if they scrape a win this time. The US needs an economy that works for everyone, not one that works for the very rich, subsidises poverty and does nothing for millions of people who work hard, play by the rules and get shat on, just like those Ford workers who's jobs are about to be outsourced to Mexico, enabled by NAFTA.
I'm not devoted to anyone I'm just not a conspiracy theorist like many Trump supporters on here seem to be, support him if you want to but please drop the nutcase biased liberal media meme, anyone can make that claim doesn't mean its true.
The media in the US is massively liberal. Pointing that out doesn't make anyone a Trump supporter, but it does help understand what may be fuelling some of the injustice Trump supporters feel. The deplorables speech feeds into that as well, which is why it was such a misstep.
I can tell you now, I'm not a Trump supporter. I have no enthusiasm for Hillary, I'd vote for her but that's about it. I can see why Trump exists, he is a symptom of globalisation, high immigration, cultural deterioration and stagnating long term wages for the lower middle classes. He is not the cause of dysfunction in the US, Hillary and her ilk are. Until the Dems recognise this then someone like Trump will be back in 2020 even if they scrape a win this time. The US needs an economy that works for everyone, not one that works for the very rich, subsidises poverty and does nothing for millions of people who work hard, play by the rules and get shat on, just like those Ford workers who's jobs are about to be outsourced to Mexico, enabled by NAFTA.
O agree with most of what you just said, but the media in America played the Hillary falling down clip over and over again, so how can Ishmael claim that's biased reporting. Yes the New York and L.A based media are more liberal but the right has Fox news and a plethora of right wing media they don't really have a leg to stand on (pun not intended).
If that worked we would have perpetual Labour governments.
Except voters tend to be more likely to vote Tory the older they get
Partly that, but not the only factor in play. Life expectancy for Tory voters is longer, so the non-Tories tend to die off first. And people's political outlook is shaped during late teenage and early adulthood, which for the current elderly was at a time when the two-party system was at its peak.
True, though I would suggest LDs or Greens probably live the longest, as they are the most middle class parties and the most health conscious
I'm not devoted to anyone I'm just not a conspiracy theorist like many Trump supporters on here seem to be, support him if you want to but please drop the nutcase biased liberal media meme, anyone can make that claim doesn't mean its true.
The media in the US is massively liberal. Pointing that out doesn't make anyone a Trump supporter, but it does help understand what may be fuelling some of the injustice Trump supporters feel. The deplorables speech feeds into that as well, which is why it was such a misstep.
I can tell you now, I'm not a Trump supporter. I have no enthusiasm for Hillary, I'd vote for her but that's about it. I can see why Trump exists, he is a symptom of globalisation, high immigration, cultural deterioration and stagnating long term wages for the lower middle classes. He is not the cause of dysfunction in the US, Hillary and her ilk are. Until the Dems recognise this then someone like Trump will be back in 2020 even if they scrape a win this time. The US needs an economy that works for everyone, not one that works for the very rich, subsidises poverty and does nothing for millions of people who work hard, play by the rules and get shat on, just like those Ford workers who's jobs are about to be outsourced to Mexico, enabled by NAFTA.
O agree with most of what you just said, but the media in America played the Hillary falling down clip over and over again, so how can Ishmael claim that's biased reporting. Yes the New York and L.A based media are more liberal but the right has Fox news and a plethora of right wing media they don't really have a leg to stand on (pun not intended).
I support Hillary (not a USC yet, so can't vote for her) but without enthusiasm and because I think Trump would be dangerous as POTUS. My wife is a USC, and would always vote Democrat rather than Republican but she's not enthusiastic about Hillary either. Nonetheless, we both feel the media have given Trump pass after pass and Clinton none. It's unclear whether the media fear being called biased against Trump, or whether they fear sanctions from him if he does win and they've previously called him out on things.
Just watching an old Michael Palin show on travel channel made in 1997.
He is on the border between US and Mexico. Mile after mile of..er wall.
Who had been the pres for the previous 4 years.... one Bill Clinton
The whole "wall" thing is a ridiculous red herring. Firstly, as you say, because there is already a wall or fence for most of the border. Secondly, because most illegal immigrants don't cross the border that way. They get in their car, they drive to the border, they show their passport and their $10 tourist visa, and they say "No officer, I'm not coming to work, I'm just going to visit my cousin for his wedding. I'll be staying about a week." And then they forget to return.
I'm not devoted to anyone I'm just not a conspiracy theorist like many Trump supporters on here seem to be, support him if you want to but please drop the nutcase biased liberal media meme, anyone can make that claim doesn't mean its true.
The media in the US is massively liberal. Pointing that out doesn't make anyone a Trump supporter, but it does help understand what may be fuelling some of the injustice Trump supporters feel. The deplorables speech feeds into that as well, which is why it was such a misstep.
I can tell you now, I'm not a Trump supporter. I have no enthusiasm for Hillary, I'd vote for her but that's about it. I can see why Trump exists, he is a symptom of globalisation, high immigration, cultural deterioration and stagnating long term wages for the lower middle classes. He is not the cause of dysfunction in the US, Hillary and her ilk are. Until the Dems recognise this then someone like Trump will be back in 2020 even if they scrape a win this time. The US needs an economy that works for everyone, not one that works for the very rich, subsidises poverty and does nothing for millions of people who work hard, play by the rules and get shat on, just like those Ford workers who's jobs are about to be outsourced to Mexico, enabled by NAFTA.
O agree with most of what you just said, but the media in America played the Hillary falling down clip over and over again, so how can Ishmael claim that's biased reporting. Yes the New York and L.A based media are more liberal but the right has Fox news and a plethora of right wing media they don't really have a leg to stand on (pun not intended).
I support Hillary (not a USC yet, so can't vote for her) but without enthusiasm and because I think Trump would be dangerous as POTUS. My wife is a USC, and would always vote Democrat rather than Republican but she's not enthusiastic about Hillary either. Nonetheless, we both feel the media have given Trump pass after pass and Clinton none. It's unclear whether the media fear being called biased against Trump, or whether they fear sanctions from him if he does win and they've previously called him out on things.
Trump yanked the Washington Post's press credentials for accurately reporting why he said. The media are frightened of having their press pass taken away.
Clinton flies with the press corp, Trump flies alone yet it is Hilary that is 'inaccessible'
Just watching an old Michael Palin show on travel channel made in 1997.
He is on the border between US and Mexico. Mile after mile of..er wall.
Who had been the pres for the previous 4 years.... one Bill Clinton
The whole "wall" thing is a ridiculous red herring. Firstly, as you say, because there is already a wall or fence for most of the border. Secondly, because most illegal immigrants don't cross the border that way. They get in their car, they drive to the border, they show their passport and their $10 tourist visa, and they say "No officer, I'm not coming to work, I'm just going to visit my cousin for his wedding. I'll be staying about a week." And then they forget to return.
Not if Britain also proposes tariffs and trade barriers on German, French and Italian cars, French wine etc exported to the UK, which I think May will raise if she needs to. In her meetings with Merkel, Hollande and Renzi she cleverly explained exactly how many German, French and Italian jobs depend on goods sent to the UK
Anatole Kaletsky said the same thing last night. He thinks May's Government could fall c.2018-2019 on that basis.
Is there a man more consistently wrong than Anatole? I used to read him in the Times years ago and always thought Eh? at the end of his missives. He did fess up on retiring that he was an epically bad seer.
In which case we fulfil De Gaulle's prophecy and head for the "open sea ". If the article is halfway true it's a statement of how little ability they think they have to keep the EU together by consent: there's now some stick appearing - pour encourager les autres. In which case fuck 'em totally. I did not vote out to be bullied back in by a Continental Power. I'm not selling my soul for thirty pieces of silver.
Errrr... once Article 50 has been invoked, we'll be leaving in two years no matter how tough they are in negotiations.
Well quite. And even if that wasn't the case, displays of foot-stamping are likely to be met by an at least equal degree of truculence from the British side, which isn't going to help anybody involved.
For an organisation that is always talking of the need to avoid the disastrous mistakes of the past, the EU seems to have an extraordinary lack of understanding concerning how continental belligerency is liable to be treated by the British people. We have been through rather worse than being threatened with the loss of passporting rights for banks, and still extended the middle finger in the general direction of those doing the threatening.
Comments
Rotfl
http://dailym.ai/2cKTBbG
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-america-divided/milo-yiannopoulos/
To cap it off the only shift of any Tory voters has been to UKIP, who are even more pro grammar than the Tory Party!
As well as Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa (all of which have leads of 0.5 <- 2%) He needs Nevada (Clinton is ferrying millions of Democrats over from California to Campaign) and one from New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan, Virgina and Wisconsin.
Virginia had a Clinton lead of +3 with a recent poll
Wisconsin had a Clinton lead of +10 (Google) with a recent poll
Pennsylvania has had no recent polls - which I think is incredible
Colorado had a Clinton lead of +7 (Google)
Michigan had a Clinton lead of +4 (Google)
New Hampshire had a Clinton lead of +2 (net Trump +1) in a pre-Clinton Crash poll.
(We don't know of course how accurate Google is and there are a massive number of 'undecideds')
It would be ironic if the first state to hold Primaries provided the key to the Election.
There will be bumps along the way (and I suspect were heading for a harder Brexit than ideal for both sides at present given Juncker et al's need to stop the perceived rot unless hopefully calmer heads prevail), but sod 'em. I feel really even more comfortable with my vote on June 23rd than ever.
The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
It seems that in 1978 Carter terminated a defence treaty with Taiwan and got away with it.
And here is Carter explaining to Walter Cronkite why he thought he could get away with it.
Clinton 1.665
Trump 2.885
Poor old UKIP, their only taste of political prominence (& money) disappearing rapidly over the horizon.
At the debate, assuming Clinton will do 90 mins without dying, she will have demonstrated that 9/11 was a temporary thing and the polls will roll back to her.
Despite your denial to Sunil, I suspect you are a bit more invested in all this than I am.
Cholesterol 169: Good level <200 is target
HDL Cholesterol 63: Good level >60 is target
LDL Cholesterol 94: Good level <100 is target
Triglycerides 61 : Exceptionally low < 150 is target
PSA 0.15 Low (good): A value of 4 used to be trigger point
Blood pressure 116/70 : Not elevated
Blood Sugar 99: Well in the average range
Testosterone 441.6 : Below absolute average but in the average range.
Calcium Score of 98: mild (just) evidence of CAT.
NB I am NOT a doctor, this info is gleaned from the www so DYOR.
Tell that to the relatives of the 2,996 souls wot perished that day!
Breitbart gets 31 million unique hits. That's a lot of anarchists.
Meanwhile the economist is at Waterloo station trying to drum up interest.
The publications that are calling others anarchists and extremists are becoming less mainstream. They are becoming marginalised. They are the ones that are moving to the edges.
I can tell you now, I'm not a Trump supporter. I have no enthusiasm for Hillary, I'd vote for her but that's about it. I can see why Trump exists, he is a symptom of globalisation, high immigration, cultural deterioration and stagnating long term wages for the lower middle classes. He is not the cause of dysfunction in the US, Hillary and her ilk are. Until the Dems recognise this then someone like Trump will be back in 2020 even if they scrape a win this time. The US needs an economy that works for everyone, not one that works for the very rich, subsidises poverty and does nothing for millions of people who work hard, play by the rules and get shat on, just like those Ford workers who's jobs are about to be outsourced to Mexico, enabled by NAFTA.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/rosamund-urwin-brexit-limbo-is-a-further-insult-to-britain-s-youth-a3345806.html
Pneumonia is curable with antibiotics and consistent with symptoms demonstrated by HRC. Trouble is, you can only change the official line a couple of times before even the truth becomes worthless.
For all the chatter of Trumps pending death and conspiracy theories to that effect, only one presidential candidate has been videoed incapable of standing unsupported, then collapsing moments before being thrown into a vehicle and driven off, leaving her footwear lying in the gutter. Ill health may not necessarily damage a candidates chances of winning, however being dishonest about it and then forced to admit the truth will damage their chances.
The last might be significant if Trump won because he is a better outsider than Ted Cruz, if he has taken the NOTA mantle from the batshit-crazy tea partiers.
When viewing polls on 538 on each state note that the last 10 polls are now being sorted by weight rather than date.
He is on the border between US and Mexico. Mile after mile of..er wall.
Who had been the pres for the previous 4 years.... one Bill Clinton
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790772/Now-EU-chief-Jean-Claude-Juncker-blames-Brexit-40-years-lies-British-politicians-declares-wrong-Britain.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/15/eu-officials-believe-britain-will-give-up-on-brexit-if-they-make/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3791392/My-father-encouraged-aim-high-Theresa-reveals-vicar-father-inspired-ignore-boundaries-No-10.html
Clinton flies with the press corp, Trump flies alone yet it is Hilary that is 'inaccessible'
For an organisation that is always talking of the need to avoid the disastrous mistakes of the past, the EU seems to have an extraordinary lack of understanding concerning how continental belligerency is liable to be treated by the British people. We have been through rather worse than being threatened with the loss of passporting rights for banks, and still extended the middle finger in the general direction of those doing the threatening.