Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With polls tightening & the betting moves to Trump tonight’

SystemSystem Posts: 11,711
edited September 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » With polls tightening & the betting moves to Trump tonight’s PB/Polling Matters TV Show/Podcast returns to WH2016

Joining Keiran (on the programme is the Politco polling analyst, Steven Shepard (@POLITICO_Steve) and Federica Cocco (@federicacocco) statistical journalist at the Financial Times in the UK.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,018
    Second like Hillary!
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    FPT: It's possible to overthink these things. I voted for the UK to withdraw from the political structures of the EU as they are no longer fit for purpose.
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,930
    Back of The Thread?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,010
    I'm not even sure Hillary should be the favourite any more - that Colorado poll is a humdinger (And hardly an outlier now)
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    What happened to all the people who said Trump didn't stand a chance?
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    GIN1138 said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Perhaps a PB doctor can comment here, another doctor has a few issues with Hillary's health report

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/09/15/hillarys-health-report-full-holes-doctor-claims-took-test-not-exist-390810

    I'm not a doctor but I struggle to believe Hillary has got (had?) pneumonia.

    I've seen people with pneumonia a few times in my life and the patient will be very, very unwell for several days and generally ill for weeks afterwards.

    Mother had it in June 2003 and September 2003 she was still trying to get better...

    The way she scooted up those airplane steps, waving at the camera's as she did so, she did NOT look like someone getting over a serious, potentially life-threatening lung infection....
    The CT scan describes a lobar pneumonia.

    Sounds pretty likely to me, whatever else is going on. Indeed mobilising too soon would make anyone susceptible to fainting.
    And the blue lens glasses?
  • Options
    GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,930
    edited September 2016
    FPT

    GIN1138 said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Perhaps a PB doctor can comment here, another doctor has a few issues with Hillary's health report

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/09/15/hillarys-health-report-full-holes-doctor-claims-took-test-not-exist-390810

    I'm not a doctor but I struggle to believe Hillary has got (had?) pneumonia.

    I've seen people with pneumonia a few times in my life and the patient will be very, very unwell for several days and generally ill for weeks afterwards.

    Mother had it in June 2003 and September 2003 she was still trying to get better...

    The way she scooted up those airplane steps, waving at the camera's as she did so, she did NOT look like someone getting over a serious, potentially life-threatening lung infection....
    The CT scan describes a lobar pneumonia.

    Sounds pretty likely to me, whatever else is going on. Indeed mobilising too soon would make anyone susceptible to fainting.
    Well I defer to your better judgement Dr Fox In Ox.

    The way she looks, speaks, walks briskly, etc. Looks utterly unlike anybody with pneumonia I've ever seen but you know better than me.
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Nonsense IMO. Most people are in favour Anglosphere-style libertarianism and against European statism.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,634
    Pulpstar said:

    I'm not even sure Hillary should be the favourite any more - that Colorado poll is a humdinger (And hardly an outlier now)

    Hmm, I've read elsewhere that it is a landline only poll.
  • Options
    MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    I'm not even sure Hillary should be the favourite any more - that Colorado poll is a humdinger (And hardly an outlier now)

    Hmm, I've read elsewhere that it is a landline only poll.
    I imagine there are quite a few shy Trumpers.
  • Options
    AndyJS said:

    Nonsense IMO. Most people are in favour Anglosphere-style libertarianism and against European statism.
    'Most' people?

    Brexit was the wrong decision made for the wrong reasons. The kind of liberal free-trading outlook you support has few better allies in the world than the EU.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,189
    AndyJS said:

    Nonsense IMO. Most people are in favour Anglosphere-style libertarianism and against European statism.
    A possible Trump win and Brexit are certainly not votes for libertarianism (indeed a libertarian candidate is even running against Trump), they are largely votes by the white working and lower middle class against immigration and free trade which they believe are now working against their own interests and in favour only of the wealthy and big corporations
  • Options

    AndyJS said:

    Nonsense IMO. Most people are in favour Anglosphere-style libertarianism and against European statism.
    'Most' people?

    Brexit was the wrong decision made for the wrong reasons. The kind of liberal free-trading outlook you support has few better allies in the world than the EU.
    What?
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Number Cruncher
    Tonight's local by-elections include some interesting places... https://t.co/YnZdnwgWst https://t.co/6N3P499T3W
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    AndyJS said:

    What happened to all the people who said Trump didn't stand a chance?

    Interestingly - the 5 good polls for Trump (reducing Clinton's average lead to 1.1) have reduced his chance of winning! I can only think that 538 have changed their methodology.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,005
    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,189
    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
  • Options
    Apologies ! I didn't intend to subvert the thread back to Brexit. Though of course posting that article at the beginning was only going to do just that ! Apologies.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,005
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
  • Options

    Apologies ! I didn't intend to subvert the thread back to Brexit. Though of course posting that article at the beginning was only going to do just that ! Apologies.

    Trump is 'Mr Brexit' after all even though most of the Brexiteers on here are horrified by the association...
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,154
    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Seems to me Kaine could sink Clinton's campaign by landing her in it on what he knew when. Now, what could the Democrats possibly have to gain from him doing that...?
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited September 2016
    Somebody backed Michelle Obama 4 POTUS @ 199/1

    And there was me thinking I got a good deal, laying her @ 1000

    #puntersregrets
  • Options
    @John_M Yes. It's the " End of History " thing of saying X means the end/begining of the Age of Y/Aquarius/Robots etc. I did it myself last night comparing 2016 to 1979. Thatcher/Iran/Afghanistan.
  • Options
    MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Shifty, very shifty.

    Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
  • Options

    Apologies ! I didn't intend to subvert the thread back to Brexit. Though of course posting that article at the beginning was only going to do just that ! Apologies.

    Trump is 'Mr Brexit' after all even though most of the Brexiteers on here are horrified by the association...
    I'm not horrified; it's apparent that one of the drivers of Brexit was nationalism even though that faction isn't very well represented on here. But we can have a liberal Brexit; can we have a liberal President Trump?

    (FWIW, I'm sure he'd be a more responsible President than some fear. But his dishonest and demagogic campaign really shouldn't be rewarded.)
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,665
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    It's a revolt against the idea that the "lower orders" are interchangeable. By the interchanged. Sadly, they don't seem enthused by the idea that the new upper 10,000 regard them openly as contemptible.
  • Options
    MP_SE said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Shifty, very shifty.

    Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
    What do you mean "comes across as"...
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693

    MP_SE said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Shifty, very shifty.

    Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
    What do you mean "comes across as"...
    And Trump doesn't?
  • Options
    @AndyJS The council estates of say Doncaster didn't vote for Leave in support of " Anglosphere Libertarianism " whatever that is. They appear to have voted for a racially homogenous version of European Statism. More council housing, a better resourced NHS, more heavy industry with it's unionisation and stability. Leave seemed to have mobilised the ' Red UKIP ' vote far more effectively than UKIP themselves ever have.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,302
    edited September 2016
    Pong said:

    MP_SE said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Shifty, very shifty.

    Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
    What do you mean "comes across as"...
    And Trump doesn't?
    With Trump the game is to spot the true statements, not the lies...its quite a difficult game.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,189
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,665
    Pong said:

    MP_SE said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Shifty, very shifty.

    Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
    What do you mean "comes across as"...
    And Trump doesn't?
    It is unfair - but Clinton reminds me of Nixon at the end. Can't tell the truth without looking shifty. Trump - well, he is a blowhard. You don't expect him to channel Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr...
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,189

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    It's a revolt against the idea that the "lower orders" are interchangeable. By the interchanged. Sadly, they don't seem enthused by the idea that the new upper 10,000 regard them openly as contemptible.
    Indeed, though the upper 10,000 are lucky they can take their revolt at the ballot box rather than through the guillotine or the firing squad and labour camp as happened in France and Russia in centuries past
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner?selectionName=donald-trump

    You can get 7/4 or 15/8 on The Donald. Which can't be too bad on a 40% chance of winning

    (Am I right here: You gain 2.8 and lose 2.4 or gain 6 and lose 4.8?)
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    weejonnie said:

    AndyJS said:

    What happened to all the people who said Trump didn't stand a chance?

    Interestingly - the 5 good polls for Trump (reducing Clinton's average lead to 1.1) have reduced his chance of winning! I can only think that 538 have changed their methodology.
    It's their special 'change the polling aggregation score using unique weighting index to keep Hillary winning' model
  • Options
    @Sean_F @WilliamGlenn Agreed. I understand why an economic liberal could want to leave the EU. How any economic liberal could vote Leave after the campaign and it became clear what sort of cultural phenomenon it was was a beyond me. I fear the Hannan wing of Brexiters will find themselves as Dr Frankenstein on this. Though I accept it's too early to tell.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    PlatoSaid said:

    weejonnie said:

    AndyJS said:

    What happened to all the people who said Trump didn't stand a chance?

    Interestingly - the 5 good polls for Trump (reducing Clinton's average lead to 1.1) have reduced his chance of winning! I can only think that 538 have changed their methodology.
    It's their special 'change the polling aggregation score using unique weighting index to keep Hillary winning' model
    Or, to be charitable, it could just be a quirk of their Monte-Carlo simulation. Unusual results will happen. (There is a very large peak at Clinton wins 271/272 votes)
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    I see free movement of capital, goods and services as totally different to free movement of people.

    Why so many others do not, baffles me.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    @John_M Yes. It's the " End of History " thing of saying X means the end/begining of the Age of Y/Aquarius/Robots etc. I did it myself last night comparing 2016 to 1979. Thatcher/Iran/Afghanistan.

    I'm sufficiently jaded that I don't think Brexit signifies any great division or watershed.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,005
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
    Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,665
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    It's a revolt against the idea that the "lower orders" are interchangeable. By the interchanged. Sadly, they don't seem enthused by the idea that the new upper 10,000 regard them openly as contemptible.
    Indeed, though the upper 10,000 are lucky they can take their revolt at the ballot box rather than through the guillotine or the firing squad and labour camp as happened in France and Russia in centuries past
    This lot have the arrogant disdain that rather reminds me of the Marquis de Maynes in the film Scaramouche. They enjoy their hatred and their contempt
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Nationalism has been corrupted.

    It means a belief in the nation state, but, nowadays, is too often used as shorthand for being a fascist.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
    Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
    Very few Whigs would have supported global open borders and free movement of people.

    If they did, they would have meant for people like them, not the masses.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    MP_SE said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Shifty, very shifty.

    Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
    I follow several in her press pool and watched a lot of her event clips - she's just awfully mechanical on stage. No warmth at all. Trump has his braggart faults, but he seems body temperature at least.

    Regarding the question of voting Trump vs Hillary - I'd vote Trump. What he says vs what he sticks with are two very different things. He's a NY liberal sort playing to the gallery IMO. He gets populism and riding the wave.

    I find everything about Hillary totally repellent - a liar, crook and machine politician. If she hadn't been married to the phenomenon that was Bill, she'd never get a look in. She's Cherie Blair with knob on.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,811
    It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.

    The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited September 2016
    The Telegraph list the "main players" in the US presidential election as follows:

    Donald Trump, 70
    Hillary Clinton, 68
    Bernie Sanders, 75
    Tim Kaine, 58

    Are they trying to tell us something?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,189
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
    Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
    They did but they supported trade and prosperity first. Nationalists since the early 20th century believe in building up national industries and restricting access of foreign industries to the domestic market and in their most extreme form racial purity and military conquest too
  • Options
    PlatoSaid said:

    weejonnie said:

    AndyJS said:

    What happened to all the people who said Trump didn't stand a chance?

    Interestingly - the 5 good polls for Trump (reducing Clinton's average lead to 1.1) have reduced his chance of winning! I can only think that 538 have changed their methodology.
    It's their special 'change the polling aggregation score using unique weighting index to keep Hillary winning' model
    Any similarity to populus?
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
    Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
    When nation states were a novel concept, nationalists were more likely to be the kind of people who are now behind the EU project.

    It was a unifying, organising force to bring together disparate groups under a common system of government at a higher level than had previously been the case.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,189

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    It's a revolt against the idea that the "lower orders" are interchangeable. By the interchanged. Sadly, they don't seem enthused by the idea that the new upper 10,000 regard them openly as contemptible.
    Indeed, though the upper 10,000 are lucky they can take their revolt at the ballot box rather than through the guillotine or the firing squad and labour camp as happened in France and Russia in centuries past
    This lot have the arrogant disdain that rather reminds me of the Marquis de Maynes in the film Scaramouche. They enjoy their hatred and their contempt
    Indeed, Mandelson, Juncker and Osborne all play the role well
  • Options
    PlatoSaid said:

    MP_SE said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Shifty, very shifty.

    Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
    I follow several in her press pool and watched a lot of her event clips - she's just awfully mechanical on stage. No warmth at all. Trump has his braggart faults, but he seems body temperature at least.

    Regarding the question of voting Trump vs Hillary - I'd vote Trump. What he says vs what he sticks with are two very different things. He's a NY liberal sort playing to the gallery IMO. He gets populism and riding the wave.

    I find everything about Hillary totally repellent - a liar, crook and machine politician. If she hadn't been married to the phenomenon that was Bill, she'd never get a look in. She's Cherie Blair with knob on.
    Good way of putting it.

    A British comparison might be Cherie Blair as Labour leader versus Nigel Farage as Tory leader.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Nationalism has been corrupted.

    It means a belief in the nation state, but, nowadays, is too often used as shorthand for being a fascist.
    Quite.
  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2016/09/15/donald_trump_foreign_policy_right_economy_112046.html

    Worth a read, IMHO...

    "The manufacturing and technology sectors are incredibly important industries to U.S. power and prestige in Trump’s view. Regaining America’s place as a heavy manufacturing leader is paramount for Trump. Renegotiating trade deals or effectively enforcing them to protect American competitiveness is necessary to reversing the relative decline of U.S. industry and the leakage of jobs overseas."

    Hypothetical: UK is single largest foreign direct investor to US, a reliable ally with a conservative leader, and not a threat to Trump's vision. TTIP (and CETA) both founder. Trump seeks renegotiation of NAFTA, to reduce leakage of jobs to Mexico. UK invited to negotiating table. UK joins NAFTA.

    Likely just a wild speculation on my part, but the first necessary prerequisite - a Trump victory - should, as things stand, come as no great surprise to anyone.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,665

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
    Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
    Very few Whigs would have supported global open borders and free movement of people.

    If they did, they would have meant for people like them, not the masses.
    Classical liberalism also understood the concept of progressing towards an eventual goal. Free movement of people between areas of equal economic and social development is a very different thing to importing cheap labour on a vast scale.

    It often seems to me that the where the EU went mad was in 1989 - the fall of communism inspired a bunch of old politicians that they could achieve their goal of the United States of Europe in a few short years, rather than generations.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited September 2016
    FPT

    PlatoSaid said:

    GIN1138 said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Perhaps a PB doctor can comment here, another doctor has a few issues with Hillary's health report

    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/09/15/hillarys-health-report-full-holes-doctor-claims-took-test-not-exist-390810

    I'm not a doctor but I struggle to believe Hillary has got (had?) pneumonia.

    I've seen people with pneumonia a few times in my life and the patient will be very, very unwell for several days and generally ill for weeks afterwards.

    Mother had it in June 2003 and September 2003 she was still trying to get better...

    The way she scooted up those airplane steps, waving at the camera's as she did so, she did NOT look like someone getting over a serious, potentially life-threatening lung infection....
    The CT scan describes a lobar pneumonia.

    Sounds pretty likely to me, whatever else is going on. Indeed mobilising too soon would make anyone susceptible to fainting.
    And the blue lens glasses?
    I suspect her eyes were a bit sore and red so she wore them as cover.

    If she had photosensitive epilepsy as some are claiming then having flashguns going off in her face would set it off, and with all those photographers taking pictures it would be bleeding obvious.. Tinted glasses do not protect against it, neither do they benefit Parkinsons.

    Watch her convention speech. She walks steadily with no festinent gait, she initiates movements easily, turns easily, stops easily, no tremor, no bradykinesia. Full range of facial movement etc etc.

    https://youtu.be/pnXiy4D_I8g

    No sign of parkinsons at all. Unless of course the Lizards are using a holographic representation as part of their plan for world domination.

    Tinfoil sales are outdoing popcorn at the moment!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,189

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    I see free movement of capital, goods and services as totally different to free movement of people.

    Why so many others do not, baffles me.
    However many Trump and Brexit backers do not. Working class voters in Ohio and the Black Country would be quite happy to have tariffs on imports from Mexico and China (indeed Farage made the argument the EU prevented restrictions being made on cheap Chinese goods)
  • Options
    perdixperdix Posts: 1,806

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
    Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
    When nation states were a novel concept, nationalists were more likely to be the kind of people who are now behind the EU project.

    It was a unifying, organising force to bring together disparate groups under a common system of government at a higher level than had previously been the case.
    You don't become a great "nation state" by subcontracting your law making a la EU.

  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,811
    Pong said:

    MP_SE said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Shifty, very shifty.

    Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
    What do you mean "comes across as"...
    And Trump doesn't?
    There is much cognitive dissonance about Trump's dishonesty. While Clinton is less than frank about her email arrangements and health, Trump openly admits to having bribed officials but claims that makes him supremely qualified to be the biggest official of them all.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @MrHarryCole: MPs to debate recommissioning Britannia for Brexit trade talks next month: https://t.co/AfTmdV9JCE
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Nationalism has been corrupted.

    It means a belief in the nation state, but, nowadays, is too often used as shorthand for being a fascist.
    It came out of philology.

    Etymologically nation has to do with birth, and the idea that that principally means where you are born, rather than your ethnolinguistic family background, is very new even in most of the places where it's evident - and in much of the world, it isn't even evident.
  • Options
    FF43 said:

    Pong said:

    MP_SE said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Shifty, very shifty.

    Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
    What do you mean "comes across as"...
    And Trump doesn't?
    There is much cognitive dissonance about Trump's dishonesty. While Clinton is less than frank about her email arrangements and health, Trump openly admits to having bribed officials but claims that makes him supremely qualified to be the biggest official of them all.
    "less than frank"...that is certainly one way of putting it.

    Both have been caught out telling untruths on an epic scale, the problem for the American people is it is one or the other.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,665
    FF43 said:

    It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.

    The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
    Yes, it is quite clear that Australia doesn't exist -

    1) Only countries that accept unrestricted immigration can succeed.
    2) Only countries in the EU can succeed.
    3) Australia is successful, restricts immigration and isn't in the EU. And isn't a Nazi hellhole...
    4) It's supposed to be a law abiding country founded by importing criminals, and they are supposed to have a mammal with the body of a beaver, the mouth of a duck. Which lays eggs...

    Yes, it is high time to put an end to the Australia story. Nonsense for children....
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    I see free movement of capital, goods and services as totally different to free movement of people.

    Why so many others do not, baffles me.
    However many Trump and Brexit backers do not. Working class voters in Ohio and the Black Country would be quite happy to have tariffs on imports from Mexico and China (indeed Farage made the argument the EU prevented restrictions being made on cheap Chinese goods)
    RCS is right. The probability of an international trade war brought on by Trumpism and Brexitism is quite high.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Scott_P said:

    @MrHarryCole: MPs to debate recommissioning Britannia for Brexit trade talks next month: https://t.co/AfTmdV9JCE

    I hated Blair for that - Britannia was a great emblem, bring her back.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    I see free movement of capital, goods and services as totally different to free movement of people.

    Why so many others do not, baffles me.
    However many Trump and Brexit backers do not. Working class voters in Ohio and the Black Country would be quite happy to have tariffs on imports from Mexico and China (indeed Farage made the argument the EU prevented restrictions being made on cheap Chinese goods)
    I think in America, protectionism is strong.

    In the UK, I don't think that's the case, but we are pragmatic and know dud ideological dogma when we see it. Particularly when it's fashionable on the continent.

    The almost theological worship of unadulterated free movement is that dogma today.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    RCS is right. The probability of an international trade war brought on by Trumpism and Brexitism is quite high.

    https://twitter.com/rupertmyers/status/776530081141387264
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    PlatoSaid said:

    Scott_P said:

    @MrHarryCole: MPs to debate recommissioning Britannia for Brexit trade talks next month: https://t.co/AfTmdV9JCE

    I hated Blair for that - Britannia was a great emblem, bring her back.
    Scott_P said:

    @MrHarryCole: MPs to debate recommissioning Britannia for Brexit trade talks next month: https://t.co/AfTmdV9JCE

    Pathetic
  • Options
    Scott_P said:

    @MrHarryCole: MPs to debate recommissioning Britannia for Brexit trade talks next month: https://t.co/AfTmdV9JCE

    I can only manage a weary ffs.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,130

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
    Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
    Very few Whigs would have supported global open borders and free movement of people.

    If they did, they would have meant for people like them, not the masses.
    I don't think that's true. The UK - unlike France, or Spain for example - had a genuinely open door policy for immigration in the 19th Century.

    There were staggering proportions (around a third IIRC) of some countries that emigrated in the 19th Century - mostly to the US.
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited September 2016
    FF43 said:

    Pong said:

    MP_SE said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Shifty, very shifty.

    Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
    What do you mean "comes across as"...
    And Trump doesn't?
    There is much cognitive dissonance about Trump's dishonesty. While Clinton is less than frank about her email arrangements and health, Trump openly admits to having bribed officials but claims that makes him supremely qualified to be the biggest official of them all.
    Trump has even boasted that he could be the first presidential candidate who will make money out of running for president. It doesn't harm him. He is a master at working a crowd. Look how he does it when he gets his medical papers out on Mehmet Oz's show. His style of delivery is similar to how he presents himself in professional wrestling. This guy is a brand - a pantomime performer, and brilliant at it.

  • Options
    MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    There is no doubt in my mind. As well as a cold winter, Trump will be wearing thick gloves at his inauguration. ;)
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    History
    TV Commercial for the Sony Betamax VCR #2 - 1977. https://t.co/tPZSDtlMVP

    :smiley:
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    FF43 said:

    It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.

    The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
    Yes, it is quite clear that Australia doesn't exist -

    1) Only countries that accept unrestricted immigration can succeed.
    2) Only countries in the EU can succeed.
    3) Australia is successful, restricts immigration and isn't in the EU. And isn't a Nazi hellhole...
    4) It's supposed to be a law abiding country founded by importing criminals, and they are supposed to have a mammal with the body of a beaver, the mouth of a duck. Which lays eggs...

    Yes, it is high time to put an end to the Australia story. Nonsense for children....
    Australia has the highest percentage of residents born overseas of all the OECD countries, and continues to have per capita immigration at twice the rate that we have had over the last two decades. By 2030 the population is projected to have doubled over 40 years as a result of migrants and their descendants.

    Whatever makes Oz successful (mostly a commodity driven economy and immigration in my view) it is not the example of restricting immigration that you are looking for. Japan may be a better choice as an example of a country unsullied by immigrants.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,189

    http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2016/09/15/donald_trump_foreign_policy_right_economy_112046.html

    Worth a read, IMHO...

    "The manufacturing and technology sectors are incredibly important industries to U.S. power and prestige in Trump’s view. Regaining America’s place as a heavy manufacturing leader is paramount for Trump. Renegotiating trade deals or effectively enforcing them to protect American competitiveness is necessary to reversing the relative decline of U.S. industry and the leakage of jobs overseas."

    Hypothetical: UK is single largest foreign direct investor to US, a reliable ally with a conservative leader, and not a threat to Trump's vision. TTIP (and CETA) both founder. Trump seeks renegotiation of NAFTA, to reduce leakage of jobs to Mexico. UK invited to negotiating table. UK joins NAFTA.

    Likely just a wild speculation on my part, but the first necessary prerequisite - a Trump victory - should, as things stand, come as no great surprise to anyone.

    Mexico and Canada would also have to agree, if Trump gets in more likely NAFTA collapses
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,130
    PlatoSaid said:

    MP_SE said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Shifty, very shifty.

    Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
    I follow several in her press pool and watched a lot of her event clips - she's just awfully mechanical on stage. No warmth at all. Trump has his braggart faults, but he seems body temperature at least.

    Regarding the question of voting Trump vs Hillary - I'd vote Trump. What he says vs what he sticks with are two very different things. He's a NY liberal sort playing to the gallery IMO. He gets populism and riding the wave.

    I find everything about Hillary totally repellent - a liar, crook and machine politician. If she hadn't been married to the phenomenon that was Bill, she'd never get a look in. She's Cherie Blair with knob on.
    So, you'd vote for Trump over Hillary because you hope he's a liar.
  • Options
    welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
    Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
    When nation states were a novel concept, nationalists were more likely to be the kind of people who are now behind the EU project.

    It was a unifying, organising force to bring together disparate groups under a common system of government at a higher level than had previously been the case.
    But what if the people didn't actually want it?
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
    Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
    Very few Whigs would have supported global open borders and free movement of people.

    If they did, they would have meant for people like them, not the masses.
    I don't think that's true. The UK - unlike France, or Spain for example - had a genuinely open door policy for immigration in the 19th Century.

    There were staggering proportions (around a third IIRC) of some countries that emigrated in the 19th Century - mostly to the US.
    Perhaps, but almost unthinkingly and de jure was different to de facto. In those days, only the very wealthy could travel regularly, and the poor that did generally only emigrated from the UK, one way, and did so permanently.

    Had hundreds of thousands of poor Chinese or Indians made their way into the UK as immigrants, the rules would have been tightened, by the Whigs, very quickly.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,189

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    I see free movement of capital, goods and services as totally different to free movement of people.

    Why so many others do not, baffles me.
    However many Trump and Brexit backers do not. Working class voters in Ohio and the Black Country would be quite happy to have tariffs on imports from Mexico and China (indeed Farage made the argument the EU prevented restrictions being made on cheap Chinese goods)
    RCS is right. The probability of an international trade war brought on by Trumpism and Brexitism is quite high.
    If Trump wins and both come to pass it is almost a certainty
  • Options
    PlatoSaid said:

    Scott_P said:

    @MrHarryCole: MPs to debate recommissioning Britannia for Brexit trade talks next month: https://t.co/AfTmdV9JCE

    I hated Blair for that - Britannia was a great emblem, bring her back.
    Blair's damage goes all the way back to 2nd May 1997.
  • Options
    Well if it doesn't work out for Trump, he can always release a New Year exercise video...swing yourself fit.
  • Options
    welshowl said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
    Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
    When nation states were a novel concept, nationalists were more likely to be the kind of people who are now behind the EU project.

    It was a unifying, organising force to bring together disparate groups under a common system of government at a higher level than had previously been the case.
    But what if the people didn't actually want it?
    As long as they are in a democracy they can make their voice heard in various ways like voting for separatists.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,189

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    I see free movement of capital, goods and services as totally different to free movement of people.

    Why so many others do not, baffles me.
    However many Trump and Brexit backers do not. Working class voters in Ohio and the Black Country would be quite happy to have tariffs on imports from Mexico and China (indeed Farage made the argument the EU prevented restrictions being made on cheap Chinese goods)
    I think in America, protectionism is strong.

    In the UK, I don't think that's the case, but we are pragmatic and know dud ideological dogma when we see it. Particularly when it's fashionable on the continent.

    The almost theological worship of unadulterated free movement is that dogma today.
    Immigration is the biggest concern on both sides of the Atlantic but cheap foreign goods and offshoring of manufacturing jobs is also a concern too
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,811
    edited September 2016

    FF43 said:

    It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.

    The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
    Yes, it is quite clear that Australia doesn't exist -

    1) Only countries that accept unrestricted immigration can succeed.
    2) Only countries in the EU can succeed.
    3) Australia is successful, restricts immigration and isn't in the EU. And isn't a Nazi hellhole...
    4) It's supposed to be a law abiding country founded by importing criminals, and they are supposed to have a mammal with the body of a beaver, the mouth of a duck. Which lays eggs...

    Yes, it is high time to put an end to the Australia story. Nonsense for children....
    To be clear, I voted Remain. I understand - I think - why people voted Leave even if I believe their reasons to be counter-productive.

    Australia has higher immigration than the UK does in the EU. And I don't believe most people do make the distinction between "controlled" but higher immigration and "out of control" but actually lower immigration. They see the people on their streets.

    And, PS, Australia also has politicians who claim Australia is being swamped by immigration. You don't need the EU as a bogeyman for that.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,375



    A British comparison might be Cherie Blair as Labour leader versus Nigel Farage as Tory leader.

    Gets the flavour right. How would you vote?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,130

    FF43 said:

    It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.

    The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
    Yes, it is quite clear that Australia doesn't exist -

    1) Only countries that accept unrestricted immigration can succeed.
    2) Only countries in the EU can succeed.
    3) Australia is successful, restricts immigration and isn't in the EU. And isn't a Nazi hellhole...
    4) It's supposed to be a law abiding country founded by importing criminals, and they are supposed to have a mammal with the body of a beaver, the mouth of a duck. Which lays eggs...

    Yes, it is high time to put an end to the Australia story. Nonsense for children....
    85% of Australia's exports are raw materials. I'm not sure that's a model we can follow.

    http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/aus/all/show/2012/
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    rcs1000 said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    MP_SE said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Shifty, very shifty.

    Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
    I follow several in her press pool and watched a lot of her event clips - she's just awfully mechanical on stage. No warmth at all. Trump has his braggart faults, but he seems body temperature at least.

    Regarding the question of voting Trump vs Hillary - I'd vote Trump. What he says vs what he sticks with are two very different things. He's a NY liberal sort playing to the gallery IMO. He gets populism and riding the wave.

    I find everything about Hillary totally repellent - a liar, crook and machine politician. If she hadn't been married to the phenomenon that was Bill, she'd never get a look in. She's Cherie Blair with knob on.
    So, you'd vote for Trump over Hillary because you hope he's a liar.
    Also known as the David Frum endorsement of Mitt Romeny.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,925
    rcs1000 said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    MP_SE said:

    PlatoSaid said:

    Ruby Cramer
    Clinton skirts two questions about when Kaine knew about the diagnosis. Her answers here: https://t.co/9c3q9pd7Hr

    She sounds like a robot

    Shifty, very shifty.

    Clinton comes across as a pathological liar.
    I follow several in her press pool and watched a lot of her event clips - she's just awfully mechanical on stage. No warmth at all. Trump has his braggart faults, but he seems body temperature at least.

    Regarding the question of voting Trump vs Hillary - I'd vote Trump. What he says vs what he sticks with are two very different things. He's a NY liberal sort playing to the gallery IMO. He gets populism and riding the wave.

    I find everything about Hillary totally repellent - a liar, crook and machine politician. If she hadn't been married to the phenomenon that was Bill, she'd never get a look in. She's Cherie Blair with knob on.
    So, you'd vote for Trump over Hillary because you hope he's a liar.
    It's staggering to me the level of support for Trump on this forum.
    Brexit i could understand- but struggling to see any redeeming features for Trump.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,130

    http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2016/09/15/donald_trump_foreign_policy_right_economy_112046.html

    Worth a read, IMHO...

    "The manufacturing and technology sectors are incredibly important industries to U.S. power and prestige in Trump’s view. Regaining America’s place as a heavy manufacturing leader is paramount for Trump. Renegotiating trade deals or effectively enforcing them to protect American competitiveness is necessary to reversing the relative decline of U.S. industry and the leakage of jobs overseas."

    Hypothetical: UK is single largest foreign direct investor to US, a reliable ally with a conservative leader, and not a threat to Trump's vision. TTIP (and CETA) both founder. Trump seeks renegotiation of NAFTA, to reduce leakage of jobs to Mexico. UK invited to negotiating table. UK joins NAFTA.

    Likely just a wild speculation on my part, but the first necessary prerequisite - a Trump victory - should, as things stand, come as no great surprise to anyone.

    NAFTA does involve some very serious diminution of sovereignty, though. (Not an EU scale, but certainly more than EFTA/EEA.) So, for example, a US ISDS tribunal (with its holding held in secret) was able to overturn a ban on GMOs by the State of Quebec.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,130
    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.

    The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
    Yes, it is quite clear that Australia doesn't exist -

    1) Only countries that accept unrestricted immigration can succeed.
    2) Only countries in the EU can succeed.
    3) Australia is successful, restricts immigration and isn't in the EU. And isn't a Nazi hellhole...
    4) It's supposed to be a law abiding country founded by importing criminals, and they are supposed to have a mammal with the body of a beaver, the mouth of a duck. Which lays eggs...

    Yes, it is high time to put an end to the Australia story. Nonsense for children....
    To be clear, I voted Remain. I understand - I think - why people voted Leave even if I believe their reasons to be counter-productive.

    Australia has higher immigration than the UK does in the EU. And I don't believe most people do make the distinction between "controlled" but higher immigration and "out of control" but actually lower immigration. They see the people on their streets.

    And, PS, Australia also has politicians who claim Australia is being swamped by immigration. You don't need the EU as a bogeyman for that.
    Also, of course, there is freedom of labour between Australia and New Zealand.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    David Martosko
    ProTip: Don't run to the bathroom during a @HillaryClinton press availability. It'll be over before you flush.

    Again she did a whole four questions, it's a box tick nothing more.
  • Options
    John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited September 2016
    Discussions on immigration that spiral in on Australia are like discussions on health care that inevitably spiral in on the USA. Tedious.

    The UK has a complex economy, far higher population density and will require an appropriately complex system.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,925



    A British comparison might be Cherie Blair as Labour leader versus Nigel Farage as Tory leader.

    Gets the flavour right. How would you vote?
    I 100℅ believe Nigel Farage thought Brexit was good for country. Trump does not even see this as a consideration... Its all about him.

  • Options
    welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    welshowl said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    It's a revolt against a particular form of liberalism, one that sees internationalism and the free movement of people and capital as the way forward, rather than a revolt against liberalism more generally.
    It is a resurrection of nationalism above all! That is what links Trump, Brexit, Le Pen and Putin
    Nationalism was a core component of classical liberalism.
    Classical liberalism supports free trade and laissez-faire, nationalism is generally associated with protectionism and state interventionism in the economy when required
    Classical liberalism was about much more than economics. The Whigs saw nation states as good things.
    When nation states were a novel concept, nationalists were more likely to be the kind of people who are now behind the EU project.

    It was a unifying, organising force to bring together disparate groups under a common system of government at a higher level than had previously been the case.
    But what if the people didn't actually want it?
    As long as they are in a democracy they can make their voice heard in various ways like voting for separatists.
    Problem was we were denied any vote on the EU ( and its various predecessors and treaties) for 42 years. The Blair/Brown Govts promised us a vote and then fled from the judgement of the people (do you think they thought they'd lose perchance?) on the Giscardian constitution/Lisbon treaty.

    Eventually democracy has (hopefully) prevailed after a govt was coralled by a combination of accident and design into giving democracy an actual go.

    When asked, the people didn't want the European project as it looked in 2016.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,302
    edited September 2016
    PlatoSaid said:

    David Martosko
    ProTip: Don't run to the bathroom during a @HillaryClinton press availability. It'll be over before you flush.

    Again she did a whole four questions, it's a box tick nothing more.

    Given there has been no stories at all, no email leaks revelations, etc etc etc, no wonder the press pack had to resort to asking about the ending of the Good Wife...

    Could you ever imagine Nick Robinson standing up during GE campaign and saying Mrs May, what do you think about Sky Sports vs R4 coverage of the Test Matches...
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,010
    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    It's a bit more nuanced than that, I think. The post-War Liberal ascendency, which includes the EU as one of its projects, is seen to have failed. People think they have featherbedded immigrants and the bankers while they struggle and lose out year on year. They don't like globalisation nor being told what to think by foreigners and money men.

    The problem is that if you want to be successful, globalisation is the only game in town. There is literally no alternative to the EU (which doesn't necessarily mean it will work, of course).
    Yes, it is quite clear that Australia doesn't exist -

    1) Only countries that accept unrestricted immigration can succeed.
    2) Only countries in the EU can succeed.
    3) Australia is successful, restricts immigration and isn't in the EU. And isn't a Nazi hellhole...
    4) It's supposed to be a law abiding country founded by importing criminals, and they are supposed to have a mammal with the body of a beaver, the mouth of a duck. Which lays eggs...

    Yes, it is high time to put an end to the Australia story. Nonsense for children....
    85% of Australia's exports are raw materials. I'm not sure that's a model we can follow.

    http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visualize/tree_map/hs92/export/aus/all/show/2012/
    Looks like we imported $191 Bn more than we exported in 2014..
This discussion has been closed.