I don't agree at all. The UK was rightly described as a democracy long before universal suffrage. The right to vote is the icing on the democratic cake.
I have spent the last couple of days in Witney. There is in fact little evidence of a bye-election in progress - with one exception. The village of Charlbury is a sea of orange - it is the home of Liz Leffman, the LD candidate and local ward councillor. Elsewhere there are a few Conservative posters in Cassington and one or two Labour ones in Witney. What is noticeable is that the fields and trees are not voting Conservative - perhaps a sign that the Cons have not got a ground game at the moment.
Yes. Neatly observed.
The Lib Dems' challenge is getting Leffman known: she's enormously popular in her ward (landslide majority in an otherwise blue area) but no name recognition in Witney itself. They are at least helped by Robert Courts (Conservative candidate) being even less well known: he represents a remote area on the District Council and has only done so for a couple of years.
Robert Courts. Not sure if his Brexit credentials.
He voted Leave.
Robert's prediction of the other day is the best I've seen here as to what might actually happen here in Witney. I wonder if the LDs may actually outdo it but let's see.
If it's a low turnout by-election (as seems likely), it's possible the LibDems might outperform my 21% forecast.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.")
* As long as they're not dark-skinned, of course
Yeah... Not the finest hour of the early US.
I remember the documentary on Rhodesia where they interviewed the guy who wrote their post UDI constitution. He explained how they basically cut and pasted the US constitution- except that clause "We didn't agree with that bit so we left it out"
Speedy - why do you keep running this concept of Trump resigning the nomination. It's not going to happen any more than Corbyn is going to resign.
Less, in fact. Not only will not Trump resign but he cannot resign. His name is literally on the ballots.
Yes this idea that Trump is could and should resign his candidacy is one of the more barking concepts advanced on PB, among a wide and colourful field. Even were it possible, it would be an act of such gross desperation the GOP would be routed regardless of who they put up in Trump's place.
It solves some problems and creates others - US Gun law, cough...
The problem is that we all generally assume that on the big important things all right thinking people agree.
Hoaever over time, not least due to technological change things change.
If such a constitution with supermajorities had been put in place by the victorians, one would likely have been the criminalisation of homosexuality which would even now be virtually impossible to repeal if it needed 2/3 in both houses.
The problem is that we can see the follies of previous ages but are blind to the follies of our own. Supermajorities bind future generations unwillingly to our generations follies.
That said, the liberals were pratts was to abolish the lords veto without something along the lines you suggest for major constitutional issues - not least it would have meant that we could not have joined the EU without a 2/3 maj in both houses!
Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
So were an opinion poll to find that ethnic minorities should be stripped of the vote you would advocate imposing that policy?
Opinion polls are NOT referenda
Thank God, or we'd have Prime Minister Miliband propped up by his SNP string-pullers....
It seems to me that the Government are losing the plot completely on immigration and Brexit. A large chunk of the anti-immigrant motivated vote in the referendum must have come from areas of the electorate that are never going to vote Conservative, and in areas .
Classic remainer comment ?
I am sure in ten plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlands
Your point being?
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary people
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%
LEAVE 52% REMAIN 48%
As someone who like me has a PhD Dr Prasannan, you should know very well not to push data further than the question which the experiment was designed to answer.
LEAVE 17,410,742 REMAIN 16,141,241
I refer you to my previous comment. You have no evidence that the majority favour hard brexit.
We was asked a simple question:
Should the UK leave or remain in the EU?
We WERE asked an OVERLY simple question - hence no practically applicable answer.
I was looking forward to some real juicy leaks...I won't mention Pussy here...oops I just did but I think I got away with it. Sadly I don't think Assange has anything.
It solves some problems and creates others - US Gun law, cough...
The problem is that we all generally assume that on the big important things all right thinking people agree.
Hoaever over time, not least due to technological change things change.
If such a constitution with supermajorities had been put in place by the victorians, one would likely have been the criminalisation of homosexuality which would even now be virtually impossible to repeal if it needed 2/3 in both houses.
The problem is that we can see the follies of previous ages but are blind to the follies of our own. Supermajorities bind future generations unwillingly to our generations follies.
That said, the liberals were pratts was to abolish the lords veto without something along the lines you suggest for major constitutional issues - not least it would have meant that we could not have joined the EU without a 2/3 maj in both houses!
It solves some problems and creates others - US Gun law, cough...
The problem is that we all generally assume that on the big important things all right thinking people agree.
Hoaever over time, not least due to technological change things change.
If such a constitution with supermajorities had been put in place by the victorians, one would likely have been the criminalisation of homosexuality which would even now be virtually impossible to repeal if it needed 2/3 in both houses.
The problem is that we can see the follies of previous ages but are blind to the follies of our own. Supermajorities bind future generations unwillingly to our generations follies.
That said, the liberals were pratts was to abolish the lords veto without something along the lines you suggest for major constitutional issues - not least it would have meant that we could not have joined the EU without a 2/3 maj in both houses!
And constitutions don't make murder illegal or homosexuality wrong. They define the boundaries of executive and legislative power.
AIUI India has the longest constitution, not far removed from the Govt. of India Act, 1935.
How right you are:
The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the world, containing 444 articles in 22 parts, 12 schedules and 118 amendments, with 117,369 words in its English-language translation
Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
So were an opinion poll to find that ethnic minorities should be stripped of the vote you would advocate imposing that policy?
Have you been drinking
The results of opinion polls do not constitute law.
Who is the OP ? Why do i want to ask him anything ?
Lets leave it to one thing...otherwise it might confuse you
Who is the OP ?
I didn't write any of that.
The original poster was Big Wales - he claimed that the policy to flush out foreigners in companies was justified because 59% of people told YouGov they supported it.
It seems to me that the Government are Conservative, and in areas .
Classic remainer comment ?
I am sure in ten plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlands
Your point being?
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary people
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%
LEAVE 52% REMAIN 48%
As someone who like me has a PhD Dr Prasannan, you should know very well not to push data further than the question which the experiment was designed to answer.
LEAVE 17,410,742 REMAIN 16,141,241
I refer you to my previous comment. You have no evidence that the majority favour hard brexit.
We was asked a simple question:
Should the UK leave or remain in the EU?
We WERE asked an OVERLY simple question - hence no practically applicable answer.
"my dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders”
'Open borders' from Mexico, the Trump camp will jump on that! Her comments on middle class life “I’m kind of far removed” are also not great for her campaign
I refer you to my previous comment. You have no evidence that the majority favour hard brexit.
I agree with you here. I campaigned very hard for and of course voted for Leave. But my vision of a post Brexit Britain is probably a long way from the average UKIP voter. Even some of those leading the Leave campaign were not hoping for what we would now describe as a 'hard' Brexit. To try and claim that this was the settled will of the people based on the referendum question is simply not reasonable.
She was paid $250k a pop for that "you know, you know" infested drivel?
In a normal election cycle there are some terrible sounding quotes which could ripped from just that one email for an attack ad. If Mitt "47%" Romney had said would have caused trouble, but she is against The Donald who daily says offensive stuff.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.")
* As long as they're not dark-skinned, of course
Yeah... Not the finest hour of the early US.
I think the lesson is more that things are not as absolute as they appear. Autre temps, autres moeurs
After all, there would would have been a pretty much 100% consensus in the Western world in 1776 that the unalienable rights endowed by the Creator arose from the moment of conception. Now, not so much.
I very much doubt it. Abortion has been around forever, and debated over forever. You can find justifications of it all the way back to the Ancient Greeks. So there were very likely significant portions of society that didn't believe in that.
"my dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders”
'Open borders' from Mexico, the Trump camp will jump on that!
Is there a trump operation at the moment? all the GOP senators seems to be abandoning him publically and this seems the big news story. I doubt that one speech will get much traction
I refer you to my previous comment. You have no evidence that the majority favour hard brexit.
I agree with you here. I campaigned very hard for and of course voted for Leave. But my vision of a post Brexit Britain is probably a long way from the average UKIP voter. Even some of those leading the Leave campaign were not hoping for what we would now describe as a 'hard' Brexit. To try and claim that this was the settled will of the people based on the referendum question is simply not reasonable.
You voted Leave???
Richard, I've missed you. Please spend more time on pb.
It seems to me that the Government are Conservative, and in areas .
Classic remainer comment ?
I am sure in ten plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
It's nothing to do with supporting or opposing remain. It's about the Government going far beyond what is acceptable in stirring up anti-foreigner sentiment. Remember when there were two visions of Brexit, supposedly articulated by the two rival Brexit campaign camps? Wonder what the likes of Dan Hannan are thinking at the moment?
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlands
Your point being?
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary people
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%
LEAVE 52% REMAIN 48%
As someone who like me has a PhD Dr Prasannan, you should know very well not to push data further than the question which the experiment was designed to answer.
LEAVE 17,410,742 REMAIN 16,141,241
I refer you to my previous comment. You have no evidence that the majority favour hard brexit.
We was asked a simple question:
Should the UK leave or remain in the EU?
We WERE asked an OVERLY simple question - hence no practically applicable answer.
Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
Or more plausibly:
"If you think you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere... That's why my government will pass legislation to remove the right to vote from anyone who holds dual-nationality, or who doesn't pay their fair share of tax in the UK."
The Tories have decided to give the tax dodgers the vote for life now.
No representation without taxation!
So you support local elections only having council tax payers on the franchise?
So only tax payers should vote in elections? Why not go the whole hog - only freehold owners can vote?
If you prevent half
Until a few of them are gunned down by paramilitary police pour encouragement les autres.
Problem is modern technology means violently suppressing riots has never been easier.
That works for a short while but if it happens longer term, the government gets increasingly divorced from the concerns of the people etc it only takes a few of those paramilitary police to be killed and murdered by mass rioters in a particularly brutal fashion and their weapons stolen for the makings of a violent revolution to be in the offing and government buildings to be stormed. Modern technology and social media makes a well organised revolution easier than ever before too (see Egypt, Libya etc) and even a kitchen knife can be a weapon if needed
Speedy - why do you keep running this concept of Trump resigning the nomination. It's not going to happen any more than Corbyn is going to resign.
Less, in fact. Not only will not Trump resign but he cannot resign. His name is literally on the ballots.
He can resign any time he likes, his name will still be on the ballot but the ballots cast with his name on will be counted for the new nominee not Trump.
And the RNC can nominate whoever they like once Trump resigns.
I insist on bringing that up because it's clear that Trump is not up to the job and neither is Hillary, the best thing for america and the world is for Trump to resign so that Hillary loses too.
She was paid $250k a pop for that "you know, you know" infested drivel?
No, she was paid $250k a pop for future political influence.
How dare you suggest such a thing. Next you will be telling me those $1 million an hour speeches that Bill gives in far flung corners of the world aren't for the good of the charrrdddieee, but are for the same reason.
I don't agree at all. The UK was rightly described as a democracy long before universal suffrage. The right to vote is the icing on the democratic cake.
I'd say it's rather tricky to claim democracy without the right to vote?
"Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”
Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
We do not have a written constitution so if 50+1 vote to strip the vote from women that is what would happen. There are no rights that transcend parliamentary democracy...only the hated European Court of Human Rights.
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
Or more plausibly:
"If you think you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere... That's why my government will pass legislation to remove the right to vote from anyone who holds dual-nationality, or who doesn't pay their fair share of tax in the UK."
The Tories have decided to give the tax dodgers the vote for life now.
No representation without taxation!
So you support local elections only having council tax payers on the franchise?
So only tax payers should vote in elections? Why not go the whole hog - only freehold owners can vote?
If you prevent half
Until a few of them are gunned down by paramilitary police pour encouragement les autres.
Problem is modern technology means violently suppressing riots has never been easier.
That works for a short while but if it happens longer term, the government gets increasingly divorced from the concerns of the people etc it only takes a few of those paramilitary police to be killed and murdered by mass rioters in a particularly brutal fashion and their weapons stolen for the makings of a violent revolution to be in the offing and government buildings to be stormed. Modern technology and social media makes a well organised revolution easier than ever before too and even a kitchen knife can be a weapon if needed
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I don't agree at all. The UK was rightly described as a democracy long before universal suffrage. The right to vote is the icing on the democratic cake.
I'd say it's rather tricky to claim democracy without the right to vote?
"Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”
But if the Patrician has the vote, but not anyone else, in what sense is it a supreme right?
It seems to me that the Government are Conservative, and in areas .
Classic remainer comment ?
I am sure in ten plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
?
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlands
Your point being?
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary people
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%
LEAVE 52% REMAIN 48%
As someone who like me has a PhD Dr Prasannan, you should know very well not to push data further than the question which the experiment was designed to answer.
LEAVE 17,410,742 REMAIN 16,141,241
I refer you to my previous comment. You have no evidence that the majority favour hard brexit.
We was asked a simple question:
Should the UK leave or remain in the EU?
We WERE asked an OVERLY simple question - hence no practically applicable answer.
I don't agree at all. The UK was rightly described as a democracy long before universal suffrage. The right to vote is the icing on the democratic cake.
I'd say it's rather tricky to claim democracy without the right to vote?
"Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”
But if the Patrician has the vote, but not anyone else, in what sense is it a supreme right?
That was a humorous characterisation of the idea of democracy without universal suffrage.
These rumours have been circulating all day. Quite how he would go about it - and how many people would be willing to listen to him if he did - God alone knows.
I don't agree at all. The UK was rightly described as a democracy long before universal suffrage. The right to vote is the icing on the democratic cake.
I'd say it's rather tricky to claim democracy without the right to vote?
"Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”
But if the Patrician has the vote, but not anyone else, in what sense is it a supreme right?
It is the 'supreme' right as it is reserved for the 'supreme' being.
These rumours have been circulating all day. Quite how he would go about it - and how many people would be willing to listen to him if he did - God alone knows.
It seems to me that the Government are Conservative, and in areas .
Classic remainer comment ?
I am sure in ten plot/mistake. Even though we now in an economic boom, and the EU still has mass unemployment. VOTE REJOIN"
?
You do know that You Gov poll confirmed the public back plans to make firms release foreign workers numbers by more than 2 to 1 with even a majority of labour supporters backing it and it is particularly popular in the labour heartlands
Your point being?
It is only the liberal elite calling out this proposal which has been well received by ordinary people
Just because a majority of people support it in one opinion poll doesn't make it right. Tyranny of the majority.
Quite. Anyone who thinks that democracy means that 50% + 1 get to impose their views no matter what doesn't understand democracy.
Yes, of course Labour governed between 2005 and 2010 with 35%.
And now the Tories are giving us hard brexit with less than 37%
LEAVE 52% REMAIN 48%
As someone who like me has a PhD Dr Prasannan, you should know very well not to push data further than the question which the experiment was designed to answer.
LEAVE 17,410,742 REMAIN 16,141,241
I refer you to my previous comment. You have no evidence that the majority favour hard brexit.
We was asked a simple question:
Should the UK leave or remain in the EU?
We WERE asked an OVERLY simple question - hence no practically applicable answer.
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
Pence is going for 2020, if he abandons Trump he will lose the gains he made by appearing loyal to his party and a better persona than Trump.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
She was paid $250k a pop for that "you know, you know" infested drivel?
No, she was paid $250k a pop for future political influence.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
About two years ago I met with Hillary Clinton.
Why?
Because I am a fund manager and went to Sandford Bernstein's "Strategic Decisions Conference" in New York. Hillary gave a speech, and then spend about three hours doing little sit downs with three or four investors for 15 minutes apiece.
Sandford Bernstein - a big US broker - gave 1,000 of its investors the chance to hear Hillary, and 50 of them a chance to sit down and chat with her. That's a pretty good way of encouraging investors to do business with Sandford Bernstein. And I'd bet they got more than $250,000 of business from it.
She was paid $250k a pop for that "you know, you know" infested drivel?
No, she was paid $250k a pop for future political influence.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
About two years ago I met with Hillary Clinton.
Why?
Because I am a fund manager and went to Sandford Bernstein's "Strategic Decisions Conference" in New York. Hillary gave a speech, and then spend about three hours doing little sit downs with three or four investors for 15 minutes apiece.
Sandford Bernstein - a big US broker - gave 1,000 of its investors the chance to hear Hillary, and 50 of them a chance to sit down and chat with her. That's a pretty good way of encouraging investors to do business with Sandford Bernstein. And I'd bet they got more than $250,000 of business from it.
And what was your impression of Hiliary "You Know" Clinton, other than she says "You Know" more often than a teenager?
She was paid $250k a pop for that "you know, you know" infested drivel?
No, she was paid $250k a pop for future political influence.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
About two years ago I met with Hillary Clinton.
Why?
Because I am a fund manager and went to Sandford Bernstein's "Strategic Decisions Conference" in New York. Hillary gave a speech, and then spend about three hours doing little sit downs with three or four investors for 15 minutes apiece.
Sandford Bernstein - a big US broker - gave 1,000 of its investors the chance to hear Hillary, and 50 of them a chance to sit down and chat with her. That's a pretty good way of encouraging investors to do business with Sandford Bernstein. And I'd bet they got more than $250,000 of business from it.
Robert, I see hobnobbing with Hillary rubbed off on you! "Met with"????
Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I can see how that would be a good marketing stunt.
These rumours have been circulating all day. Quite how he would go about it - and how many people would be willing to listen to him if he did - God alone knows.
These rumours have been circulating all day. Quite how he would go about it - and how many people would be willing to listen to him if he did - God alone knows.
Will Straw has signed up as campaign director.
LOL...would could possibly go wrong. Aren't the plod investigating him?
Thats the rules, 50% + 1 do get to impose their views no matter what. It always has been that way. In fact it is more like 40% get to impose their views no matter what but I nit pick.
Should 50+1% of voters get the right to (say) strip the vote from women?
Or are there rights that transcend parliamentary democracy?
We do not have a written
Unlikely to happen though as for some reason there are always more women than men in the country.
This is a philosophical question rather than a practical one, but are you comfortable with that?
I mean under our democracy, the Womens Equality Party could theoretically win 326 (or 301) seats on less than 20% of the vote. If they then used their majority in parliament to strip men of the vote, I think that would be outrageous, wouldn't you?
Or more plausibly:
"If you think you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere... That's why my government will pass legislation to remove the right to vote from anyone who holds dual-nationality, or who doesn't pay their fair share of tax in the UK."
The Tories have decided to give the tax dodgers the vote for life now.
No representation without taxation!
So you support local elections only having council tax payers on the franchise?
So only tax payers should vote in elections? Why not go the whole hog - only freehold owners can vote?
If you prevent half
Until a few of them are gunned down by paramilitary police pour encouragement les autres.
Problem is modern technology means violently suppressing riots has never been easier.
That works for a short while but if it happens longer term, the government gets increasingly divorced from the concerns of the people etc it only takes a few of those paramilitary police to be killed and murdered by mass rioters in a particularly
As is still awaited in North Korea et al?
Everybody in North Korea is so brainwashed from birth there are never any riots anyway as they see the Supreme Leader as a God, if the majority ever did turn against the regime there would be a swift coup and Kim would be hanging from the nearest lamppost!
She was paid $250k a pop for that "you know, you know" infested drivel?
No, she was paid $250k a pop for future political influence.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
About two years ago I met with Hillary Clinton.
Why?
Because I am a fund manager and went to Sandford Bernstein's "Strategic Decisions Conference" in New York. Hillary gave a speech, and then spend about three hours doing little sit downs with three or four investors for 15 minutes apiece.
Sandford Bernstein - a big US broker - gave 1,000 of its investors the chance to hear Hillary, and 50 of them a chance to sit down and chat with her. That's a pretty good way of encouraging investors to do business with Sandford Bernstein. And I'd bet they got more than $250,000 of business from it.
And what was your impression of Hiliary "You Know" Clinton, other than she says "You Know" more often than a teenager?
She's clearly very bright.
But I didn't warm to her in person. There was no connection, no sense of interest in other human beings.
If I voted for her, it would only be on the basis that Donald Trump would be even worse. (And I can't vote as I'm not American.)
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
Pence is going for 2020, if he abandons Trump he will lose the gains he made by appearing loyal to his party and a better persona than Trump.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
If Trump-Pence loses so does Pence's chances of being president, no losing VP candidate has ever won their party's nomination at the subsequent election since WW2
decent for Trump but looks like an outlier. Be interested to see if the other polls show that.
I don't trust FOX, Reuters, Marist and Rassmussen polls.
My average daily tracking poll has Trump slumping every day since Oct.1st, like a rug was pulled under him, or like the republican voters collectively said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Hillary is barely moving at just under 47% as usual.
decent for Trump but looks like an outlier. Be interested to see if the other polls show that.
The post VP debate polls are generally showing it tighter
i think pussygate is really going to screw him over now. all over the news, everyone is talking about it.
I doubt it, most of his core supporters will not have done much different themselves and the main people who will be offended will be feminist women who are already behind Hillary anyway
These rumours have been circulating all day. Quite how he would go about it - and how many people would be willing to listen to him if he did - God alone knows.
Will Straw has signed up as campaign director.
LOL...would could possibly go wrong. Aren't the plod investigating him?
I was joking... but after his triumphant performance in the referendum campanign, surely looking after Tony Blair is his next "challenge".
She was paid $250k a pop for that "you know, you know" infested drivel?
No, she was paid $250k a pop for future political influence.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.
About two years ago I met with Hillary Clinton.
Why?
Because I am a fund manager and went to Sandford Bernstein's "Strategic Decisions Conference" in New York. Hillary gave a speech, and then spend about three hours doing little sit downs with three or four investors for 15 minutes apiece.
Sandford Bernstein - a big US broker - gave 1,000 of its investors the chance to hear Hillary, and 50 of them a chance to sit down and chat with her. That's a pretty good way of encouraging investors to do business with Sandford Bernstein. And I'd bet they got more than $250,000 of business from it.
And what was your impression of Hiliary "You Know" Clinton, other than she says "You Know" more often than a teenager?
She's clearly very bright.
But I didn't warm to her in person. There was no connection, no sense of interest in other human beings.
If I voted for her, it would only be on the basis that Donald Trump would be even worse. (And I can't vote as I'm not American.)
Watching form a far on tv, the Clinton-Bot-2000 always comes across as incapable of showing much genuine enthusiasm for engaging with other people. From your limited personal experience, it sounds like it isn't even a matter of the basement dwellers vs the people she is more used to encountered on a daily basis.
Where as Trump has plenty of enthusiasm for engaging with other people...trying to impress other people of just how fabulous he is.
decent for Trump but looks like an outlier. Be interested to see if the other polls show that.
The post VP debate polls are generally showing it tighter
i think pussygate is really going to screw him over now. all over the news, everyone is talking about it.
I doubt it, most of his core supporters will not have done much different themselves and the main people who will be offended will be feminist women who are already behind Hillary anyway
You are surely right that it won't change many minds. The US is already highly polarized.
But it's all part of a drip, drip about Donald Trump's suitability to become President. And small things add up. If a few tens of middle class Republican women in Nevada or New Hampshire decide not to go to the polls in a month's time, it could result in quite a few electoral votes ending up in Hillary's column.
decent for Trump but looks like an outlier. Be interested to see if the other polls show that.
The post VP debate polls are generally showing it tighter
i think pussygate is really going to screw him over now. all over the news, everyone is talking about it.
I doubt it, most of his core supporters will not have done much different themselves and the main people who will be offended will be feminist women who are already behind Hillary anyway
You are surely right that it won't change many minds. The US is already highly polarized.
But it's all part of a drip, drip about Donald Trump's suitability to become President. And small things add up. If a few tens of middle class Republican women in Nevada or New Hampshire decide not to go to the polls in a month's time, it could result in quite a few electoral votes ending up in Hillary's column.
yeah, he has massive women problem. this doesnt help
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
Pence is going for 2020, if he abandons Trump he will lose the gains he made by appearing loyal to his party and a better persona than Trump.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
If Trump-Pence loses so does Pence's chances of being president, no losing VP candidate has ever won their party's nomination at the subsequent election since WW2
Eminently sensible, and I expect that countries across the EU will all change to bar migrants from claiming benefits. One of the curious side effects of Brexit*.
* For the record, I think the UK could have easily instituted an effective bar on EU citizens claiming benefits.
I remember a particularly prominent poster used to bang on about Cameron's massive women problem...whatever ever happened to him and that David Cameron?
However, unlike the mythical Cameron women problem, it is clear The Donald is in big big doo doo before this latest helpful find by the media.
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
Pence is going for 2020, if he abandons Trump he will lose the gains he made by appearing loyal to his party and a better persona than Trump.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
If Trump-Pence loses so does Pence's chances of being president, no losing VP candidate has ever won their party's nomination at the subsequent election since WW2
I think Pence has serious chances of getting the nomination in 2020 for the following reasons:
1. He is a loyal Republican, unlike Ted Cruz or John Kasich. 2. He can claim inheritance of the Trump movement but without Trump. 3. Pence has proved to be capable, sensible and a winner on the debate stage. 4. After 4 years of Hillary people will beg for morality, decency and a capable person, that spells Pence. 5. Unlike the others Pence was never humiliated by being defeated by Trump in a primary.
He has only 2 big problems:
A. Staying in the limelight for the next 4 years. B. Paul Ryan may want to run, he would probably be his only rival if he does.
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
Pence is going for 2020, if he abandons Trump he will lose the gains he made by appearing loyal to his party and a better persona than Trump.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
If Trump-Pence loses so does Pence's chances of being president, no losing VP candidate has ever won their party's nomination at the subsequent election since WW2
I think Pence has serious chances of getting the nomination in 2020 for the following reasons:
1. He is a loyal Republican, unlike Ted Cruz or John Kasich. 2. He can claim inheritance of the Trump movement but without Trump. 3. Pence has proved to be capable, sensible and a winner on the debate stage. 4. After 4 years of Hillary people will beg for morality, decency and a capable person, that spells Pence. 5. Unlike the others Pence was never humiliated by being defeated by Trump in a primary.
He has only 2 big problems:
A. Staying in the limelight for the next 4 years. B. Paul Ryan may want to run, he would probably be his only rival if he does.
Blimey, who knows. 4 years is a very long time in US politics. There's as likely to be some Governor somewhere who we have probably never even heard of who'll run and win.
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
Pence is going for 2020, if he abandons Trump he will lose the gains he made by appearing loyal to his party and a better persona than Trump.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
If Trump-Pence loses so does Pence's chances of being president, no losing VP candidate has ever won their party's nomination at the subsequent election since WW2
I think Pence has serious chances of getting the nomination in 2020 for the following reasons:
1. He is a loyal Republican, unlike Ted Cruz or John Kasich. 2. He can claim inheritance of the Trump movement but without Trump. 3. Pence has proved to be capable, sensible and a winner on the debate stage. 4. After 4 years of Hillary people will beg for morality, decency and a capable person, that spells Pence. 5. Unlike the others Pence was never humiliated by being defeated by Trump in a primary.
He has only 2 big problems:
A. Staying in the limelight for the next 4 years. B. Paul Ryan may want to run, he would probably be his only rival if he does.
Blimey, who knows. 4 years is a very long time in US politics. There's as likely to be some Governor somewhere who we have probably never even heard of who'll run and win.
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
Pence is going for 2020, if he abandons Trump he will lose the gains he made by appearing loyal to his party and a better persona than Trump.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
If Trump-Pence loses so does Pence's chances of being president, no losing VP candidate has ever won their party's nomination at the subsequent election since WW2
Nixon?
I dunno, Eisenhower was the first U.S. president constitutionally prevented from running for re-election, having served the newly instigated maximum two terms. So his VP didn't lose presumably?
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
Pence is going for 2020, if he abandons Trump he will lose the gains he made by appearing loyal to his party and a better persona than Trump.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
If Trump-Pence loses so does Pence's chances of being president, no losing VP candidate has ever won their party's nomination at the subsequent election since WW2
I think Pence has serious chances of getting the nomination in 2020 for the following reasons:
1. He is a loyal Republican, unlike Ted Cruz or John Kasich. 2. He can claim inheritance of the Trump movement but without Trump. 3. Pence has proved to be capable, sensible and a winner on the debate stage. 4. After 4 years of Hillary people will beg for morality, decency and a capable person, that spells Pence. 5. Unlike the others Pence was never humiliated by being defeated by Trump in a primary.
He has only 2 big problems:
A. Staying in the limelight for the next 4 years. B. Paul Ryan may want to run, he would probably be his only rival if he does.
Ryan will stay as speaker, Pence will fade by 2020 and he does not have the presence to be president. Both Ryan and Pence will have been on losing tickets by 2020 if Trump-Pence loses, Cruz will not and will be the one to beat
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
Pence is going for 2020, if he abandons Trump he will lose the gains he made by appearing loyal to his party and a better persona than Trump.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
If Trump-Pence loses so does Pence's chances of being president, no losing VP candidate has ever won their party's nomination at the subsequent election since WW2
Nixon?
Nixon was a winning VP with IKE, he lost in 1960 as the presidential nominee
decent for Trump but looks like an outlier. Be interested to see if the other polls show that.
The post VP debate polls are generally showing it tighter
i think pussygate is really going to screw him over now. all over the news, everyone is talking about it.
I doubt it, most of his core supporters will not have done much different themselves and the main people who will be offended will be feminist women who are already behind Hillary anyway
You are surely right that it won't change many minds. The US is already highly polarized.
But it's all part of a drip, drip about Donald Trump's suitability to become President. And small things add up. If a few tens of middle class Republican women in Nevada or New Hampshire decide not to go to the polls in a month's time, it could result in quite a few electoral votes ending up in Hillary's column.
Middle class women who would have been offended by this type of thing will have switched to Hillary long ago anyway
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
Pence is going for 2020, if he abandons Trump he will lose the gains he made by appearing loyal to his party and a better persona than Trump.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
If Trump-Pence loses so does Pence's chances of being president, no losing VP candidate has ever won their party's nomination at the subsequent election since WW2
I think Pence has serious chances of getting the nomination in 2020 for the following reasons:
1. He is a loyal Republican, unlike Ted Cruz or John Kasich. 2. He can claim inheritance of the Trump movement but without Trump. 3. Pence has proved to be capable, sensible and a winner on the debate stage. 4. After 4 years of Hillary people will beg for morality, decency and a capable person, that spells Pence. 5. Unlike the others Pence was never humiliated by being defeated by Trump in a primary.
He has only 2 big problems:
A. Staying in the limelight for the next 4 years. B. Paul Ryan may want to run, he would probably be his only rival if he does.
Blimey, who knows. 4 years is a very long time in US politics. There's as likely to be some Governor somewhere who we have probably never even heard of who'll run and win.
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
Pence is going for 2020, if he abandons Trump he will lose the gains he made by appearing loyal to his party and a better persona than Trump.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
If Trump-Pence loses so does Pence's chances of being president, no losing VP candidate has ever won their party's nomination at the subsequent election since WW2
I think Pence has serious chances of getting the nomination in 2020 for the following reasons:
1. He is a loyal Republican, unlike Ted Cruz or John Kasich. 2. He can claim inheritance of the Trump movement but without Trump. 3. Pence has proved to be capable, sensible and a winner on the debate stage. 4. After 4 years of Hillary people will beg for morality, decency and a capable person, that spells Pence. 5. Unlike the others Pence was never humiliated by being defeated by Trump in a primary.
He has only 2 big problems:
A. Staying in the limelight for the next 4 years. B. Paul Ryan may want to run, he would probably be his only rival if he does.
Blimey, who knows. 4 years is a very long time in US politics. There's as likely to be some Governor somewhere who we have probably never even heard of who'll run and win.
decent for Trump but looks like an outlier. Be interested to see if the other polls show that.
The post VP debate polls are generally showing it tighter
i think pussygate is really going to screw him over now. all over the news, everyone is talking about it.
I doubt it, most of his core supporters will not have done much different themselves and the main people who will be offended will be feminist women who are already behind Hillary anyway
You are surely right that it won't change many minds. The US is already highly polarized.
But it's all part of a drip, drip about Donald Trump's suitability to become President. And small things add up. If a few tens of middle class Republican women in Nevada or New Hampshire decide not to go to the polls in a month's time, it could result in quite a few electoral votes ending up in Hillary's column.
Middle class women who would have been offended by this type of thing will have switched to Hillary long ago anyway
Every single one? There won't be a single woman who decides not to go to the polling booth because she thinks Trump is a scumbag?
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
Pence is going for 2020, if he abandons Trump he will lose the gains he made by appearing loyal to his party and a better persona than Trump.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
If Trump-Pence loses so does Pence's chances of being president, no losing VP candidate has ever won their party's nomination at the subsequent election since WW2
Nixon?
Nixon was a winning VP with IKE, he lost in 1960 as the presidential nominee
decent for Trump but looks like an outlier. Be interested to see if the other polls show that.
The post VP debate polls are generally showing it tighter
i think pussygate is really going to screw him over now. all over the news, everyone is talking about it.
I doubt it, most of his core supporters will not have done much different themselves and the main people who will be offended will be feminist women who are already behind Hillary anyway
You are surely right that it won't change many minds. The US is already highly polarized.
But it's all part of a drip, drip about Donald Trump's suitability to become President. And small things add up. If a few tens of middle class Republican women in Nevada or New Hampshire decide not to go to the polls in a month's time, it could result in quite a few electoral votes ending up in Hillary's column.
Middle class women who would have been offended by this type of thing will have switched to Hillary long ago anyway
Every single one? There won't be a single woman who decides not to go to the polling booth because she thinks Trump is a scumbag?
There might not be a single man prepared to go to the polling booth to vote for trump if the sexual assault allegations get darker.
decent for Trump but looks like an outlier. Be interested to see if the other polls show that.
The post VP debate polls are generally showing it tighter
i think pussygate is really going to screw him over now. all over the news, everyone is talking about it.
I doubt it, most of his core supporters will not have done much different themselves and the main people who will be offended will be feminist women who are already behind Hillary anyway
You are surely right that it won't change many minds. The US is already highly polarized.
But it's all part of a drip, drip about Donald Trump's suitability to become President. And small things add up. If a few tens of middle class Republican women in Nevada or New Hampshire decide not to go to the polls in a month's time, it could result in quite a few electoral votes ending up in Hillary's column.
Middle class women who would have been offended by this type of thing will have switched to Hillary long ago anyway
Every single one? There won't be a single woman who decides not to go to the polling booth because she thinks Trump is a scumbag?
Can you imagine the Town Hall questions towards Trump ? Especially from women ?
decent for Trump but looks like an outlier. Be interested to see if the other polls show that.
The post VP debate polls are generally showing it tighter
i think pussygate is really going to screw him over now. all over the news, everyone is talking about it.
I doubt it, most of his core supporters will not have done much different themselves and the main people who will be offended will be feminist women who are already behind Hillary anyway
You are surely right that it won't change many minds. The US is already highly polarized.
But it's all part of a drip, drip about Donald Trump's suitability to become President. And small things add up. If a few tens of middle class Republican women in Nevada or New Hampshire decide not to go to the polls in a month's time, it could result in quite a few electoral votes ending up in Hillary's column.
Middle class women who would have been offended by this type of thing will have switched to Hillary long ago anyway
Every single one? There won't be a single woman who decides not to go to the polling booth because she thinks Trump is a scumbag?
Can you imagine the Town Hall question towards Trump ? Especially from women ?
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
Pence is going for 2020, if he abandons Trump he will lose the gains he made by appearing loyal to his party and a better persona than Trump.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
If Trump-Pence loses so does Pence's chances of being president, no losing VP candidate has ever won their party's nomination at the subsequent election since WW2
I think Pence has serious chances of getting the nomination in 2020 for the following reasons:
1. He is a loyal Republican, unlike Ted Cruz or John Kasich. 2. He can claim inheritance of the Trump movement but without Trump. 3. Pence has proved to be capable, sensible and a winner on the debate stage. 4. After 4 years of Hillary people will beg for morality, decency and a capable person, that spells Pence. 5. Unlike the others Pence was never humiliated by being defeated by Trump in a primary.
He has only 2 big problems:
A. Staying in the limelight for the next 4 years. B. Paul Ryan may want to run, he would probably be his only rival if he does.
Blimey, who knows. 4 years is a very long time in US politics. There's as likely to be some Governor somewhere who we have probably never even heard of who'll run and win.
decent for Trump but looks like an outlier. Be interested to see if the other polls show that.
The post VP debate polls are generally showing it tighter
i think pussygate is really going to screw him over now. all over the news, everyone is talking about it.
I doubt it, most of his core supporters will not have done much different themselves and the main people who will be offended will be feminist women who are already behind Hillary anyway
You are surely right that it won't change many minds. The US is already highly polarized.
But it's all part of a drip, drip about Donald Trump's suitability to become President. And small things add up. If a few tens of middle class Republican women in Nevada or New Hampshire decide not to go to the polls in a month's time, it could result in quite a few electoral votes ending up in Hillary's column.
Middle class women who would have been offended by this type of thing will have switched to Hillary long ago anyway
Every single one? There won't be a single woman who decides not to go to the polling booth because she thinks Trump is a scumbag?
There might not be a single man prepared to go to the polling booth to vote for trump if the sexual assault allegations get darker.
Feeling tempted tonight to put a huge wager on Clinton winning. 1.37 at moment.
decent for Trump but looks like an outlier. Be interested to see if the other polls show that.
The post VP debate polls are generally showing it tighter
i think pussygate is really going to screw him over now. all over the news, everyone is talking about it.
I doubt it, most of his core supporters will not have done much different themselves and the main people who will be offended will be feminist women who are already behind Hillary anyway
You are surely right that it won't change many minds. The US is already highly polarized.
But it's all part of a drip, drip about Donald Trump's suitability to become President. And small things add up. If a few tens of middle class Republican women in Nevada or New Hampshire decide not to go to the polls in a month's time, it could result in quite a few electoral votes ending up in Hillary's column.
Middle class women who would have been offended by this type of thing will have switched to Hillary long ago anyway
Every single one? There won't be a single woman who decides not to go to the polling booth because she thinks Trump is a scumbag?
Can you imagine the Town Hall questions towards Trump ? Especially from women ?
I am sure Team Clinton will ensure it is asked...not like they have form on this kind of stuff. They are well oiled political machine is working through the gears.
decent for Trump but looks like an outlier. Be interested to see if the other polls show that.
The post VP debate polls are generally showing it tighter
i think pussygate is really going to screw him over now. all over the news, everyone is talking about it.
I doubt it, most of his core supporters will not have done much different themselves and the main people who will be offended will be feminist women who are already behind Hillary anyway
You are surely right that it won't change many minds. The US is already highly polarized.
But it's all part of a drip, drip about Donald Trump's suitability to become President. And small things add up. If a few tens of middle class Republican women in Nevada or New Hampshire decide not to go to the polls in a month's time, it could result in quite a few electoral votes ending up in Hillary's column.
Middle class women who would have been offended by this type of thing will have switched to Hillary long ago anyway
Every single one? There won't be a single woman who decides not to go to the polling booth because she thinks Trump is a scumbag?
Can you imagine the Town Hall question towards Trump ? Especially from women ?
He better get practicing his apologies....
But Trump is against practicing for debates. You can see where this will lead:
Comments
Having seen one of Hillary's paid speeches live, I doubt there will be anything interesting in there.
"my dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders”
Sadly I don't think Assange has anything.
The Constitution of India is the longest written constitution of any sovereign country in the world, containing 444 articles in 22 parts, 12 schedules and 118 amendments, with 117,369 words in its English-language translation
if thats the best wikileaks can do to help Trump...
We WERE is American English
In a normal election cycle there are some terrible sounding quotes which could ripped from just that one email for an attack ad. If Mitt "47%" Romney had said would have caused trouble, but she is against The Donald who daily says offensive stuff.
Richard, I've missed you. Please spend more time on pb.
Assuming she means Northern that still includes places like Haiti and Cuba as well as Mexico.
Clinton wants open borders with Haiti, Mexico and Cuba? Good luck explaining that to Middle America.
And the RNC can nominate whoever they like once Trump resigns.
I insist on bringing that up because it's clear that Trump is not up to the job and neither is Hillary, the best thing for america and the world is for Trump to resign so that Hillary loses too.
"Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”
A while back I said that a key figure for pressure from those in the GOP opposed to Trump was Mike Pence. Basically pressure him into jumping ship late on.
I wonder if they are working on it now?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/07/fox-news-poll-clinton-edges-trump-by-two-points-one-month-ahead-election.html
Yes, it suggests a new party. One could envisage such a grouping made of SaneLabour, the Liberals and the Cameroons. I would vote for it.
Sunny P
Timing eh, got to protect their man.
The daily contrast between the incompetence and crass of Trump makes Pence look like JFK in waiting, the VP debate showed it clearly.
About two years ago I met with Hillary Clinton.
Why?
Because I am a fund manager and went to Sandford Bernstein's "Strategic Decisions Conference" in New York. Hillary gave a speech, and then spend about three hours doing little sit downs with three or four investors for 15 minutes apiece.
Sandford Bernstein - a big US broker - gave 1,000 of its investors the chance to hear Hillary, and 50 of them a chance to sit down and chat with her. That's a pretty good way of encouraging investors to do business with Sandford Bernstein. And I'd bet they got more than $250,000 of business from it.
Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I can see how that would be a good marketing stunt.
He will rival the LD for insignificance, minus the 8 MP's they got.
Some kind of weird think tank thing which involves someone paying lots of money into the Blair Foundation, in return for the occasional speech?
But I didn't warm to her in person. There was no connection, no sense of interest in other human beings.
If I voted for her, it would only be on the basis that Donald Trump would be even worse. (And I can't vote as I'm not American.)
My average daily tracking poll has Trump slumping every day since Oct.1st, like a rug was pulled under him, or like the republican voters collectively said ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Hillary is barely moving at just under 47% as usual.
A draft bill would see EU migrants who move to Germany denied "Hartz IV" unemployment and welfare benefits for five years."
http://europe.newsweek.com/germany-benefits-eu-migrants-crackdown-angela-merkel-507281
Where as Trump has plenty of enthusiasm for engaging with other people...trying to impress other people of just how fabulous he is.
But it's all part of a drip, drip about Donald Trump's suitability to become President. And small things add up. If a few tens of middle class Republican women in Nevada or New Hampshire decide not to go to the polls in a month's time, it could result in quite a few electoral votes ending up in Hillary's column.
* For the record, I think the UK could have easily instituted an effective bar on EU citizens claiming benefits.
However, unlike the mythical Cameron women problem, it is clear The Donald is in big big doo doo before this latest helpful find by the media.
1. He is a loyal Republican, unlike Ted Cruz or John Kasich.
2. He can claim inheritance of the Trump movement but without Trump.
3. Pence has proved to be capable, sensible and a winner on the debate stage.
4. After 4 years of Hillary people will beg for morality, decency and a capable person, that spells Pence.
5. Unlike the others Pence was never humiliated by being defeated by Trump in a primary.
He has only 2 big problems:
A. Staying in the limelight for the next 4 years.
B. Paul Ryan may want to run, he would probably be his only rival if he does.
https://twitter.com/MorningConsult/status/784377301181923329
But you can see why being the competent VP candidate next to the incompetent P candidate helps in the future.
Especially from women ?
You can see where this will lead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFyPJH8BR3o