As far as I can see, Leavers remain quite clueless about what they want. Having wanted out of the EU, believing that a favourable deal could be effortlessly negotiated, they now rush towards as hard a Brexit as possible. In six months' time they will doubtless be agitating to leave the UN. In six months after that, they will be investigating how to physically separate the island of Great Britain from the rest of planet earth. Meanwhile, Remainers will be blamed for the resultant tectonic effects.
Yes it's not clear to me why and when hard Brexit became the favoured outcome for Leavers and indeed the nation at large. Yet sadly that does seem to now be the case. Leave everything, keep nothing. Piss off into the wilderness.
Hard Brexit is not the preferred option. It's an option that has to be on the table, so that the EU know we are serious.
If the EU want to do this the hard way, then more fool them, but we have to be prepared to accept it.
More fool them?
Or more fool us?
Them. Definitely.
Yes, you are very confident.
Why wouldn't we be?
Trade inbalance means if we go WTO, we can manage it. The UK has an enterprising culture which will rise to the challenge. We have historic links throughout the world.
And if the EU puts politics above economics, they will only hurt themselves in the end.
Since we are Brexiting anyway, let's be confident about it.
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
Wow... If that doesn't smack of desperation I don't know what does.
Who was responsible for putting her with that bigoted man? Must be Sue...
Hillary's deadpanning of Galifianakis has actually gone down quite well in the States. Clearly it will be considered a disaster for her on here, but then so too does the Pope reject protestantism.
Some of that will be cultural context of the show. Making famous people go through awkward interviews (as opposed to the forced cheerfulness of traditional talk-shows) is essentially what people watch it for.
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
Wow... If that doesn't smack of desperation I don't know what does.
Who was responsible for putting her with that bigoted man? Must be Sue...
Hillary's deadpanning of Galifianakis has actually gone down quite well in the States. Clearly it will be considered a disaster for her on here, but then so too does the Pope reject protestantism.
My problem is with Galifianakis who seems to be a very, very poor man's dame edna everage.
He doesn't remotely deserve that comparison. Barry Humphries is a great wit.
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
Wow... If that doesn't smack of desperation I don't know what does.
Who was responsible for putting her with that bigoted man? Must be Sue...
Hillary's deadpanning of Galifianakis has actually gone down quite well in the States. Clearly it will be considered a disaster for her on here, but then so too does the Pope reject protestantism.
Some of that will be cultural context of the show. Making famous people go through awkward interviews (as opposed to the forced cheerfulness of traditional talk-shows) is essentially what people watch it for.
You would have thought presidential candidates would be above that sort of guff.
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
Wow... If that doesn't smack of desperation I don't know what does.
Who was responsible for putting her with that bigoted man? Must be Sue...
Hillary's deadpanning of Galifianakis has actually gone down quite well in the States. Clearly it will be considered a disaster for her on here, but then so too does the Pope reject protestantism.
Some of that will be cultural context of the show. Making famous people go through awkward interviews (as opposed to the forced cheerfulness of traditional talk-shows) is essentially what people watch it for.
You would have thought presidential candidates would be above that sort of guff.
Why? Presidential candidates have been doing this kind of thing for half a century or more.
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
Wow... If that doesn't smack of desperation I don't know what does.
Who was responsible for putting her with that bigoted man? Must be Sue...
Hillary's deadpanning of Galifianakis has actually gone down quite well in the States. Clearly it will be considered a disaster for her on here, but then so too does the Pope reject protestantism.
Some of that will be cultural context of the show. Making famous people go through awkward interviews (as opposed to the forced cheerfulness of traditional talk-shows) is essentially what people watch it for.
You would have thought presidential candidates would be above that sort of guff.
Why? Presidential candidates have been doing this kind of thing for half a century or more.
Doing cringeworthy interviews, perhaps, but doing interviews just because they will be cringeworthy? Sounds like a new thing to me.
Nice one, David. Good advice, freely given, from the non-partisan Chairman of Wakefield District Conservatives.
The problem, as Southern and others would no doubt point out, is that they probably wouldn't get the plan through the NEC at the moment. Were they to act like a proper faction though and work on, say, 200+ CLPs supporting the amendment - which might well be achievable - the pressure on the NEC from both above and below might well swing the balance.
As far as I can see, Leavers remain quite clueless about what they want. Having wanted out of the EU, believing that a favourable deal could be effortlessly negotiated, they now rush towards as hard a Brexit as possible. In six months' time they will doubtless be agitating to leave the UN. In six months after that, they will be investigating how to physically separate the island of Great Britain from the rest of planet earth. Meanwhile, Remainers will be blamed for the resultant tectonic effects.
Yes it's not clear to me why and when hard Brexit became the favoured outcome for Leavers and indeed the nation at large. Yet sadly that does seem to now be the case. Leave everything, keep nothing. Piss off into the wilderness.
Hard Brexit is not the preferred option. It's an option that has to be on the table, so that the EU know we are serious.
If the EU want to do this the hard way, then more fool them, but we have to be prepared to accept it.
More fool them?
Or more fool us?
Them. Definitely.
Yes, you are very confident.
Why wouldn't we be?
Trade inbalance means if we go WTO, we can manage it. The UK has an enterprising culture which will rise to the challenge. We have historic links throughout the world.
And if the EU puts politics above economics, they will only hurt themselves in the end.
Since we are Brexiting anyway, let's be confident about it.
One of the biggest problems with the EU is that it puts politics before economics
A new rival to Andy Burnham http://order-order.com/2016/09/22/chuka/ 25 April: Chuka Umunna tweets the above image attacking the Leave campaign for wanting to quit the single market. He posed alongside the word “seriously“. 22 August: Chuka Umunna tells HuffPo we should be prepared to quit the single market in order to secure control of borders.
He still wants single market access but freedom of movement reformed which is probably the view of the median voter and in the light of the Leave win inevitable
Great Britain would be brilliant if it could be separated from the rest of the world but can we please leave the Corbynista's, the Blairites, the Cameroons and the Remainers and Libdems behind somewhere in the North of France, then it would be heaven
Seems a reasonable deal to me. But the relatively people left if you exclude all those wouldn't need the whole country - we could just park them in the Isle of Wight and let them float off.
The problem, as Southern and others would no doubt point out, is that they probably wouldn't get the plan through the NEC at the moment. Were they to act like a proper faction though and work on, say, 200+ CLPs supporting the amendment - which might well be achievable - the pressure on the NEC from both above and below might well swing the balance.
Once the current contest is over, and Owen Smith consigned to the dustbin of history which he has so clearly shown himself to deserve, I wouldn't be surprised to see a move like that. I don't think John McDonnell and Jon Lansman are going to rest on their laurels.
"Now Black Men for Bernie are rebranding and again planning to tour the country with an emphasis on battleground states. Carter says he’s going to organize black and minority communities to vote against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment.
“Donald Trump is a business man and a real estate mogul who could provide knowledge and resources to transform urban communities through the development of minority-owned businesses,” Carter said. “With this tour, we’re going to show Mr. Trump and Republicans that the black and minority communities are ready to work with anyone willing to work with us to build opportunities in businesses, employment, and housing. We don’t want welfare, we need opportunity.”
My prediction as things stand is that things will go OKish for Trump early in the night winning Ohio more comfortably than predicted, winning Florida failing in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire (losing here pretty badly) gaining one EC vote in Maine, in the end not really close in Michigan due to him driving higher turnout in the cities, winning Iowa pretty easily then everything gets shat on by California.
The result will likely still be in doubt hours after California is called for Hillary
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
Wow... If that doesn't smack of desperation I don't know what does.
Who was responsible for putting her with that bigoted man? Must be Sue...
Hillary's deadpanning of Galifianakis has actually gone down quite well in the States. Clearly it will be considered a disaster for her on here, but then so too does the Pope reject protestantism.
I really don't get Zach. He was moderately funny in the first Hangover, and not so in anything else I've seen him do since then. His between two ferns looks like a very lukewarm rehash of Ali G, and is nowhere near as funny or, indeed, intellectual. His other comedy seems a poor version of Andy Kaufman.
That said, 20 millions people have viewed his Hillary episode, apparently. I imagine close to none of them are even in the cross hairs of the Trump campaign.
Nice one, David. Good advice, freely given, from the non-partisan Chairman of Wakefield District Conservatives.
Very sound advice. It is only right and proper that the interests of all the CLP's that will shortly have a Conservative MP are protected.
You say he doesn't look as if he enjoys the job. I think he probably never looks as if he enjoys anything but I am pretty certain he gets great satisfaction of a Grinch-stealing-Christmas kind out of his present situation.
Florida will now edge to Trump in the RCP average giving Clinton a 275 to 263 lead overall
In fact RCP now has Hillary ahead just 272 to 266 in the EC because of the 1 EC vote in Maine going to Trump. Only 1 presidential election since WW2 has been closer in the EC, 2000, the result may not even be known for days or even weeks if it is that close
My prediction as things stand is that things will go OKish for Trump early in the night winning Ohio more comfortably than predicted, winning Florida failing in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire (losing here pretty badly) gaining one EC vote in Maine, in the end not really close in Michigan due to him driving higher turnout in the cities, winning Iowa pretty easily then everything gets shat on by California.
The result will likely still be in doubt hours after California is called for Hillary
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
Wow... If that doesn't smack of desperation I don't know what does.
Who was responsible for putting her with that bigoted man? Must be Sue...
Hillary's deadpanning of Galifianakis has actually gone down quite well in the States. Clearly it will be considered a disaster for her on here, but then so too does the Pope reject protestantism.
Some of that will be cultural context of the show. Making famous people go through awkward interviews (as opposed to the forced cheerfulness of traditional talk-shows) is essentially what people watch it for.
You would have thought presidential candidates would be above that sort of guff.
Why? Presidential candidates have been doing this kind of thing for half a century or more.
Doing cringeworthy interviews, perhaps, but doing interviews just because they will be cringeworthy? Sounds like a new thing to me.
I googled up an article for you if you're interested in the history of it.
My prediction as things stand is that things will go OKish for Trump early in the night winning Ohio more comfortably than predicted, winning Florida failing in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire (losing here pretty badly) gaining one EC vote in Maine, in the end not really close in Michigan due to him driving higher turnout in the cities, winning Iowa pretty easily then everything gets shat on by California.
The result will likely still be in doubt hours after California is called for Hillary
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
Wow... If that doesn't smack of desperation I don't know what does.
Who was responsible for putting her with that bigoted man? Must be Sue...
Hillary's deadpanning of Galifianakis has actually gone down quite well in the States. Clearly it will be considered a disaster for her on here, but then so too does the Pope reject protestantism.
Some of that will be cultural context of the show. Making famous people go through awkward interviews (as opposed to the forced cheerfulness of traditional talk-shows) is essentially what people watch it for.
You would have thought presidential candidates would be above that sort of guff.
Why? Presidential candidates have been doing this kind of thing for half a century or more.
Doing cringeworthy interviews, perhaps, but doing interviews just because they will be cringeworthy? Sounds like a new thing to me.
I googled up an article for you if you're interested in the history of it.
My prediction as things stand is that things will go OKish for Trump early in the night winning Ohio more comfortably than predicted, winning Florida failing in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire (losing here pretty badly) gaining one EC vote in Maine, in the end not really close in Michigan due to him driving higher turnout in the cities, winning Iowa pretty easily then everything gets shat on by California.
The result will likely still be in doubt hours after California is called for Hillary
You suspect legal challenges etc?
From Trump certainly, recounts you name it
Recounts can only happen if the vote is within a certain margin, surely?
Clinton 44% (-4 since mid-Aug) Trump 37% (+5) Johnson 8% (-) Stein 1% (-2)
2-WAY
Clinton 51% (-4) Trump 40% (+4)
Key trend: Clinton's PA-CO-VA firewall remains even as she slips elsewhere. If that holds, Trump needs a state like WI or NH to hit 270.
VA is one Trump won't win, is trending solidly Democrat perhaps more so than any other state.
It's all the government employees in NoVa and the military's nervousness about Trump in both NoVa and Tidewater.
While I agree that Va is trending Dem, don't forget they almost lost the gubernatorial vote in 2013 in a squeaker, with a no-name GOPer ahead against a national name Dem (McAuliffe) until the very last of the NoVa districts came in. Final result Dem 47.75%. GOP 45.23%, Libertarian 6.52%. With a good GOP candidate that pulls in the libertarian vote, this state is still winnable for the GOP, if an uphill battle.
Dem voters are lazy and only turnout for Presidential elections. The last non-pres election they turned out for was 2006.
Which makes Trump's rustbelt strategy of targetting Dem voters from the lowest turnout group so risky.
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
Wow... If that doesn't smack of desperation I don't know what does.
Who was responsible for putting her with that bigoted man? Must be Sue...
Hillary's deadpanning of Galifianakis has actually gone down quite well in the States. Clearly it will be considered a disaster for her on here, but then so too does the Pope reject protestantism.
Some of that will be cultural context of the show. Making famous people go through awkward interviews (as opposed to the forced cheerfulness of traditional talk-shows) is essentially what people watch it for.
You would have thought presidential candidates would be above that sort of guff.
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
It's funny in an Ali G sort of way. I think she handles it very well with an exasperated smile on a wayward child. It won't do her any harm at all and may increase her street cred with a niche.
Clinton 44% (-4 since mid-Aug) Trump 37% (+5) Johnson 8% (-) Stein 1% (-2)
2-WAY
Clinton 51% (-4) Trump 40% (+4)
Key trend: Clinton's PA-CO-VA firewall remains even as she slips elsewhere. If that holds, Trump needs a state like WI or NH to hit 270.
VA is one Trump won't win, is trending solidly Democrat perhaps more so than any other state.
It's all the government employees in NoVa and the military's nervousness about Trump in both NoVa and Tidewater.
While I agree that Va is trending Dem, don't forget they almost lost the gubernatorial vote in 2013 in a squeaker, with a no-name GOPer ahead against a national name Dem (McAuliffe) until the very last of the NoVa districts came in. Final result Dem 47.75%. GOP 45.23%, Libertarian 6.52%. With a good GOP candidate that pulls in the libertarian vote, this state is still winnable for the GOP, if an uphill battle.
Dem voters are lazy and only turnout for Presidential elections. The last non-pres election they turned out for was 2006.
Which makes Trump's rustbelt strategy of targetting Dem voters from the lowest turnout group so risky.
Yes and no. They are angry, and angry voters tend to turn out.
For me, being a socialist means being in favour of good things and against bad things
Few things give me greater feeling of schadenfreude than watching Right wingers discover the Daily Mash, think they've found the mythical right-wing-satire site and then fall out of love as soon as their beliefs are made fun off, e.g Delingpole's epic meltdown.
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
It's funny in an Ali G sort of way. I think she handles it very well with an exasperated smile on a wayward child. It won't do her any harm at all and may increase her street cred with a niche.
What made Ali G funny is that the politicians did not know it was fake and their reactions were genuine.
The only upside to this for Hillary I see is that it makes her more relatable as she is prepared to be involved in a self-deprectating set-up. But the viewership of this must comprise almost entirely of non-voters and confirmed Dems, so what's the point?
For me, being a socialist means being in favour of good things and against bad things
Few things give me greater feeling of schadenfreude than watching Right wingers discover the Daily Mash, think they've found the mythical right-wing-satire site and then fall out of love as soon as their beliefs are made fun off, e.g Delingpole's epic meltdown.
It is not as good as it used to be; I think their best writer must have jumped ship a couple of years ago: one no longer sees things as funny as
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
It's funny in an Ali G sort of way. I think she handles it very well with an exasperated smile on a wayward child. It won't do her any harm at all and may increase her street cred with a niche.
What made Ali G funny is that the politicians did not know it was fake and their reactions were genuine.
The only upside to this for Hillary I see is that it makes her more relatable as she is prepared to be involved in a self-deprectating set-up. But the viewership of this must comprise almost entirely of non-voters and confirmed Dems, so what's the point?
Clinton is doing badly with 18-34 year olds. A lot of those "Confirmed Dems" are saying they'll vote third party.
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
It's funny in an Ali G sort of way. I think she handles it very well with an exasperated smile on a wayward child. It won't do her any harm at all and may increase her street cred with a niche.
What made Ali G funny is that the politicians did not know it was fake and their reactions were genuine.
The only upside to this for Hillary I see is that it makes her more relatable as she is prepared to be involved in a self-deprectating set-up. But the viewership of this must comprise almost entirely of non-voters and confirmed Dems, so what's the point?
The viewership is young, and the young are disproportionately going 3rd party at the moment (and Clinton is relatively weak among the youth demographic).
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
It's funny in an Ali G sort of way. I think she handles it very well with an exasperated smile on a wayward child. It won't do her any harm at all and may increase her street cred with a niche.
What made Ali G funny is that the politicians did not know it was fake and their reactions were genuine.
As far as I can see, Leavers remain quite clueless about what they want. Having wanted out of the EU, believing that a favourable deal could be effortlessly negotiated, they now rush towards as hard a Brexit as possible. In six months' time they will doubtless be agitating to leave the UN. In six months after that, they will be investigating how to physically separate the island of Great Britain from the rest of planet earth. Meanwhile, Remainers will be blamed for the resultant tectonic effects.
Yes it's not clear to me why and when hard Brexit became the favoured outcome for Leavers and indeed the nation at large. Yet sadly that does seem to now be the case. Leave everything, keep nothing. Piss off into the wilderness.
Hard Brexit is not the preferred option. It's an option that has to be on the table, so that the EU know we are serious.
If the EU want to do this the hard way, then more fool them, but we have to be prepared to accept it.
More fool them?
Or more fool us?
Them. Definitely.
Yes, you are very confident.
Why wouldn't we be?
Trade inbalance means if we go WTO, we can manage it. The UK has an enterprising culture which will rise to the challenge. We have historic links throughout the world.
And if the EU puts politics above economics, they will only hurt themselves in the end.
Since we are Brexiting anyway, let's be confident about it.
One of the biggest problems with the EU is that it puts politics before economics
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
It's funny in an Ali G sort of way. I think she handles it very well with an exasperated smile on a wayward child. It won't do her any harm at all and may increase her street cred with a niche.
What made Ali G funny is that the politicians did not know it was fake and their reactions were genuine.
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
Mrs Clinton was interviewed by Zach Galifianakis. It makes for extremely awkward viewing. I don't think Clinton has any form of charisma, a sense of humour, warmth, etc.
It's funny in an Ali G sort of way. I think she handles it very well with an exasperated smile on a wayward child. It won't do her any harm at all and may increase her street cred with a niche.
What made Ali G funny is that the politicians did not know it was fake and their reactions were genuine.
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
Depends on the timescale you look at Richard. In the short term, the EU has championed free-trade and the removal of transactional costs within the Union, and that brought immediate aggregate benefit to the economies in the system (albeit with local winners and losers)
However, the size of the Union, and its less-than-efficient decision-making and negotiating processes, coupled with its bureaucratic tendency to add ever more layers of regulation while also being unable to remove prior regulations that have proven to be useless, means, IMO, that the processes are ossifying and that the anti-business elements are likely to outweigh the pro-trade effects in the medium-to-longer term. Thus, in this analysis, the UK decision - even if it was mainly about non-economic issues (which are valid in their own rights) - is not necessarily 'throwing away economic advantage for political reasons' but may well be seeking not to be part of an ossifying economic system as it declines.
For me, being a socialist means being in favour of good things and against bad things
Few things give me greater feeling of schadenfreude than watching Right wingers discover the Daily Mash, think they've found the mythical right-wing-satire site and then fall out of love as soon as their beliefs are made fun off, e.g Delingpole's epic meltdown.
I like it precisely because it will take shots that overtly lefty comics will not, but doesn't shy away from the right wing mockery as well. As a brexiter (I'd like to think a more reasonable one, if such a thing exists, but that may be ego talking) it certainly was caustic against views I agreed with recently, but it'll go all over the spectrum, it's great.
For me, being a socialist means being in favour of good things and against bad things
Few things give me greater feeling of schadenfreude than watching Right wingers discover the Daily Mash, think they've found the mythical right-wing-satire site and then fall out of love as soon as their beliefs are made fun off, e.g Delingpole's epic meltdown.
I like it precisely because it will take shots that overtly lefty comics will not, but doesn't shy away from the right wing mockery as well. As a brexiter (I'd like to think a more reasonable one, if such a thing exists, but that may be ego talking) it certainly was caustic against views I agreed with recently, but it'll go all over the spectrum, it's great.
Me too. I love comedians who skewer all political shades. It's just the unrelentingly lefty ones whom I cannot abide.
Police organisations can just openly declare for political candidates?!
Many sheriffs are elected. Just Google Sheriff Arpaio.
Oh I knew Sheriffs are elected (and what a terrible idea that seems to me), but for essentially rank and file to openly pitch for one candidate over another in a professional sense, well, different cultures I suppose.
Depends on the timescale you look at Richard. In the short term, the EU has championed free-trade and the removal of transactional costs within the Union, and that brought immediate aggregate benefit to the economies in the system (albeit with local winners and losers)
However, the size of the Union, and its less-than-efficient decision-making and negotiating processes, coupled with its bureaucratic tendency to add ever more layers of regulation while also being unable to remove prior regulations that have proven to be useless, means, IMO, that the processes are ossifying and that the anti-business elements are likely to outweigh the pro-trade effects in the medium-to-longer term. Thus, in this analysis, the UK decision - even if it was mainly about non-economic issues (which are valid in their own rights) - is not necessarily 'throwing away economic advantage for political reasons' but may well be seeking not to be part of an ossifying economic system as it declines.
Oh, certainly, it might work out that way, and we certainly need to do everything we can to try to make sure it does work out well. But the fact still remains that most of the world thinks that the UK will lose out economically from Brexit. It is exceptionally arrogant of certain Leavers to assert that everyone else is wrong.
Police organisations can just openly declare for political candidates?!
Many sheriffs are elected. Just Google Sheriff Arpaio.
Oh I knew Sheriffs are elected (and what a terrible idea that seems to me), but for essentially rank and file to openly pitch for one candidate over another in a professional sense, well, different cultures I suppose.
When political appointees filter down so far in the system, and sheriffs, judges and prosecutors are elected, it makes little sense to require your civil servants to be apolitical.
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.
It's all well and good for them to judge, but until they are familiar with the ill and frankly corrosive effect the EU has on our national outlook and politics, they should keep their own council.
Police organisations can just openly declare for political candidates?!
Google/Wikipedia suggests that the Fraternal Order of Police is a bit like a trade union, so I guess it's no different to actual unions endorsing the Democrats. Why they'd want to get involved in politics like this is beyond me though.
Police organisations can just openly declare for political candidates?!
Many sheriffs are elected. Just Google Sheriff Arpaio.
Oh I knew Sheriffs are elected (and what a terrible idea that seems to me), but for essentially rank and file to openly pitch for one candidate over another in a professional sense, well, different cultures I suppose.
When political appointees filter down so far in the system, and sheriffs, judges and prosecutors are elected, it makes little sense to require your civil servants to be apolitical.
Not my cup of tea, but by golly america is committed to elections being a good thing for seemingly >i>any position.
'To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.'
Which other countries outside of the EU would accept mass uncontrolled immigration ?
Police organisations can just openly declare for political candidates?!
Many sheriffs are elected. Just Google Sheriff Arpaio.
Oh I knew Sheriffs are elected (and what a terrible idea that seems to me), but for essentially rank and file to openly pitch for one candidate over another in a professional sense, well, different cultures I suppose.
When political appointees filter down so far in the system, and sheriffs, judges and prosecutors are elected, it makes little sense to require your civil servants to be apolitical.
Not my cup of tea, but by golly america is committed to elections being a good thing for seemingly >i>any position.
Do neutrals even believe in elections? They are terribly partisan.
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
You mean political reasons such as wanting to govern yourself? That daft democracy idea?
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.
It's all well and good for them to judge, but until they are familiar with the ill and frankly corrosive effect the EU has on our national outlook and politics, they should keep their own council.
Ask Californians if they would join the United States of Trump come December and the answer may well be no...
It's a category error to compare the EU with things like NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN. You can't understand the EU without interpreting it as analogous to the nationalist movements that united Germany and Italy in centuries past, except on a continental scale (like China for that matter).
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.
It's all well and good for them to judge, but until they are familiar with the ill and frankly corrosive effect the EU has on our national outlook and politics, they should keep their own council.
The President of Russia and the possible next President of the USA by contrast are very happy with Brexit and Trump may well build on it by taking the U.S. out of NAFTA if Canada and Mexico do not submit to his demands
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.
It's all well and good for them to judge, but until they are familiar with the ill and frankly corrosive effect the EU has on our national outlook and politics, they should keep their own council.
Ask Californians if they would join the United States of Trump come December and the answer may well be no...
It's a category error to compare the EU with things like NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN. You can't understand the EU without interpreting it as analogous to the nationalist movements that united Germany and Italy in centuries past, except on a continental scale (like China for that matter).
I'm sure they would still feel American regardless of who was president. Not sure that Brits have the same feeling about Europe
Police organisations can just openly declare for political candidates?!
Many sheriffs are elected. Just Google Sheriff Arpaio.
Oh I knew Sheriffs are elected (and what a terrible idea that seems to me), but for essentially rank and file to openly pitch for one candidate over another in a professional sense, well, different cultures I suppose.
The FOP didn't endorse anyone in 2012 if I remember correctly so this is a big thing.
You mean political reasons such as wanting to govern yourself? That daft democracy idea?
I don't mean anything. I was merely pointing out that the view from the other side of the Channel is the exact mirror image of @TCPoliticalBetting's view.
Inside that FL poll, massive majority for amendment to legalise cannabis for medical use. It will be legalised in most big states before too long I should think.
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
You mean political reasons such as wanting to govern yourself? That daft democracy idea?
Clinton 44% (-4 since mid-Aug) Trump 37% (+5) Johnson 8% (-) Stein 1% (-2)
2-WAY
Clinton 51% (-4) Trump 40% (+4)
Key trend: Clinton's PA-CO-VA firewall remains even as she slips elsewhere. If that holds, Trump needs a state like WI or NH to hit 270.
VA is one Trump won't win, is trending solidly Democrat perhaps more so than any other state.
It's all the government employees in NoVa and the military's nervousness about Trump in both NoVa and Tidewater.
While I agree that Va is trending Dem, don't forget they almost lost the gubernatorial vote in 2013 in a squeaker, with a no-name GOPer ahead against a national name Dem (McAuliffe) until the very last of the NoVa districts came in. Final result Dem 47.75%. GOP 45.23%, Libertarian 6.52%. With a good GOP candidate that pulls in the libertarian vote, this state is still winnable for the GOP, if an uphill battle.
Dem voters are lazy and only turnout for Presidential elections. The last non-pres election they turned out for was 2006.
Which makes Trump's rustbelt strategy of targetting Dem voters from the lowest turnout group so risky.
Almost as crazy as Leave targeting Labour voters from the lowest turnout group!
For me, being a socialist means being in favour of good things and against bad things
Few things give me greater feeling of schadenfreude than watching Right wingers discover the Daily Mash, think they've found the mythical right-wing-satire site and then fall out of love as soon as their beliefs are made fun off, e.g Delingpole's epic meltdown.
I like it precisely because it will take shots that overtly lefty comics will not, but doesn't shy away from the right wing mockery as well. As a brexiter (I'd like to think a more reasonable one, if such a thing exists, but that may be ego talking) it certainly was caustic against views I agreed with recently, but it'll go all over the spectrum, it's great.
I love the Mash, it almost always hits things spot on.
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.
It's all well and good for them to judge, but until they are familiar with the ill and frankly corrosive effect the EU has on our national outlook and politics, they should keep their own council.
Ask Californians if they would join the United States of Trump come December and the answer may well be no...
It's a category error to compare the EU with things like NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN. You can't understand the EU without interpreting it as analogous to the nationalist movements that united Germany and Italy in centuries past, except on a continental scale (like China for that matter).
I'm sure they would still feel American regardless of who was president. Not sure that Brits have the same feeling about Europe
Oh but they do. Just look at the virulent comments on the Daily Mail aimed at Angela Merkel for letting the unwashed hordes into 'Europe' which they very much associate with themselves.
Brexit is fundamentally separatist in nature rather than nationalist.
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.
It's all well and good for them to judge, but until they are familiar with the ill and frankly corrosive effect the EU has on our national outlook and politics, they should keep their own council.
Ask Californians if they would join the United States of Trump come December and the answer may well be no...
It's a category error to compare the EU with things like NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN. You can't understand the EU without interpreting it as analogous to the nationalist movements that united Germany and Italy in centuries past, except on a continental scale (like China for that matter).
But that's how the rest of the world sees the EU, as a trading bloc like NAFTA or alliance like ASEAN. They look from the outside in and wonder why we left, the US would never sign up to a political union where the SCOTUS was no longer the ultimate judicial arbiter, and yet they expect it of us. As for Germany or Italy, I'm not asking for them to want anything different, just that we want no part of it. Thankfully, I'm in the majority.
My prediction as things stand is that things will go OKish for Trump early in the night winning Ohio more comfortably than predicted, winning Florida failing in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire (losing here pretty badly) gaining one EC vote in Maine, in the end not really close in Michigan due to him driving higher turnout in the cities, winning Iowa pretty easily then everything gets shat on by California.
The result will likely still be in doubt hours after California is called for Hillary
You suspect legal challenges etc?
From Trump certainly, recounts you name it
Recounts can only happen if the vote is within a certain margin, surely?
Given how tight it now is that is a strong possibility in at least a handful of states
Police organisations can just openly declare for political candidates?!
Many sheriffs are elected. Just Google Sheriff Arpaio.
Oh I knew Sheriffs are elected (and what a terrible idea that seems to me), but for essentially rank and file to openly pitch for one candidate over another in a professional sense, well, different cultures I suppose.
When political appointees filter down so far in the system, and sheriffs, judges and prosecutors are elected, it makes little sense to require your civil servants to be apolitical.
Not my cup of tea, but by golly america is committed to elections being a good thing for seemingly >i>any position.
Do neutrals even believe in elections? They are terribly partisan.
Benign dictatorship is much more efficient, smothering all in a comfortable grey mediocrity.
Clinton 44% (-4 since mid-Aug) Trump 37% (+5) Johnson 8% (-) Stein 1% (-2)
2-WAY
Clinton 51% (-4) Trump 40% (+4)
Key trend: Clinton's PA-CO-VA firewall remains even as she slips elsewhere. If that holds, Trump needs a state like WI or NH to hit 270.
VA is one Trump won't win, is trending solidly Democrat perhaps more so than any other state.
It's all the government employees in NoVa and the military's nervousness about Trump in both NoVa and Tidewater.
While I agree that Va is trending Dem, don't forget they almost lost the gubernatorial vote in 2013 in a squeaker, with a no-name GOPer ahead against a national name Dem (McAuliffe) until the very last of the NoVa districts came in. Final result Dem 47.75%. GOP 45.23%, Libertarian 6.52%. With a good GOP candidate that pulls in the libertarian vote, this state is still winnable for the GOP, if an uphill battle.
Dem voters are lazy and only turnout for Presidential elections. The last non-pres election they turned out for was 2006.
Which makes Trump's rustbelt strategy of targetting Dem voters from the lowest turnout group so risky.
Almost as crazy as Leave targeting Labour voters from the lowest turnout group!
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.
It's all well and good for them to judge, but until they are familiar with the ill and frankly corrosive effect the EU has on our national outlook and politics, they should keep their own council.
Ask Californians if they would join the United States of Trump come December and the answer may well be no...
It's a category error to compare the EU with things like NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN. You can't understand the EU without interpreting it as analogous to the nationalist movements that united Germany and Italy in centuries past, except on a continental scale (like China for that matter).
But that's how the rest of the world sees the EU, as a trading bloc like NAFTA or alliance like ASEAN. They look from the outside in and wonder why we left, the US would never sign up to a political union where the SCOTUS was no longer the ultimate judicial arbiter, and yet they expect it of us. As for Germany or Italy, I'm not asking for them to want anything different, just that we want no part of it. Thankfully, I'm in the majority.
The US is a political union where the federal courts are the ultimate judicial arbiter but in which states vigorously defend their own interests vis-a-vis the federal government. That's why they are so supportive of efforts to create a Europe more or less in their image.
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.
It's all well and good for them to judge, but until they are familiar with the ill and frankly corrosive effect the EU has on our national outlook and politics, they should keep their own council.
Ask Californians if they would join the United States of Trump come December and the answer may well be no...
It's a category error to compare the EU with things like NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN. You can't understand the EU without interpreting it as analogous to the nationalist movements that united Germany and Italy in centuries past, except on a continental scale (like China for that matter).
But that's how the rest of the world sees the EU, as a trading bloc like NAFTA or alliance like ASEAN. They look from the outside in and wonder why we left, the US would never sign up to a political union where the SCOTUS was no longer the ultimate judicial arbiter, and yet they expect it of us. As for Germany or Italy, I'm not asking for them to want anything different, just that we want no part of it. Thankfully, I'm in the majority.
The US is a political union where the federal courts are the ultimate judicial arbiter but in which states vigorously defend their own interests vis-a-vis the federal government. That's why they are so supportive of efforts to create a Europe more or less in their image.
The United States is a sovereign nation. The EU isn't, and frankly if it ever tried to become one while we were in it we'd leave before it happened. The US and EU are not comparable entities. Remind me, who voted for Juncker? Or any of the Commission, for that matter?
When political appointees filter down so far in the system, and sheriffs, judges and prosecutors are elected, it makes little sense to require your civil servants to be apolitical.
I used to know a fairly senior architect in New York, who refused promition above a certain level because it would make his position vulnerable if the regime changed. That can't make sense - who needs politicsed architects?
For me, being a socialist means being in favour of good things and against bad things
Few things give me greater feeling of schadenfreude than watching Right wingers discover the Daily Mash, think they've found the mythical right-wing-satire site and then fall out of love as soon as their beliefs are made fun off, e.g Delingpole's epic meltdown.
I like it precisely because it will take shots that overtly lefty comics will not, but doesn't shy away from the right wing mockery as well. As a brexiter (I'd like to think a more reasonable one, if such a thing exists, but that may be ego talking) it certainly was caustic against views I agreed with recently, but it'll go all over the spectrum, it's great.
I love the Mash, it almost always hits things spot on.
The best now is the Southend News Network. They have a great understanding of absurdity.
PB Tories may like to read their account of an incident in Southend Waitrose:
When political appointees filter down so far in the system, and sheriffs, judges and prosecutors are elected, it makes little sense to require your civil servants to be apolitical.
I used to know a fairly senior architect in New York, who refused promition above a certain level because it would make his position vulnerable if the regime changed. That can't make sense - who needs politicsed architects?
Don't they have elected commissioners in NYC for basically everything? Your friend was probably in housing.
Depends on the timescale you look at Richard. In the short term, the EU has championed free-trade and the removal of transactional costs within the Union, and that brought immediate aggregate benefit to the economies in the system (albeit with local winners and losers)
However, the size of the Union, and its less-than-efficient decision-making and negotiating processes, coupled with its bureaucratic tendency to add ever more layers of regulation while also being unable to remove prior regulations that have proven to be useless, means, IMO, that the processes are ossifying and that the anti-business elements are likely to outweigh the pro-trade effects in the medium-to-longer term. Thus, in this analysis, the UK decision - even if it was mainly about non-economic issues (which are valid in their own rights) - is not necessarily 'throwing away economic advantage for political reasons' but may well be seeking not to be part of an ossifying economic system as it declines.
Oh, certainly, it might work out that way, and we certainly need to do everything we can to try to make sure it does work out well. But the fact still remains that most of the world thinks that the UK will lose out economically from Brexit. It is exceptionally arrogant of certain Leavers to assert that everyone else is wrong.
It really is not a question of asserting that everyone else is wrong. Rather it is stating that they may think that from their perspective but from our perspective we - as a nation - have, after more than 40 years experience of the institution - taken a different view. They might think we are wrong but they might try asking why we have reached that view and, even, what it is about our experience of this organization and how it has behaved which might have induced quite so many people to take a dim view of it to the extent that they have.
People / countries can have different perspectives. It's not that one is right and one wrong. Just different. What makes sense for Latvia, for instance, may not make sense for Britain.
This idea that other Eurozone states are somehow wrong to do what they are doing (which may make great sense for them from their perspective and given their history and geography and cultural/political approaches) is as silly as the idea that Britain is self-harming in taking a different view, based on our perspective, history, geography etc.
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.
It's all well and good for them to judge, but until they are familiar with the ill and frankly corrosive effect the EU has on our national outlook and politics, they should keep their own council.
Ask Californians if they would join the United States of Trump come December and the answer may well be no...
It's a category error to compare the EU with things like NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN. You can't understand the EU without interpreting it as analogous to the nationalist movements that united Germany and Italy in centuries past, except on a continental scale (like China for that matter).
But that's how the rest of the world sees the EU, as a trading bloc like NAFTA or alliance like ASEAN. They look from the outside in and wonder why we left, the US would never sign up to a political union where the SCOTUS was no longer the ultimate judicial arbiter, and yet they expect it of us. As for Germany or Italy, I'm not asking for them to want anything different, just that we want no part of it. Thankfully, I'm in the majority.
The US is a political union where the federal courts are the ultimate judicial arbiter but in which states vigorously defend their own interests vis-a-vis the federal government. That's why they are so supportive of efforts to create a Europe more or less in their image.
The United States is a sovereign nation. The EU isn't, and frankly if it ever tried to become one while we were in it we'd leave before it happened. The US and EU are not comparable entities. Remind me, who voted for Juncker? Or any of the Commission, for that matter?
Do I detect a possible Brexit compromise in your words? Let's part Article 50 until such time as the EU tries to take away our underlying national sovereignty and keep it parked as a safety valve that we can use if things ever go that far.
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.
It's all well and good for them to judge, but until they are familiar with the ill and frankly corrosive effect the EU has on our national outlook and politics, they should keep their own council.
Ask Californians if they would join the United States of Trump come December and the answer may well be no...
It's a category error to compare the EU with things like NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN. You can't understand the EU without interpreting it as analogous to the nationalist movements that united Germany and Italy in centuries past, except on a continental scale (like China for that matter).
But that's how the rest of the world sees the EU, as a trading bloc like NAFTA or alliance like ASEAN. They look from the outside in and wonder why we left, the US would never sign up to a political union where the SCOTUS was no longer the ultimate judicial arbiter, and yet they expect it of us. As for Germany or Italy, I'm not asking for them to want anything different, just that we want no part of it. Thankfully, I'm in the majority.
The US is a political union where the federal courts are the ultimate judicial arbiter but in which states vigorously defend their own interests vis-a-vis the federal government. That's why they are so supportive of efforts to create a Europe more or less in their image.
If only European states were trying to create a Europe which really learnt and understood the lessons of the Founding Fathers of the USA.
Alas, instead of getting a government by "We the people", we have been getting one by unelected top down bureaucrats with little time for the people or, frankly, democracy.
Do I detect a possible Brexit compromise in your words? Let's part Article 50 until such time as the EU tries to take away our underlying national sovereignty and keep it parked as a safety valve that we can use if things ever go that far.
Absolutely not, I want out at whatever the cost, ultimately. Though I think free trade in goods is on the cards, I'm also not fussed about immigration, but I suspect I'm in the minority.
As I discussed with a few other people, the UK had sovereignty within the EU but had just onr lever with which to exercise it. We pulled that lever by voting to leave, within the EU there was no other concept of national sovereignty, not while being under ECJ jurisdiction and having an unelected commission form the basis of most decisions taken in the country.
Clinton 44% (-4 since mid-Aug) Trump 37% (+5) Johnson 8% (-) Stein 1% (-2)
2-WAY
Clinton 51% (-4) Trump 40% (+4)
Key trend: Clinton's PA-CO-VA firewall remains even as she slips elsewhere. If that holds, Trump needs a state like WI or NH to hit 270.
VA is one Trump won't win, is trending solidly Democrat perhaps more so than any other state.
It's all the government employees in NoVa and the military's nervousness about Trump in both NoVa and Tidewater.
While I agree that Va is trending Dem, don't forget they almost lost the gubernatorial vote in 2013 in a squeaker, with a no-name GOPer ahead against a national name Dem (McAuliffe) until the very last of the NoVa districts came in. Final result Dem 47.75%. GOP 45.23%, Libertarian 6.52%. With a good GOP candidate that pulls in the libertarian vote, this state is still winnable for the GOP, if an uphill battle.
Dem voters are lazy and only turnout for Presidential elections. The last non-pres election they turned out for was 2006.
Which makes Trump's rustbelt strategy of targetting Dem voters from the lowest turnout group so risky.
Almost as crazy as Leave targeting Labour voters from the lowest turnout group!
Yes, but Leave had a functioning GOTV operation.
Trump did not win the GOP primaries without a GOTV operation and it was more fury with the establishment which turned Leave voters out anyway
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
You mean political reasons such as wanting to govern yourself? That daft democracy idea?
Thats right. Like the Scots....
And as I'm sure you recall I was in favour of Scots independence, if that's what they wanted, for precisely those reasons. Sometimes people value independence and self-government more than being richer but with less or no control. The view that Ireland took in the early part of the last century.
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.
It's all well and good for them to judge, but until they are familiar with the ill and frankly corrosive effect the EU has on our national outlook and politics, they should keep their own council.
Ask Californians if they would join the United States of Trump come December and the answer may well be no...
It's a category error to compare the EU with things like NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN. You can't understand the EU without interpreting it as analogous to the nationalist movements that united Germany and Italy in centuries past, except on a continental scale (like China for that matter).
But that's how the rest of the world sees the EU, as a trading bloc like NAFTA or alliance like ASEAN. They look from the outside in and wonder why we left, the US would never sign up to a political union where the SCOTUS was no longer the ultimate judicial arbiter, and yet they expect it of us. As for Germany or Italy, I'm not asking for them to want anything different, just that we want no part of it. Thankfully, I'm in the majority.
The US is a political union where the federal courts are the ultimate judicial arbiter but in which states vigorously defend their own interests vis-a-vis the federal government. That's why they are so supportive of efforts to create a Europe more or less in their image.
The United States is a sovereign nation. The EU isn't, and frankly if it ever tried to become one while we were in it we'd leave before it happened. The US and EU are not comparable entities. Remind me, who voted for Juncker? Or any of the Commission, for that matter?
The EU Parliament voted for Juncker but I agree on the general point. Europe is a continent like North and South America, Africa, Asia and Oceania not a country like the USA. That is the key block to ever creating a fully United States of Europe
On other matters, am I once again missing the 'crony' outrage where David Cameron is apparently trying to help his preferred replacement win the selection for Witney?
On other matters, am I once again missing the 'crony' outrage where David Cameron is apparently trying to help his preferred replacement win the selection for Witney?
For me, being a socialist means being in favour of good things and against bad things
Few things give me greater feeling of schadenfreude than watching Right wingers discover the Daily Mash, think they've found the mythical right-wing-satire site and then fall out of love as soon as their beliefs are made fun off, e.g Delingpole's epic meltdown.
I like it precisely because it will take shots that overtly lefty comics will not, but doesn't shy away from the right wing mockery as well. As a brexiter (I'd like to think a more reasonable one, if such a thing exists, but that may be ego talking) it certainly was caustic against views I agreed with recently, but it'll go all over the spectrum, it's great.
I love the Mash, it almost always hits things spot on.
The best now is the Southend News Network. They have a great understanding of absurdity.
PB Tories may like to read their account of an incident in Southend Waitrose:
Nah, it's a myth. In truth, you'll be more likely to find PB Tories in Waitrose than in any other food store. They appear to sell around five times as many copies of the Daily Mail there than of any other newspaper.
Very true. They are daft enough to create a major problem for their exporters to the UK.
Funnily enough, throwing away economic advantage for political reasons is exactly what the EU27 countries think the UK is doing. For that matter, that's also what much of the rest of the world thinks. Who knows which side is daft?
To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.
It's all well and good for them to judge, but until they are familiar with the ill and frankly corrosive effect the EU has on our national outlook and politics, they should keep their own council.
Ask Californians if they would join the United States of Trump come December and the answer may well be no...
It's a category error to compare the EU with things like NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN. You can't understand the EU without interpreting it as analogous to the nationalist movements that united Germany and Italy in centuries past, except on a continental scale (like China for that matter).
But that's how the rest of the world sees the EU, as a trading bloc like NAFTA or alliance like ASEAN. They look from the outside in and wonder why we left, the US would never sign up to a political union where the SCOTUS was no longer the ultimate judicial arbiter, and yet they expect it of us. As for Germany or Italy, I'm not asking for them to want anything different, just that we want no part of it. Thankfully, I'm in the majority.
That's not quite true regarding NAFTA. An ISDS tribunal struck down the Quebec provincial ban on GM seeds, for example.
For me, being a socialist means being in favour of good things and against bad things
Few things give me greater feeling of schadenfreude than watching Right wingers discover the Daily Mash, think they've found the mythical right-wing-satire site and then fall out of love as soon as their beliefs are made fun off, e.g Delingpole's epic meltdown.
I like it precisely because it will take shots that overtly lefty comics will not, but doesn't shy away from the right wing mockery as well. As a brexiter (I'd like to think a more reasonable one, if such a thing exists, but that may be ego talking) it certainly was caustic against views I agreed with recently, but it'll go all over the spectrum, it's great.
I love the Mash, it almost always hits things spot on.
The best now is the Southend News Network. They have a great understanding of absurdity.
PB Tories may like to read their account of an incident in Southend Waitrose:
Nah, it's a myth. In truth, you'll be more likely to find PB Tories in Waitrose than in any other food store. They appear to sell around five times as many copies of the Daily Mail there than of any other newspaper.
Comments
Why wouldn't we be?
Trade inbalance means if we go WTO, we can manage it.
The UK has an enterprising culture which will rise to the challenge.
We have historic links throughout the world.
And if the EU puts politics above economics, they will only hurt themselves in the end.
Since we are Brexiting anyway, let's be confident about it.
Why? Presidential candidates have been doing this kind of thing for half a century or more.
Not a cult
What a wonderful end to the campaign: @JeremyCorbyn gets serenaded by choir singing "ain't no mountain high enough" https://t.co/1QJAxeUqM9
"Now Black Men for Bernie are rebranding and again planning to tour the country with an emphasis on battleground states. Carter says he’s going to organize black and minority communities to vote against Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment.
“Donald Trump is a business man and a real estate mogul who could provide knowledge and resources to transform urban communities through the development of minority-owned businesses,” Carter said. “With this tour, we’re going to show Mr. Trump and Republicans that the black and minority communities are ready to work with anyone willing to work with us to build opportunities in businesses, employment, and housing. We don’t want welfare, we need opportunity.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/26/black-men-for-bernie-founder-end-democrat-political-slavery-of-minorities/
SNP narrowly avoid defeat in a vote, as the leader of the Labour Party abstained.
Except she didn't. Her electronic vote failed to register.
Skulduggery, or IT failure...
In one place side by side you can have articles mocking moronic socialists and Brexiters
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/brexiter-never-going-to-be-truly-happy-20160922114206
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/man-passionate-about-saying-hes-a-socialist-20160922114201
For me, being a socialist means being in favour of good things and against bad things
That said, 20 millions people have viewed his Hillary episode, apparently. I imagine close to none of them are even in the cross hairs of the Trump campaign.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/22/from-jfk-to-nixon-to-trump-presidential-candidates-and-their-goofiness-on-late-night-tv/
Which makes Trump's rustbelt strategy of targetting Dem voters from the lowest turnout group so risky.
The only upside to this for Hillary I see is that it makes her more relatable as she is prepared to be involved in a self-deprectating set-up. But the viewership of this must comprise almost entirely of non-voters and confirmed Dems, so what's the point?
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/science-technology/carnage-as-facebook-moves-everything-slightly-to-the-left-200809121250
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/valentines-sex-bid-will-fail-says-angry-girlfriend-20080213725
However, the size of the Union, and its less-than-efficient decision-making and negotiating processes, coupled with its bureaucratic tendency to add ever more layers of regulation while also being unable to remove prior regulations that have proven to be useless, means, IMO, that the processes are ossifying and that the anti-business elements are likely to outweigh the pro-trade effects in the medium-to-longer term. Thus, in this analysis, the UK decision - even if it was mainly about non-economic issues (which are valid in their own rights) - is not necessarily 'throwing away economic advantage for political reasons' but may well be seeking not to be part of an ossifying economic system as it declines.
It's all well and good for them to judge, but until they are familiar with the ill and frankly corrosive effect the EU has on our national outlook and politics, they should keep their own council.
'To countries outside of the EU I would ask them whether they would join a political union whereby a foreign court and an unelected executive holds ultimate control, above national institutions. NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN are nothing like the EU. Even the TPP is just trade alignment which the EU goes well beyond. I think you'll find there won't be many takers.'
Which other countries outside of the EU would accept mass uncontrolled immigration ?
You mean political reasons such as wanting to govern yourself? That daft democracy idea?
It's a category error to compare the EU with things like NAFTA, Mercosur and ASEAN. You can't understand the EU without interpreting it as analogous to the nationalist movements that united Germany and Italy in centuries past, except on a continental scale (like China for that matter).
Brexit is fundamentally separatist in nature rather than nationalist.
PB Tories may like to read their account of an incident in Southend Waitrose:
http://southendnewsnetwork.com/news/paramedics-called-to-waitrose-as-shopper-vanishes-up-her-own-bottom/
People / countries can have different perspectives. It's not that one is right and one wrong. Just different. What makes sense for Latvia, for instance, may not make sense for Britain.
This idea that other Eurozone states are somehow wrong to do what they are doing (which may make great sense for them from their perspective and given their history and geography and cultural/political approaches) is as silly as the idea that Britain is self-harming in taking a different view, based on our perspective, history, geography etc.
Alas, instead of getting a government by "We the people", we have been getting one by unelected top down bureaucrats with little time for the people or, frankly, democracy.
As I discussed with a few other people, the UK had sovereignty within the EU but had just onr lever with which to exercise it. We pulled that lever by voting to leave, within the EU there was no other concept of national sovereignty, not while being under ECJ jurisdiction and having an unelected commission form the basis of most decisions taken in the country.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/02/13/william-hill-makes-it-71-that-cameron-will-step-down-this-year/