And of course Trump deplores (or worse) African Americans, Hispanics and many others. His is not a unifying vision.
And yet that has not stopped him appealing to these communities on a 'what the f8ck have you got to lose? basis.
Trump thinks there are plenty of black Americans who can't stand Black Lives Matter and the rioters who appear every time a black person gets shot by the cops. They can't stand the run down community democrat vote farms they have lived in for decades, whatever the president.
It's a bit like the Brexiters who voted out because they had sod all to lose. There's always something to lose as we lurch into rightwing, nihilistic, populist politics.
If only everyone was as noble and intelligent as you and your cosy little sounding board clique, the world would be a perfect place.
"Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing criticism after appearing to hint at the assassination of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for a second time. Mr Trump suggested Mrs Clinton's security detail should give up their guns and "see what happens to her".
He told supporters his rival wanted to "destroy your second amendment" - referring to the right to own guns. Mrs Clinton's team has accused Mr Trump of "inciting people to violence"
Trump's position on this seems nonsensical. By pointing out that it would be easy to assassinate Hilary without armed security, he's highlighting the insanity of US gun laws.
The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.
It's also really nasty, but it will appeal to those he is targeting.
No you fail to understand the logic of what he is saying, it is a common American argument.
The idea the Americans have is that the second amendment provides Americans the right to self-defence. He is suggesting that Clinton will not lose her own right to self-defence (via her armed guards), so why should any other regular American citizen lose their own right to self-defence (via their own guns). Its a routine argument over there.
Not one I agree with but given the millions of guns prevalent there and the porous borders with Mexico and Canada which are both also heavily armed, it makes some sense. Disarming yourself merely weakens you unless everyone gets disarmed and there is no realistic chance of that happening there any time soon.
I don't fail to understand the logic: I'm saying the 'logic' is utterly fallacious.
But its not, its the same logic as to why people oppose unilateral nuclear disarmament. We are about as likely to live in a nuclear-free world as a weapon-free America, even if gun control laws were passed.
No, that's an incorrect analogy. The protection of the POTUS and other senior politicians is unrelated, although driven by, the Second amendment. Which is why senior politicians in other countries also have armed guards.
That's correct, but not Trump's argument. He is saying "She thinks that *she* should have guns, but *you*, the little people, shouldn't" That is a powerful argument in the USA.
From the BBC website ... "Speaking at a rally in Miami on Friday, the Republican candidate said, apparently sarcastically: "I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons. They should disarm, right?
"Take their guns away, she doesn't want guns. Take their guns and let's see what happens to her. Take their guns away. OK, it would be very dangerous."
I thought it was the Germans who didn't understand sarcasm.
It seems a little desperate by the Clinton camp to try to ramp this up. He's saying taking away guns from Hillary's security would be dangerous, which it would be.
I hope we never end up with armed civilians like the Yanks, but they are where they are. I'd support much stricter gun control there, but it will take decades to make a real difference,
And of course Trump deplores (or worse) African Americans, Hispanics and many others. His is not a unifying vision.
And yet that has not stopped him appealing to these communities on a 'what the f8ck have you got to lose? basis.
Trump thinks there are plenty of black Americans who can't stand Black Lives Matter and the rioters who appear every time a black person gets shot by the cops. They can't stand the run down community democrat vote farms they have lived in for decades, whatever the president.
It's a bit like the Brexiters who voted out because they had sod all to lose. There's always something to lose as we lurch into rightwing, nihilistic, populist politics.
Your house must be soaring in value as Britain's metro-posh flee for safety.
Mr. Saddened, that's coincidentally very similar to Cleon's speech regarding the Athenians' desire to recant of their immediate harsh judgement of the Mytilenians [I only just re-read it].
And of course Trump deplores (or worse) African Americans, Hispanics and many others. His is not a unifying vision.
And yet that has not stopped him appealing to these communities on a 'what the f8ck have you got to lose? basis.
Trump thinks there are plenty of black Americans who can't stand Black Lives Matter and the rioters who appear every time a black person gets shot by the cops. They can't stand the run down community democrat vote farms they have lived in for decades, whatever the president.
It's a bit like the Brexiters who voted out because they had sod all to lose. There's always something to lose as we lurch into rightwing, nihilistic, populist politics.
"Mr Renzi, who is fighting for his political life after promising he would resign if he failed to win a referendum on Italian governance reforms later this year, is angry with Germany’s refusal to cut him more slack on his domestic budgets ahead of elections in 2018."
That's a lot of the problem.... It's always what Germany wants or will allow. The Italians, the Greeks even the Hungarians have now openly identified it and are forming the EU awkward squad. As the report said ......
"attempts to choreograph a picture of unity against the backdrop of Bratislava’s chocolate-box castle, descended into a full-blown European farce"
Quite! And not a Brit in sight to blame it all on.
Off out it is a beautiful day.
Although if the whole European project does all collapse in a great big heap, then there will be no shortage of defeated continental ex-politicians writing books about how it was all our fault (rather than their own, or that of their direct ideological predecessors.) This was always one of the downsides to voting to Leave.
On the other hand, the UK is the first to run screaming out of the burning building. Overall, I think we made the right decision.
It's interesting that "populist" is now used an insult by some. So people should vote for unpopular things to prove how noble they are? That's fine for SJWs, but I think you'll find it will go down like a cup of cold sick with most people.
Obviously superior people are above such considerations. We plebs don't deserve democracy, do we?
'Populist' is an insult used by minorities who regard themselves as better than the majority and who want policies which are popular among themselves but not among the majority.
You rarely find these 'sophisticated' minorities advocating things which are not popular among themselves.
It's interesting that "populist" is now used an insult by some. So people should vote for unpopular things to prove how noble they are? That's fine for SJWs, but I think you'll find it will go down like a cup of cold sick with most people.
Obviously superior people are above such considerations. We plebs don't deserve democracy, do we?
I saw a rather nice quote the other day along the lines of "Don't confuse standing on the sidelines with moral superiority"
It's interesting that "populist" is now used an insult by some. So people should vote for unpopular things to prove how noble they are? That's fine for SJWs, but I think you'll find it will go down like a cup of cold sick with most people.
Obviously superior people are above such considerations. We plebs don't deserve democracy, do we?
'Populist' is an insult used by minorities who regard themselves as better than the majority and who want policies which are popular among themselves but not among the majority.
You rarely find these 'sophisticated' minorities advocating things which are not popular among themselves.
You will however find them performing advanced mental gymnastics after the little people have got it 'wrong', to explain why democracy isn't really about people voting for things.
It's interesting that "populist" is now used an insult by some. So people should vote for unpopular things to prove how noble they are? That's fine for SJWs, but I think you'll find it will go down like a cup of cold sick with most people.
Obviously superior people are above such considerations. We plebs don't deserve democracy, do we?
'Populist' is an insult used by minorities who regard themselves as better than the majority and who want policies which are popular among themselves but not among the majority.
You rarely find these 'sophisticated' minorities advocating things which are not popular among themselves.
"Populist" in this context means "perversely pretending to think that 52% is more than 48%."
Interesting that while theipsos national was good for Clinton, it has also released state polls that are better for trump.
Penn - C2 Ohio - C4 Florida - T4 NC -C3 Michigan - tie Colorado - T3 Wisconsin - C3 Nevada - T4 New Mexico - T5! Maine - C1
Those are some pretty odd numbers.
Colorado seems one to watch to me. If you look at 538 'snake' of states, its right on the edge along with NH.
Clinton would win 300-238, if that was the outcome and she held Michigan, or 285-253 if Trump won Michigan, but Trump would win if he flipped either Pennsylvania or Ohio.
I don't fail to understand the logic: I'm saying the 'logic' is utterly fallacious.
But its not, its the same logic as to why people oppose unilateral nuclear disarmament. We are about as likely to live in a nuclear-free world as a weapon-free America, even if gun control laws were passed.
No, that's an incorrect analogy. The protection of the POTUS and other senior politicians is unrelated, although driven by, the Second amendment. Which is why senior politicians in other countries also have armed guards.
No it is a correct analogy as the point is made that the only way to have self-defence in their eyes is via carrying arms, which is why senior politicians have armed guards. The US second amendment gives the right to self-defence.
If self-defence did not require arms, then Clinton's guards could disarm. Other nations don't have the self-defence principle for the general populace, they don't have the second amendment. America does and taking that away would be crossing a mammoth rubicon. Unless you understand that perspective, you are not going to understand the debate.
That's a class video. A classic case of it's all about me.
She reminds me of the prison guard escorting a condemned prisoner to the execution block. It starts to rain and the prisoner looks up and says. "It s a bad day to die."
The guard shakes his head. "It's alright for you," he says. "I've got to walk back in this."
The blair regime from May 1997 effectively carried on until June 24th.
They are out now and they dont like it one little bit.
It is fascinating how remainers almost to a man are outraged by the idea of bringing back grammar schools and the royal yaught
What is worse the Blair regime has now lost control of not only the Labour Party but the Tory Party too and arguably also the LDs (if you count Clegg as a Blairite). Indeed, this is arguably the weakest point for Blairite, social democratic Cameroonism since 1982 if you count the SDP and Ashdown's LDs as in the same ideological pool too. The fact UKIP is now the 3rd party in voteshare only emphasises that further
Interesting article but not sure about the EC. RCP has Hillary ahead by 1.1% in a 4 way battle and 1.5% in a 2 way battle nationally but by 6.2% in Pennsylvania, 3.5% in Virginia, 5% in NH, 3.7% in Colorado, 5.2% in Michigan and 5.3% in Wisconsin, states which would be enough to see her home http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
He doesn't need all these states. He only needs one of them, provided he holds North Carolina & gains Florida, Ohio, Nevada & Iowa.
Looking at recent polls in Colorado: - Emerson has Trump +4 - Ipsos has Trump +3 - SurveyMonkey has a tie in a registered voter poll - Google Consumer Surveys shows Hillary +7, but this is still a considerable decline from the Hillary +17 that they were showing in mid-August.
So, the trend is very much his friend in Colorado (and all the other swing states).
We need to see some polling by other pollsters than just Emerson and Reuters in the state, certainly if Trump won Colorado, Hillary would need to win NC instead (where Reuters does still have her ahead)
I don't fail to understand the logic: I'm saying the 'logic' is utterly fallacious.
But its not, its the same logic as to why people oppose unilateral nuclear disarmament. We are about as likely to live in a nuclear-free world as a weapon-free America, even if gun control laws were passed.
No, that's an incorrect analogy. The protection of the POTUS and other senior politicians is unrelated, although driven by, the Second amendment. Which is why senior politicians in other countries also have armed guards.
No it is a correct analogy as the point is made that the only way to have self-defence in their eyes is via carrying arms, which is why senior politicians have armed guards. The US second amendment gives the right to self-defence.
If self-defence did not require arms, then Clinton's guards could disarm. Other nations don't have the self-defence principle for the general populace, they don't have the second amendment. America does and taking that away would be crossing a mammoth rubicon. Unless you understand that perspective, you are not going to understand the debate.
I do understand that perspective. I'm just disagreeing with the correlation between it and the situation a senior politician finds themselves in.
You will however find them performing advanced mental gymnastics after the little people have got it 'wrong', to explain why democracy isn't really about people voting for things.
"Populist" in this context means "perversely pretending to think that 52% is more than 48%."
What really upsets the remoaners is that they were defeated by the 'wrong' sort of people.
Namely working class people 'up north', coastal town 'chavs' and 'rustics' from poor farming areas. All places they have never been to or sometimes even head of before.
These were the top ten Leave areas in Britain:
Boston, South Holland, Castle Point, Thurrock, Yarmouth, Fenland, Mansfield, Bolsover, East Lindsey, NE Lincolnshire
Interesting article but not sure about the EC. RCP has Hillary ahead by 1.1% in a 4 way battle and 1.5% in a 2 way battle nationally but by 6.2% in Pennsylvania, 3.5% in Virginia, 5% in NH, 3.7% in Colorado, 5.2% in Michigan and 5.3% in Wisconsin, states which would be enough to see her home http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
He doesn't need all these states. He only needs one of them, provided he holds North Carolina & gains Florida, Ohio, Nevada & Iowa.
Looking at recent polls in Colorado: - Emerson has Trump +4 - Ipsos has Trump +3 - SurveyMonkey has a tie in a registered voter poll - Google Consumer Surveys shows Hillary +7, but this is still a considerable decline from the Hillary +17 that they were showing in mid-August.
So, the trend is very much his friend in Colorado (and all the other swing states).
We need to see some polling by other pollsters than just Emerson and Reuters in the state, certainly if Trump won Colorado, Hillary would need to win NC instead (where Reuters does still have her ahead)
Been a while since a NH poll, unless I have missed something.
A politician is someone who seeks to do the best for most people so that they can be elected.
A populist politician seeks to do the best for most people so that they can be elected whilst shouting loudly about it and creating an imaginary elite so that they appear to be fighting against those who have cheated their way into power by getting the most votes.
Interesting article but not sure about the EC. RCP has Hillary ahead by 1.1% in a 4 way battle and 1.5% in a 2 way battle nationally but by 6.2% in Pennsylvania, 3.5% in Virginia, 5% in NH, 3.7% in Colorado, 5.2% in Michigan and 5.3% in Wisconsin, states which would be enough to see her home http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
He doesn't need all these states. He only needs one of them, provided he holds North Carolina & gains Florida, Ohio, Nevada & Iowa.
Looking at recent polls in Colorado: - Emerson has Trump +4 - Ipsos has Trump +3 - SurveyMonkey has a tie in a registered voter poll - Google Consumer Surveys shows Hillary +7, but this is still a considerable decline from the Hillary +17 that they were showing in mid-August.
So, the trend is very much his friend in Colorado (and all the other swing states).
We need to see some polling by other pollsters than just Emerson and Reuters in the state, certainly if Trump won Colorado, Hillary would need to win NC instead (where Reuters does still have her ahead)
It's very hard (though not impossible) for Trump to win if he loses NC. He'd need to gain Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, and then either Michigan or Pennsylvania. Of those, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and Nevada look encouraging for him. But, Clinton is still clear in the other three, on average.
You will however find them performing advanced mental gymnastics after the little people have got it 'wrong', to explain why democracy isn't really about people voting for things.
"Populist" in this context means "perversely pretending to think that 52% is more than 48%."
What really upsets the remoaners is that they were defeated by the 'wrong' sort of people.
Namely working class people 'up north', coastal town 'chavs' and 'rustics' from poor farming areas. All places they have never been to or sometimes even head of before.
These were the top ten Leave areas in Britain:
Boston, South Holland, Castle Point, Thurrock, Yarmouth, Fenland, Mansfield, Bolsover, East Lindsey, NE Lincolnshire
Interesting that while theipsos national was good for Clinton, it has also released state polls that are better for trump.
Penn - C2 Ohio - C4 Florida - T4 NC -C3 Michigan - tie Colorado - T3 Wisconsin - C3 Nevada - T4 New Mexico - T5! Maine - C1
Those are some pretty odd numbers.
Trump leading in states with high Hispanic populations whilst doing worse in rust belt areas according to those. Doesn't seem to match other polling at all.
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If he'd taken the vast sum of money he got from his dad and stuck it in a Tracker then he'd have comparable returns, assuming we trust his self reported valuation.
He also bankrupted FOUR businesses maybe that qualifies Dominic Chappell of BHS fame to be PM?
'It's a bit like the Brexiters who voted out because they had sod all to lose. There's always something to lose as we lurch into rightwing, nihilistic, populist politics.'
Interesting article but not sure about the EC. RCP has Hillary ahead by 1.1% in a 4 way battle and 1.5% in a 2 way battle nationally but by 6.2% in Pennsylvania, 3.5% in Virginia, 5% in NH, 3.7% in Colorado, 5.2% in Michigan and 5.3% in Wisconsin, states which would be enough to see her home http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
He doesn't need all these states. He only needs one of them, provided he holds North Carolina & gains Florida, Ohio, Nevada & Iowa.
Looking at recent polls in Colorado: - Emerson has Trump +4 - Ipsos has Trump +3 - SurveyMonkey has a tie in a registered voter poll - Google Consumer Surveys shows Hillary +7, but this is still a considerable decline from the Hillary +17 that they were showing in mid-August.
So, the trend is very much his friend in Colorado (and all the other swing states).
We need to see some polling by other pollsters than just Emerson and Reuters in the state, certainly if Trump won Colorado, Hillary would need to win NC instead (where Reuters does still have her ahead)
It's very hard (though not impossible) for Trump to win if he loses NC. He'd need to gain Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado, and then either Michigan or Pennsylvania. Of those, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and Nevada look encouraging for him. But, Clinton is still clear in the other three, on average.
Yes, Colorado and NC are crucial for both campaigns
'It's a bit like the Brexiters who voted out because they had sod all to lose. There's always something to lose as we lurch into rightwing, nihilistic, populist politics.'
Champagne socialists fleeing to Italy ?
Asti spumante socialists these days, the way sterling has gone against the euro.
Interesting article but not sure about the EC. RCP has Hillary ahead by 1.1% in a 4 way battle and 1.5% in a 2 way battle nationally but by 6.2% in Pennsylvania, 3.5% in Virginia, 5% in NH, 3.7% in Colorado, 5.2% in Michigan and 5.3% in Wisconsin, states which would be enough to see her home http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
He doesn't need all these states. He only needs one of them, provided he holds North Carolina & gains Florida, Ohio, Nevada & Iowa.
Looking at recent polls in Colorado: - Emerson has Trump +4 - Ipsos has Trump +3 - SurveyMonkey has a tie in a registered voter poll - Google Consumer Surveys shows Hillary +7, but this is still a considerable decline from the Hillary +17 that they were showing in mid-August.
So, the trend is very much his friend in Colorado (and all the other swing states).
We need to see some polling by other pollsters than just Emerson and Reuters in the state, certainly if Trump won Colorado, Hillary would need to win NC instead (where Reuters does still have her ahead)
Been a while since a NH poll, unless I have missed something.
You will however find them performing advanced mental gymnastics after the little people have got it 'wrong', to explain why democracy isn't really about people voting for things.
"Populist" in this context means "perversely pretending to think that 52% is more than 48%."
What really upsets the remoaners is that they were defeated by the 'wrong' sort of people.
Namely working class people 'up north', coastal town 'chavs' and 'rustics' from poor farming areas. All places they have never been to or sometimes even head of before.
These were the top ten Leave areas in Britain:
Boston, South Holland, Castle Point, Thurrock, Yarmouth, Fenland, Mansfield, Bolsover, East Lindsey, NE Lincolnshire
The remoaners are having the same experience that the French and Russian aristocracies had in 1789 and 1917.
More leaver whinging. It's hilarious.
A note for you:
You won
Sorry, but it seems like you haven't noticed.
I look forward to reports from say, Mansfield or Bolsover, in ten years time outlining how leaving the EU and the single market has transformed their communities.
I know these areas reasonably well having worked in the area for five years (ironically on an EU funded regeneration project). Many issues and problems, a great deal of it related to the sudden collapse of mining.
'It's a bit like the Brexiters who voted out because they had sod all to lose. There's always something to lose as we lurch into rightwing, nihilistic, populist politics.'
Champagne socialists fleeing to Italy ?
Leftwing, nihilistic, populist politics is no better.
Now, if some-one could come up with centrist, nihilistic, populist politics, they would be on to a winner.
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
You will however find them performing advanced mental gymnastics after the little people have got it 'wrong', to explain why democracy isn't really about people voting for things.
"Populist" in this context means "perversely pretending to think that 52% is more than 48%."
What really upsets the remoaners is that they were defeated by the 'wrong' sort of people.
Namely working class people 'up north', coastal town 'chavs' and 'rustics' from poor farming areas. All places they have never been to or sometimes even head of before.
These were the top ten Leave areas in Britain:
Boston, South Holland, Castle Point, Thurrock, Yarmouth, Fenland, Mansfield, Bolsover, East Lindsey, NE Lincolnshire
A politician is someone who seeks to do the best for most people so that they can be elected.
A populist politician seeks to do the best for most people so that they can be elected whilst shouting loudly about it and creating an imaginary elite so that they appear to be fighting against those who have cheated their way into power by getting the most votes.
A simple difference really.
Populism as a political style is non-ideologic, which is why it is often so incoherent. It is not nessecarily a right wing phenomenon, indeed I would regard Corbyn, Tsipras and Erdogan all as populists within their own contexts.
Populism is an anti-establishment set of movements, with simple solutions of tabloid appeal. They thrive in times of economic stagnation.
Populist is something that is popular with most people but not with you.
Other people are subjective while you are objective. I understand now.
You seem to have misunderstood completely. Populists are the same as normal politicians, they just keep claiming they are different, coming out with all sorts of rubbish as 'evidence'.
So get out the popcorn. You’re about to see what happens to the neo-liberal wing of Labour — and its propaganda arm — when the workers, the poor and the young get a say in politics.
In modern parlance: they are about to lose their shit.
And of course Trump deplores (or worse) African Americans, Hispanics and many others. His is not a unifying vision.
And yet that has not stopped him appealing to these communities on a 'what the f8ck have you got to lose? basis.
Trump thinks there are plenty of black Americans who can't stand Black Lives Matter and the rioters who appear every time a black person gets shot by the cops. They can't stand the run down community democrat vote farms they have lived in for decades, whatever the president.
It's a bit like the Brexiters who voted out because they had sod all to lose. There's always something to lose as we lurch into rightwing, nihilistic, populist politics.
Yep, you are better off in Italy, it's so much more vibrant
You will however find them performing advanced mental gymnastics after the little people have got it 'wrong', to explain why democracy isn't really about people voting for things.
"Populist" in this context means "perversely pretending to think that 52% is more than 48%."
What really upsets the remoaners is that they were defeated by the 'wrong' sort of people.
Namely working class people 'up north', coastal town 'chavs' and 'rustics' from poor farming areas. All places they have never been to or sometimes even head of before.
These were the top ten Leave areas in Britain:
Boston, South Holland, Castle Point, Thurrock, Yarmouth, Fenland, Mansfield, Bolsover, East Lindsey, NE Lincolnshire
The remoaners are having the same experience that the French and Russian aristocracies had in 1789 and 1917.
More leaver whinging. It's hilarious.
A note for you:
You won
Sorry, but it seems like you haven't noticed.
I look forward to reports from say, Mansfield or Bolsover, in ten years time outlining how leaving the EU and the single market has transformed their communities.
I know these areas reasonably well having worked in the area for five years (ironically on an EU funded regeneration project). Many issues and problems, a great deal of it related to the sudden collapse of mining.
It goes back to my point about blue collar workers in the US. If you expect to lose out economically, whichever side wins, you have nothing to lose by voting in line with your values.
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
Trump's dad died in 1999 so how do you imagine he had control of a $100m inheritance in the early 70s?
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
Also Trumps particular success is in real estate development and speculation rather than in manufacturing or any related rust belt / blue collar industry.
I believe that he made most of his money in the development of Atlantic City NJ as a gambling centre.
Can he "make America great again" with his skills in real estate? I thought that was the source of the problem rather than its solution. Indeed in 1990 he needed a bailout due to being over leveraged:
He's now leading in several polls not simply the favourable LA tracker, which has him 6% ahead. And he's gaining big traction in key states. You can arguably bung another point or two on for 'shy Trump' supporters: mid-range Americans who don't want to be seen as racist.
I've said all along I thought Trump will win. Just as I thought Leave would and the Conservatives in 2015.
He's now leading in several polls not simply the favourable LA tracker, which has him 6% ahead. And he's gaining big traction in key states. You can arguably bung another point or two on for 'shy Trump' supporters: mid-range Americans who don't want to be seen as racist.
I've said all along I thought Trump will win. Just as I thought Leave would and the Conservatives in 2015.
It is certainly close, Hillary leads by 1.1% in a 4 way and 1.5% in a 2 way contest with RCP, the debates which start a week on Monday will also be key. Only 3 presidential elections since WW2 have been won by 1.5% or less, 1960, 1968 and 2000 so it looks like this year could be a nailbiter!
You will however find them performing advanced mental gymnastics after the little people have got it 'wrong', to explain why democracy isn't really about people voting for things.
"Populist" in this context means "perversely pretending to think that 52% is more than 48%."
What really upsets the remoaners is that they were defeated by the 'wrong' sort of people.
Namely working class people 'up north', coastal town 'chavs' and 'rustics' from poor farming areas. All places they have never been to or sometimes even head of before.
These were the top ten Leave areas in Britain:
Boston, South Holland, Castle Point, Thurrock, Yarmouth, Fenland, Mansfield, Bolsover, East Lindsey, NE Lincolnshire
The remoaners are having the same experience that the French and Russian aristocracies had in 1789 and 1917.
More leaver whinging. It's hilarious.
A note for you:
You won
Sorry, but it seems like you haven't noticed.
I look forward to reports from say, Mansfield or Bolsover, in ten years time outlining how leaving the EU and the single market has transformed their communities.
I know these areas reasonably well having worked in the area for five years (ironically on an EU funded regeneration project). Many issues and problems, a great deal of it related to the sudden collapse of mining.
What happens to the strongly Leave areas now is yet to be known.
But they've been shat upon by the remoaners for years and if Remain had won would have continued to be shat upon.
Still the added 'vibrancy' uncontrolled immigration has brought to Bolsover created an exciting job opportunity for a Polish speaker:
' This new opportunity now exists within the Housing Department at Bolsover District Council. The successful candidate will ensure the Council and other partners develop an understanding of the community tensions in the area, including the understanding of the cause and scale of any problems together with working within the community to develop solutions to any real or perceived issues. '
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
While that may be so, we need people to do more than just put their inheritances into blue chip shares, and actually try to grow businesses. But I agree, his record isn't as great as he claims.
Interesting that while theipsos national was good for Clinton, it has also released state polls that are better for trump.
Penn - C2 Ohio - C4 Florida - T4 NC -C3 Michigan - tie Colorado - T3 Wisconsin - C3 Nevada - T4 New Mexico - T5! Maine - C1
Those are some pretty odd numbers.
Trump leading in states with high Hispanic populations whilst doing worse in rust belt areas according to those. Doesn't seem to match other polling at all.
maybe hispanic voters have given up on immigration reform and are saying they won't vote?
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
While that may be so, we need people to do more than just put their inheritances into blue chip shares, and actually try to grow businesses. But I agree, his record isn't as great as he claims.
That depends on what he set out to achieve.
Certainly on monetary value Trump's business ventures haven't been successful.
But regarded as an investment for publicity purposes by a 'flamboyant' egotist they've been a great triumph.
If Trump had merely invested his inheritance safely he would not now be in contention to be President.
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
Trump's dad died in 1999 so how do you imagine he had control of a $100m inheritance in the early 70s?
I had heard described as an inheritance. It could have been he took control of the family business then or it was the first stage of a tax-minimization strategy to disperse assets. But I don't care enough to look: he received a substantial amount of capital from his father to start his business. Happy now?
So get out the popcorn. You’re about to see what happens to the neo-liberal wing of Labour — and its propaganda arm — when the workers, the poor and the young get a say in politics.
In modern parlance: they are about to lose their shit.
I like the popcorn bit. Has Mason been reading PB? We have been gorging on popcorn since the day Ed M announced anyone with £3 could join Labour as a wrecker, I mean, supporter.
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
While that may be so, we need people to do more than just put their inheritances into blue chip shares, and actually try to grow businesses. But I agree, his record isn't as great as he claims.
Agreed. I'm just noting the relative performance vs the exaggerated claims
Interesting that while theipsos national was good for Clinton, it has also released state polls that are better for trump.
Penn - C2 Ohio - C4 Florida - T4 NC -C3 Michigan - tie Colorado - T3 Wisconsin - C3 Nevada - T4 New Mexico - T5! Maine - C1
Those are some pretty odd numbers.
Trump leading in states with high Hispanic populations whilst doing worse in rust belt areas according to those. Doesn't seem to match other polling at all.
maybe hispanic voters have given up on immigration reform and are saying they won't vote?
i say a massive underrepresentation of hispanics in the screen
hispanics would want to go out vote. 'Kicking out the undocumented' will easily turn into 'attack anyone with a different skin colour', which most minorities know
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
While that may be so, we need people to do more than just put their inheritances into blue chip shares, and actually try to grow businesses. But I agree, his record isn't as great as he claims.
Did he not use Chapter 11 ? So some of his current "wealth" is at the expense of others.
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
He might have made the same money, but would he have the same assets in terms of property? I freely admit I don't understand it all. And I've always known the 'self made man' stuff about Trump was bollocks. I'd always thought it was 50 mill though.
There has been a lot of talk around the potential negative impact of Trump both on down ticket candidates and on the unwillingness of certain Republican donors to fund him notably the Koch brothers. This means that this cycle a lot of extra Republican funding is going into the competitive Senate races. So I am wondering whether large down ticket investment might ultimately help Trump (due to increased turnout) and where. The one I think it might most (from an influencing the ultimate result perspective) is in NH where the race is close (538 currently rates on polls plus as closer than Penn or Colorado), there is a bucket load of Republican money being thrown at the Senate race and Kelly Ayotte has said that whilst she won't endorse Trump she will vote for him which might also be the approach of many of her supporters. NH with NV and ME2 is also a route I think to 270.
The blair regime from May 1997 effectively carried on until June 24th.
They are out now and they dont like it one little bit.
It is fascinating how remainers almost to a man are outraged by the idea of bringing back grammar schools and the royal yaught
"remainers almost to a man ..."
Yeah, right. I was a remainer, and I think something like the Royal Yacht would be a good idea: from what I recall of the 'debate' when it was taken out of service, it was generally a net-positive for the economy.
It's also 'flyng the flag', and a lot more effectively than sending warships on a trip.
I'm against the current grammar school proposals for the reasons I've given before. I could be persuaded to agree with them if it was actually part of an 'education' policy.
And BTW, I wouldn't be so sure of that June 24 date: we still don't know what form of government May will invoke. It might well not be to your liking ...
I don't fail to understand the logic: I'm saying the 'logic' is utterly fallacious.
But its not, its the same logic as to why people oppose unilateral nuclear disarmament. We are about as likely to live in a nuclear-free world as a weapon-free America, even if gun control laws were passed.
No, that's an incorrect analogy. The protection of the POTUS and other senior politicians is unrelated, although driven by, the Second amendment. Which is why senior politicians in other countries also have armed guards.
No it is a correct analogy as the point is made that the only way to have self-defence in their eyes is via carrying arms, which is why senior politicians have armed guards. The US second amendment gives the right to self-defence.
If self-defence did not require arms, then Clinton's guards could disarm. Other nations don't have the self-defence principle for the general populace, they don't have the second amendment. America does and taking that away would be crossing a mammoth rubicon. Unless you understand that perspective, you are not going to understand the debate.
The point being that american people see self defence as primarily their own reslonsibility or liberty and dont wish to exchange that liberty for a state having a monopoly on the use of force
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
He might have made the same money, but would he have the same assets in terms of property? I freely admit I don't understand it all. And I've always known the 'self made man' stuff about Trump was bollocks. I'd always thought it was 50 mill though.
Meaningless distinction. There are few real estate assets that are iconic enough that they are not equivalent to the cash value as an investment.
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
While that may be so, we need people to do more than just put their inheritances into blue chip shares, and actually try to grow businesses. But I agree, his record isn't as great as he claims.
Did he not use Chapter 11 ? So some of his current "wealth" is at the expense of others.
It would depend whether he simply plundered the companies in question (I have no knowledge either way).
I could buy a company for £10m, attempt to run it a profit, come to the conclusion it was unprofitable, put it into liquidation, and then buy any assets that may be profitable from the liquidator. That's legitimate.
Or I could be like Sir Philip Green, and act like Ampulex Dementor, sucking anything valuable out of the company and it's pension fund, and leaving an empty shell. That isn't legitimate.
Populist is something that is popular with most people but not with you.
Other people are subjective while you are objective. I understand now.
You seem to have misunderstood completely. Populists are the same as normal politicians, they just keep claiming they are different, coming out with all sorts of rubbish as 'evidence'.
Most politicians claim to be different to normal politicians. A few are correct.
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
He might have made the same money, but would he have the same assets in terms of property? I freely admit I don't understand it all. And I've always known the 'self made man' stuff about Trump was bollocks. I'd always thought it was 50 mill though.
Meaningless distinction. There are few real estate assets that are iconic enough that they are not equivalent to the cash value as an investment.
Arguably a skyscraper bearing your own name would be one of them.
You will however find them performing advanced mental gymnastics after the little people have got it 'wrong', to explain why democracy isn't really about people voting for things.
"Populist" in this context means "perversely pretending to think that 52% is more than 48%."
What really upsets the remoaners is that they were defeated by the 'wrong' sort of people.
Namely working class people 'up north', coastal town 'chavs' and 'rustics' from poor farming areas. All places they have never been to or sometimes even head of before.
These were the top ten Leave areas in Britain:
Boston, South Holland, Castle Point, Thurrock, Yarmouth, Fenland, Mansfield, Bolsover, East Lindsey, NE Lincolnshire
The remoaners are having the same experience that the French and Russian aristocracies had in 1789 and 1917.
More leaver whinging. It's hilarious.
A note for you:
You won
Sorry, but it seems like you haven't noticed.
We won Brexit, but that is just the first battle to win the war to roll back and reverse not just Blairs changes but Wilsons as well. I want to see everything the likes of Roy Jenkins, Peter Mandelson and Tony Crosland stood for and fought for reduced to rubble.
In short, I want the state rolled back to the size it was prior to World War 1
"First off, I would like to thank Hillary for printing this all in blue ink because the color blue helps prevent my seizures. It was a little bit of a long read, being 32,000 pages of yoga routines, but I powered through it. Its amazing to think that she wrote the entire book on a Blackberry! I didn't know it was a pop-up book until I got to the chapter about her husband, Bill and his oval office experiences. The only issues I had with the book were all of the annoying "C" markings in the margins."
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
He might have made the same money, but would he have the same assets in terms of property? I freely admit I don't understand it all. And I've always known the 'self made man' stuff about Trump was bollocks. I'd always thought it was 50 mill though.
Meaningless distinction. There are few real estate assets that are iconic enough that they are not equivalent to the cash value as an investment.
Arguably a skyscraper bearing your own name would be one of them.
Names can be changed. It's just branding.
In terms of iconic buildings: The Imperial Palace, Buckingham Palace, Admiralty Arch, the White House, possibly Rockefeller Center and the Chrysler Building (and may be the Empire State, although that's somewhat faded now) might have intangible value over and above the value of the future cash flows that can be generated from the real estate
You do realise that all this means is that the internet is awash with Trump rampers who promote him and trash his opponent don't you? The internet is the last place anyone should be looking for indications of popularity.
You will however find them performing advanced mental gymnastics after the little people have got it 'wrong', to explain why democracy isn't really about people voting for things.
"Populist" in this context means "perversely pretending to think that 52% is more than 48%."
What really upsets the remoaners is that they were defeated by the 'wrong' sort of people.
Namely working class people 'up north', coastal town 'chavs' and 'rustics' from poor farming areas. All places they have never been to or sometimes even head of before.
These were the top ten Leave areas in Britain:
Boston, South Holland, Castle Point, Thurrock, Yarmouth, Fenland, Mansfield, Bolsover, East Lindsey, NE Lincolnshire
The remoaners are having the same experience that the French and Russian aristocracies had in 1789 and 1917.
More leaver whinging. It's hilarious.
A note for you:
You won
Sorry, but it seems like you haven't noticed.
We won Brexit, but that is just the first battle to win the war to roll back and reverse not just Blairs changes but Wilsons as well. I want to see everything the likes of Roy Jenkins, Peter Mandelson and Tony Crosland stood for and fought for reduced to rubble.
In short, I want the state rolled back to the size it was prior to World War 1
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)
If Trump had taken his inheritance from his Dad (I believe about $100m which was serious money in the early 70s) and invested it im the s&p500 then he would gave done better than he's done in business from a financial perspective. If course it's slightly unfair, but Trump isn't the brilliant businessman he likes to make out - it's like Branson/Virgin primarily a brand licensing model
He might have made the same money, but would he have the same assets in terms of property? I freely admit I don't understand it all. And I've always known the 'self made man' stuff about Trump was bollocks. I'd always thought it was 50 mill though.
Meaningless distinction. There are few real estate assets that are iconic enough that they are not equivalent to the cash value as an investment.
Arguably a skyscraper bearing your own name would be one of them.
Names can be changed. It's just branding.
Once an iconic building's name has seeped into the public's consciousness it's very hard to change. People still refer to the NatWest Tower and this attempt at rebranding has been an abject failure - http://www.salesforce-tower.com/
"Populist" in this context means "perversely pretending to think that 52% is more than 48%."
More leaver whinging. It's hilarious.
A note for you:
You won
Sorry, but it seems like you haven't noticed.
We won Brexit, but that is just the first battle to win the war to roll back and reverse not just Blairs changes but Wilsons as well. I want to see everything the likes of Roy Jenkins, Peter Mandelson and Tony Crosland stood for and fought for reduced to rubble.
In short, I want the state rolled back to the size it was prior to World War 1
You will however find them performing advanced mental gymnastics after the little people have got it 'wrong', to explain why democracy isn't really about people voting for things.
"Populist" in this context means "perversely pretending to think that 52% is more than 48%."
What really upsets the remoaners is that they were defeated by the 'wrong' sort of people.
Namely working class people 'up north', coastal town 'chavs' and 'rustics' from poor farming areas. All places they have never been to or sometimes even head of before.
These were the top ten Leave areas in Britain:
Boston, South Holland, Castle Point, Thurrock, Yarmouth, Fenland, Mansfield, Bolsover, East Lindsey, NE Lincolnshire
The remoaners are having the same experience that the French and Russian aristocracies had in 1789 and 1917.
More leaver whinging. It's hilarious.
A note for you:
You won
Sorry, but it seems like you haven't noticed.
We won Brexit, but that is just the first battle to win the war to roll back and reverse not just Blairs changes but Wilsons as well. I want to see everything the likes of Roy Jenkins, Peter Mandelson and Tony Crosland stood for and fought for reduced to rubble.
In short, I want the state rolled back to the size it was prior to World War 1
Lol. Even for a weekend this is early to be knocking back the drink?
If the right wing populists who believe this kind of thing ever get a sniff of power, we can be confident there will be lots of new things they will find for the state to do. As did every right-wing populist through history, with larger rather than smaller states than before.
Yeah, right. I was a remainer, and I think something like the Royal Yacht would be a good idea: from what I recall of the 'debate' when it was taken out of service, it was generally a net-positive for the economy.
It's also 'flyng the flag', and a lot more effectively than sending warships on a trip.
There is perhaps an argument to be made that a yacht for trade missions is a good idea, showcasing British engineering talent and successful exports, but...
...if such an argument were to be made, it would make more sense for the yacht to be a brand new Sunseeker rather than an antiquated relic of a long dead industry.
Once an iconic building's name has seeped into the public's consciousness it's very hard to change. People still refer to the NatWest Tower and this attempt at rebranding has been an abject failure - http://www.salesforce-tower.com/
It helps when the shape of the building is actually the logo...
You do realise that all this means is that the internet is awash with Trump rampers who promote him and trash his opponent don't you? The internet is the last place anyone should be looking for indications of popularity.
How many books did Clinton sell in the first weekend - 2000 wasn't it?
Yeah, right. I was a remainer, and I think something like the Royal Yacht would be a good idea: from what I recall of the 'debate' when it was taken out of service, it was generally a net-positive for the economy.
It's also 'flyng the flag', and a lot more effectively than sending warships on a trip.
There is perhaps an argument to be made that a yacht for trade missions is a good idea, showcasing British engineering talent and successful exports, but...
...if such an argument were to be made, it would make more sense for the yacht to be a brand new Sunseeker rather than an antiquated relic of a long dead industry.
Unless you are a Brexiteer of course
To create a yacht with the size and facilities of Britannia these days would surely be massively more expensive than recommissioning the existing one.
Lol. Even for a weekend this is early to be knocking back the drink?
If the right wing populists who believe this kind of thing ever get a sniff of power, we can be confident there will be lots of new things they will find for the state to do. As did every right-wing populist through history, with larger rather than smaller states than before.
Comments
Penn - C2
Ohio - C4
Florida - T4
NC -C3
Michigan - tie
Colorado - T3
Wisconsin - C3
Nevada - T4
New Mexico - T5!
Maine - C1
"Take their guns away, she doesn't want guns. Take their guns and let's see what happens to her. Take their guns away. OK, it would be very dangerous."
I thought it was the Germans who didn't understand sarcasm.
It seems a little desperate by the Clinton camp to try to ramp this up. He's saying taking away guns from Hillary's security would be dangerous, which it would be.
I hope we never end up with armed civilians like the Yanks, but they are where they are. I'd support much stricter gun control there, but it will take decades to make a real difference,
Are you related to this woman by any chance ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZl2udKDG3g
"Southern Germany was rocked by a series of attacks this summer, though not all were linked to political motives."
It's a step away from:
"There have been an increasing number of premature deaths in Europe this year, though not all involved cutlery."
The story's of Oktoberfest being fenced-in for the first time:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37395115
Edited extra bit: changed 'were related to' to 'involved'.
On the other hand, the UK is the first to run screaming out of the burning building. Overall, I think we made the right decision.
You rarely find these 'sophisticated' minorities advocating things which are not popular among themselves.
I'll try to have the pre-qualifying piece up around half twelve.
IIRC they use low sample sizes.
Race is on at 1pm UK time tomorrow.
If self-defence did not require arms, then Clinton's guards could disarm. Other nations don't have the self-defence principle for the general populace, they don't have the second amendment. America does and taking that away would be crossing a mammoth rubicon. Unless you understand that perspective, you are not going to understand the debate.
That's a class video. A classic case of it's all about me.
She reminds me of the prison guard escorting a condemned prisoner to the execution block. It starts to rain and the prisoner looks up and says. "It s a bad day to die."
The guard shakes his head. "It's alright for you," he says. "I've got to walk back in this."
http://capx.co/inside-corbyns-conspiracy-cult/
Namely working class people 'up north', coastal town 'chavs' and 'rustics' from poor farming areas. All places they have never been to or sometimes even head of before.
These were the top ten Leave areas in Britain:
Boston, South Holland, Castle Point, Thurrock, Yarmouth, Fenland, Mansfield, Bolsover, East Lindsey, NE Lincolnshire
and these the top ten Remain areas in Britain:
Lambeth, Hackney, Haringey, Islington, Wandsworth, Camden, Edinburgh, Cambridge, Southwark, Oxford
The remoaners are having the same experience that the French and Russian aristocracies had in 1789 and 1917.
A populist politician seeks to do the best for most people so that they can be elected whilst shouting loudly about it and creating an imaginary elite so that they appear to be fighting against those who have cheated their way into power by getting the most votes.
A simple difference really.
A note for you:
You won
Sorry, but it seems like you haven't noticed.
'It's a bit like the Brexiters who voted out because they had sod all to lose. There's always something to lose as we lurch into rightwing, nihilistic, populist politics.'
Champagne socialists fleeing to Italy ?
Simon Dedman @SiDedman · 19h19 hours ago
.@Arron_banks tells @BBCEssex "it's unfortunate" @DouglasCarswell is the UKIP MP for clacton #UKIPConf
.@Arron_banks tells @BBCEssex @DouglasCarswell is "a career politician" who is "out of touch" #UKIPConf
.@Arron_banks tells @DaveMonkShow @DouglasCarswell's best attribute is "his wonky jaw" #UKIPConf
.@Arron_banks "I think he joined because he thought #UKIP would beat him at the general election" - on @DouglasCarswell #UKIPConf
Indeed.
Populist is something that is popular with most people but not with you.
Other people are subjective while you are objective. I understand now.
I know these areas reasonably well having worked in the area for five years (ironically on an EU funded regeneration project). Many issues and problems, a great deal of it related to the sudden collapse of mining.
Now, if some-one could come up with centrist, nihilistic, populist politics, they would be on to a winner.
And its leaver gloating not whinging.
The humiliation of the 'progressive majority' in two general elections and now two referendums (AV was the other) is brutal.
Populism is an anti-establishment set of movements, with simple solutions of tabloid appeal. They thrive in times of economic stagnation.
Why did the lizard cross the road..?
https://twitter.com/Gianludale27/status/777089562417954816
Paul Mason Verified account
@paulmasonnews
The British establishment is about to declare war on @PeoplesMomentum - here’s why:
https://medium.com/mosquito-ridge/elite-goes-tinfoil-over-momentum-dd544c9d8f1c#.b4zfb77lr …
So get out the popcorn. You’re about to see what happens to the neo-liberal wing of Labour — and its propaganda arm — when the workers, the poor and the young get a say in politics.
In modern parlance: they are about to lose their shit.
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_57daa890e4b0d584f7f03a7b?ncid=tweetlnkukhpmg00000001
I believe that he made most of his money in the development of Atlantic City NJ as a gambling centre.
Can he "make America great again" with his skills in real estate? I thought that was the source of the problem rather than its solution. Indeed in 1990 he needed a bailout due to being over leveraged:
http://www.faireconomy.org/the_self_made_myth_infographic
I've said all along I thought Trump will win. Just as I thought Leave would and the Conservatives in 2015.
But they've been shat upon by the remoaners for years and if Remain had won would have continued to be shat upon.
Still the added 'vibrancy' uncontrolled immigration has brought to Bolsover created an exciting job opportunity for a Polish speaker:
' This new opportunity now exists within the Housing Department at Bolsover District Council. The successful candidate will ensure the Council and other partners develop an understanding of the community tensions in the area, including the understanding of the cause and scale of any problems together with working within the community to develop solutions to any real or perceived issues. '
http://www.lsp.bolsover.gov.uk/index.php/news/379-news-community-cohesion-worker-job-opportunity
Certainly on monetary value Trump's business ventures haven't been successful.
But regarded as an investment for publicity purposes by a 'flamboyant' egotist they've been a great triumph.
If Trump had merely invested his inheritance safely he would not now be in contention to be President.
https://www.amazon.com/Great-Again-How-Crippled-America/dp/1501138006/
https://www.amazon.com/Stronger-Together-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/1501161733/
hispanics would want to go out vote. 'Kicking out the undocumented' will easily turn into 'attack anyone with a different skin colour', which most minorities know
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/britain-at-war/9334990/Medals-of-the-ace-who-never-knew-he-was-beaten.html
I could buy a company for £10m, attempt to run it a profit, come to the conclusion it was unprofitable, put it into liquidation, and then buy any assets that may be profitable from the liquidator. That's legitimate.
Or I could be like Sir Philip Green, and act like Ampulex Dementor, sucking anything valuable out of the company and it's pension fund, and leaving an empty shell. That isn't legitimate.
I reckon one of four to six cars has a credible chance of pole. Surprised McLaren aren't looking better.
Edited extra bit: anyway, I must be off to perambulate with the hound prior to qualifying.
In short, I want the state rolled back to the size it was prior to World War 1
"First off, I would like to thank Hillary for printing this all in blue ink because the color blue helps prevent my seizures. It was a little bit of a long read, being 32,000 pages of yoga routines, but I powered through it. Its amazing to think that she wrote the entire book on a Blackberry! I didn't know it was a pop-up book until I got to the chapter about her husband, Bill and his oval office experiences. The only issues I had with the book were all of the annoying "C" markings in the margins."
In terms of iconic buildings: The Imperial Palace, Buckingham Palace, Admiralty Arch, the White House, possibly Rockefeller Center and the Chrysler Building (and may be the Empire State, although that's somewhat faded now) might have intangible value over and above the value of the future cash flows that can be generated from the real estate
Why not include Clement Attlee, Winston Churchill, Lloyd George, Gladstone, Oliver Cromwell, Simon de Montfort and William the Conqueror?
Back to the Dark Ages!
If the right wing populists who believe this kind of thing ever get a sniff of power, we can be confident there will be lots of new things they will find for the state to do. As did every right-wing populist through history, with larger rather than smaller states than before.
...if such an argument were to be made, it would make more sense for the yacht to be a brand new Sunseeker rather than an antiquated relic of a long dead industry.
Unless you are a Brexiteer of course
How does that make him a birther?