Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Ireland, like the UK, is outside Schengen.
But Ireland will continue to have free movement with the EU, so any EU or EEA citizen will be able to enter Ireland,and then the UK via NI.
From a practical perspective, are we likely to require visas for EU/EEA citizens?
For tourism and business visits, probably not. For residence and working, yes if it's a hard Brexit.
Residence is just a tax status. If you don't have visas for tourism/business then you can't have them for residence either.
I don't think that's true. Switzerland and Norway are both in Schengen, but require you to register with the police if you plan on staying more than three months. If you wish to rent a property, for example, you'll need your registration number from your police visit. It wouldn't be complicated to modify that system for the UK.
To take an extreme example (which nevertheless happens), what if you spend 183 days living in the Ritz?
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Ireland, like the UK, is outside Schengen.
But Ireland will continue to have free movement with the EU, so any EU or EEA citizen will be able to enter Ireland,and then the UK via NI.
From a practical perspective, are we likely to require visas for EU/EEA citizens?
For tourism and business visits, probably not. For residence and working, yes if it's a hard Brexit.
Residence is just a tax status. If you don't have visas for tourism/business then you can't have them for residence either.
But you can have a waiver for the visa for tourism, such as in the US.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Ireland, like the UK, is outside Schengen.
But Ireland will continue to have free movement with the EU, so any EU or EEA citizen will be able to enter Ireland,and then the UK via NI.
From a practical perspective, are we likely to require visas for EU/EEA citizens?
For tourism and business visits, probably not. For residence and working, yes if it's a hard Brexit.
Residence is just a tax status. If you don't have visas for tourism/business then you can't have them for residence either.
I don't think that's true. Switzerland and Norway are both in Schengen, but require you to register with the police if you plan on staying more than three months. If you wish to rent a property, for example, you'll need your registration number from your police visit. It wouldn't be complicated to modify that system for the UK.
To take an extreme example (which nevertheless happens), what if you spend 183 days living in the Ritz?
If you plan on staying more than three months, you go to the police (immigration centre, etc.), and say:
"Here is my work visa, I'd like to get my residence permit" or "Here is my proof of ability to support myself, I'm not on any persona non grata list, and here's my health insurance"
The point I'm making, simply, is that if you wish to stay illegally, you just turn up as a tourist and don't leave. (Which is, of course, exactly how the vast bulk of Mexican immigrants end up in the US.)
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Ireland, like the UK, is outside Schengen.
But Ireland will continue to have free movement with the EU, so any EU or EEA citizen will be able to enter Ireland,and then the UK via NI.
From a practical perspective, are we likely to require visas for EU/EEA citizens?
For tourism and business visits, probably not. For residence and working, yes if it's a hard Brexit.
Residence is just a tax status. If you don't have visas for tourism/business then you can't have them for residence either.
I don't think that's true. Switzerland and Norway are both in Schengen, but require you to register with the police if you plan on staying more than three months. If you wish to rent a property, for example, you'll need your registration number from your police visit. It wouldn't be complicated to modify that system for the UK.
To take an extreme example (which nevertheless happens), what if you spend 183 days living in the Ritz?
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Ireland, like the UK, is outside Schengen.
But Ireland will continue to have free movement with the EU, so any EU or EEA citizen will be able to enter Ireland,and then the UK via NI.
From a practical perspective, are we likely to require visas for EU/EEA citizens?
For tourism and business visits, probably not. For residence and working, yes if it's a hard Brexit.
Residence is just a tax status. If you don't have visas for tourism/business then you can't have them for residence either.
I don't think that's true. Switzerland and Norway are both in Schengen, but require you to register with the police if you plan on staying more than three months. If you wish to rent a property, for example, you'll need your registration number from your police visit. It wouldn't be complicated to modify that system for the UK.
To take an extreme example (which nevertheless happens), what if you spend 183 days living in the Ritz?
If you plan on staying more than three months, you go to the police (immigration centre, etc.), and say:
"Here is my work visa, I'd like to get my residence permit" or "Here is my proof of ability to support myself, I'm not on any persona non grata list, and here's my health insurance"
The point I'm making, simply, is that if you wish to stay illegally, you just turn up as a tourist and don't leave. (Which is, of course, exactly how the vast bulk of Mexican immigrants end up in the US.)
Not only can you not enforce it in practice, you can't enforce it in theory without visas.
Britain is seeking to shift the frontline of immigration controls to Ireland’s ports and airports to avoid having to introduce a “hard border” between north and south after the UK leaves the European Union, the Guardian has learned.
So much for "taking control of our borders"
Ireland and the UK already had a Common Travel Area long before they joined the EU in 1973.
This isn't about the CTA. The UK is outsourcing its border with the rest of the world to Ireland. -Any EU citizen will be able to go to Ireland and then walk over into NI
Ireland, like the UK, is outside Schengen.
But Ireland will continue to have free movement with the EU, so any EU or EEA citizen will be able to enter Ireland,and then the UK via NI.
From a practical perspective, are we likely to require visas for EU/EEA citizens?
For tourism and business visits, probably not. For residence and working, yes if it's a hard Brexit.
Residence is just a tax status. If you don't have visas for tourism/business then you can't have them for residence either.
I don't think that's true. Switzerland and Norway are both in Schengen, but require you to register with the police if you plan on staying more than three months. If you wish to rent a property, for example, you'll need your registration number from your police visit. It wouldn't be complicated to modify that system for the UK.
To take an extreme example (which nevertheless happens), what if you spend 183 days living in the Ritz?
If you plan on staying more than three months, you go to the police (immigration centre, etc.), and say:
"Here is my work visa, I'd like to get my residence permit" or "Here is my proof of ability to support myself, I'm not on any persona non grata list, and here's my health insurance"
The point I'm making, simply, is that if you wish to stay illegally, you just turn up as a tourist and don't leave. (Which is, of course, exactly how the vast bulk of Mexican immigrants end up in the US.)
As an aside, it's also the way people leave illegally. My elderly German relatives sneaked out of East Germany by pretending (with forged passports) that they were Austrian tourists on their way home.
Interestingly, between 1939 and 1952, there were no immigration controls between the Republic and Northern Ireland, but there were between Great Britain and both Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Perhaps this is the solution*.
* Albeit one that would be deeply unpopular with Unionists.
Unionists will be perfectly pragmatic.
About requiring passport controls between Northern Ireland and Great Britain? I think they'd regard it as the first stage in the deliberate reunification of Ireland by the British Government.
I'm unionist, I'm from NI, I'm politically aware. No one in the Unionist camp believes that.
Not only can you not enforce it in practice, you can't enforce it in theory without visas.
But what you are describing is what people - from all over the world today - can do with tourist visas. I.e., not leave.
They do, but they are committing an immigration offence. If you don't have a visa, or visa equivalent, they wouldn't be.
Anyone working without a proper visa would be too. And how difficult would it be to require non citizens to provide a registration number for a back account or a mobile phone?
Not only can you not enforce it in practice, you can't enforce it in theory without visas.
But what you are describing is what people - from all over the world today - can do with tourist visas. I.e., not leave.
They do, but they are committing an immigration offence. If you don't have a visa, or visa equivalent, they wouldn't be.
Anyone working without a proper visa would be too. And how difficult would it be to require non citizens to provide a registration number for a back account or a mobile phone?
I'm maybe going off too far into the realms of the hypothetical but you don't need to do any of those things to reside in a country on an ongoing basis, even if they make life easier. Unless your entry into a country prescribes conditions to leave then you are doing nothing wrong if you simply stay.
Plus Clinton's ground operation will have been building up a database of supporters to target and ensure they're turning out the right people rather than blanket coverage. Trump hasn't been doing that to nearly the same scale.
I'm reminded of Willie Whitelaw's quip about Harold Wilson 'going around the country stirring up apathy'.
There's an element of stirring up, but the main focus is identification and then turning them out.
Nice thread! On topic - the ship may be sinking, but the Trump band plays on regardless!
I'm cringing over using the wrong "it's" in the first sentence (my only excuse is that I wrote it late at night while the brown stuff was hitting the air relocation device and it's all really TSE's fault).
Fixed it.
While you're at out can you do something about the double negative in the third paragraph. Corporeal's article is readable and punchy; apostrophes in the wrong places I can take, but double negatives really confuse me.
One for you Tyson dear! "Nor yet displeased that never in the field we met, to try each other's deeds of strength" Harapha in Handel 's Samson.
Not only can you not enforce it in practice, you can't enforce it in theory without visas.
But what you are describing is what people - from all over the world today - can do with tourist visas. I.e., not leave.
They do, but they are committing an immigration offence. If you don't have a visa, or visa equivalent, they wouldn't be.
Anyone working without a proper visa would be too. And how difficult would it be to require non citizens to provide a registration number for a back account or a mobile phone?
I'm maybe going off too far into the realms of the hypothetical but you don't need to do any of those things to reside in a country on an ongoing basis, even if they make life easier. Unless your entry into a country prescribes conditions to leave then you are doing nothing wrong if you simply stay.
But you are committing a Swiss immigration offence if you stay more than three months without registration. How would this be different?
Craiglists is like Reddit...I don't get how it is popular, not only looking like something 20 years out of date, there are sites with far better functionality out there.
Not only can you not enforce it in practice, you can't enforce it in theory without visas.
But what you are describing is what people - from all over the world today - can do with tourist visas. I.e., not leave.
They do, but they are committing an immigration offence. If you don't have a visa, or visa equivalent, they wouldn't be.
Anyone working without a proper visa would be too. And how difficult would it be to require non citizens to provide a registration number for a back account or a mobile phone?
I'm maybe going off too far into the realms of the hypothetical but you don't need to do any of those things to reside in a country on an ongoing basis, even if they make life easier. Unless your entry into a country prescribes conditions to leave then you are doing nothing wrong if you simply stay.
But you are committing a Swiss immigration offence if you stay more than three months without registration. How would this be different?
Hmm perhaps not. I'm not sure whether it would technically be an immigration offence or something else.
The main difference if the UK had such rules would probably be the relative ease of avoiding government bureaucrats.
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans. Republicans detest Democrats. Labour supporters detest Conservative supporters. But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans. Republicans detest Democrats. Labour supporters detest the Tories. But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans. Republicans detest Democrats. Labour supporters detest the Tories. But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
The demonstrations at the Tory conference prove this point, no such right wing demo occurred at the Labour conference.
Hasn't that always been the case in UK politics. Everyone hates the tories because they are the "ruling class" that all the other parties were founded to overthrow?
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans. Republicans detest Democrats. Labour supporters detest the Tories. But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
The demonstrations at the Tory conference prove this point, no such right wing demo occurred at the Labour conference.
Its the difference between thinking your opponents are bad people (Labour on Tories) or are people who have bad ideas (Tories on Labour) - and the mindset is revealed even in trivial things - like the Labour T-shirt 'Never Kissed a Tory' - has no equivalent in the Tories...
Edited to add - the SNP are (even) worse than Labour on this....a quarter of a century on, still blaming Thatcher....
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans. Republicans detest Democrats. Labour supporters detest the Tories. But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
The demonstrations at the Tory conference prove this point, no such right wing demo occurred at the Labour conference.
Its the difference between thinking your opponents are bad people (Labour on Tories) or are people who have bad ideas (Tories on Labour) - and the mindset is revealed even in trivial things - like the Labour T-shirt 'Never Kissed a Tory' - has no equivalent in the Tories...
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans. Republicans detest Democrats. Labour supporters detest the Tories. But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
The demonstrations at the Tory conference prove this point, no such right wing demo occurred at the Labour conference.
Hasn't that always been the case in UK politics. Everyone hates the tories because they are the "ruling class" that all the other parties were founded to overthrow?
Maybe the Tories keep winning more elections than one might expect because voters actually like the fact that they don't dislike their opponents in the same way that other parties do. In other words, a certain percentage of working-class voters prefer the Tories' relaxed attitude on this issue (while often disagreeing with them in terms of policies).
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans. Republicans detest Democrats. Labour supporters detest the Tories. But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
The demonstrations at the Tory conference prove this point, no such right wing demo occurred at the Labour conference.
Hasn't that always been the case in UK politics. Everyone hates the tories because they are the "ruling class" that all the other parties were founded to overthrow?
Maybe the Tories keep winning more elections than one might expect because voters actually like the fact that they don't dislike their opponents in the same way that other parties do. In other words, some working-class voters like their relaxed attitude on this issue.
And in part they are turned off by politics that rely on identity and emotion, the revolutionary zeal of the left. Blair got around that by being much more corporate in his image, but eventually even he was found out as being someone who believed in his own inherant goodness over any logic or reasoning. I don't think that's a particularly popular training in the British mindset.
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans. Republicans detest Democrats. Labour supporters detest the Tories. But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
The demonstrations at the Tory conference prove this point, no such right wing demo occurred at the Labour conference.
Hasn't that always been the case in UK politics. Everyone hates the tories because they are the "ruling class" that all the other parties were founded to overthrow?
I didn't see many Lib Dems screaming abuse and spitting in Birmingham.......its a disease of presuming you occupy the moral high ground and your opponents are inherently wicked.....rather than are in possession of worse ideas....and appears to afflict the Left, the further left, the worse the symptoms....
Jesus, Trump hosts press conf with Bill Clinton's accusers. Seems they will be in the audience tonight.
That's it, he's gone. Does he really not realise what he is doing by blaming the woman for the man? It's everything that he has just been accused of. I fully expect the RNC to cut him adrift and Pence to withdraw from the ticket.
Jesus, Trump hosts press conf with Bill Clinton's accusers. Seems they will be in the audience tonight.
That's it, he's gone. Does he really not realise what he is doing by blaming the woman for the man? It's everything that he has just been accused of. I fully expect the RNC to cut him adrift and Pence to withdraw from the ticket.
I going to guess he didn't run this past the RNC.
For my sins, I just flicked on Fox News to see how they are covering things, and they think he is done for and no scandal could sink Clinton now. This is Fox News saying this....although not massive Trump fans, they certainly hate the Clinton more.
Jesus, Trump hosts press conf with Bill Clinton's accusers. Seems they will be in the audience tonight.
That's it, he's gone. Does he really not realise what he is doing by blaming the woman for the man? It's everything that he has just been accused of. I fully expect the RNC to cut him adrift and Pence to withdraw from the ticket.
I going to guess he didn't run this past the RNC.
Just seen the press conference. It made him look like he wants to be the new Gloria Allred.
I see CNN aren't impressed by Trump news conference.
Their guest is now saying, "These women have a right to be heard. It's important that millenials get to hear their stories. There's audio of Hillary laughing about a rapist..."
So, if the debate goes badly for Trump, does this mean that Utah could be won by Evan McMullin? Besides being some guy I didn't know existed until five minutes ago, he's a former "chief policy director" for the House Republican Conference who's making an independent bid for the Presidency.
Normally,he wouldn't even be a footnote but he's a Mormon from Utah. Buzzfeed had an article yesterday about Republican leaders there dumping Trump and getting fully behind McMullin. Which is interesting. For the record, the last poll in the state in mid-September had him at 12% versus Trump (39%), Clinton (25%) and Johnson (13%).
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans. Republicans detest Democrats. Labour supporters detest the Tories. But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
The demonstrations at the Tory conference prove this point, no such right wing demo occurred at the Labour conference.
Hasn't that always been the case in UK politics. Everyone hates the tories because they are the "ruling class" that all the other parties were founded to overthrow?
Eh, both of the old parties are about the same age (more or less inevitable since parties are defined by the divide).
Frank Luntz …However, his apology video didn't do terribly with undecideds, even if he spent more time attacking than apologizing. https://t.co/zjnmzSkWu3
Frank Luntz …However, his apology video didn't do terribly with undecideds, even if he spent more time attacking than apologizing. https://t.co/zjnmzSkWu3
I think he'd be best served by being more apologetic in the debates.... the press conference stunt was not promising.
Looks like CNN have got some more dirt to drop on Trump.
Specifically?
I don't know one of the talking heads went "just in more information on things Trump has said before he was running for president..."...oh sorry we have to go over to the head of the debate commission.
It was the "Just In..." bit. I presume they mean new dirt, not the Howard Stern stuff.
Looks like CNN have got some more dirt to drop on Trump.
Specifically?
I don't know one of the talking heads went "just in more information on things Trump has said before he was running for president..."...oh sorry we have to go over to the head of the debate commission.
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans. Republicans detest Democrats. Labour supporters detest the Tories. But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
The demonstrations at the Tory conference prove this point, no such right wing demo occurred at the Labour conference.
Hasn't that always been the case in UK politics. Everyone hates the tories because they are the "ruling class" that all the other parties were founded to overthrow?
Eh, both of the old parties are about the same age (more or less inevitable since parties are defined by the divide).
labour, the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid are 20thC parties. The old Liberal party still existed,which is the other of the original pair, but it's almost dead
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans. Republicans detest Democrats. Labour supporters detest the Tories. But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
The demonstrations at the Tory conference prove this point, no such right wing demo occurred at the Labour conference.
Hasn't that always been the case in UK politics. Everyone hates the tories because they are the "ruling class" that all the other parties were founded to overthrow?
Eh, both of the old parties are about the same age (more or less inevitable since parties are defined by the divide).
labour, the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid are 20thC parties. The old Liberal party still existed,which is the other of the original pair, but it's almost dead
Only by those who opposed the merger. I think the Lib Dems are the true successors to the old Liberal party.
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans. Republicans detest Democrats. Labour supporters detest the Tories. But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
The demonstrations at the Tory conference prove this point, no such right wing demo occurred at the Labour conference.
Hasn't that always been the case in UK politics. Everyone hates the tories because they are the "ruling class" that all the other parties were founded to overthrow?
Eh, both of the old parties are about the same age (more or less inevitable since parties are defined by the divide).
labour, the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid are 20thC parties. The old Liberal party still existed,which is the other of the original pair, but it's almost dead
Only by those who opposed the merger. I think the Lib Dems are the true successors to the old Liberal party.
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans. Republicans detest Democrats. Labour supporters detest the Tories. But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
The demonstrations at the Tory conference prove this point, no such right wing demo occurred at the Labour conference.
Hasn't that always been the case in UK politics. Everyone hates the tories because they are the "ruling class" that all the other parties were founded to overthrow?
Eh, both of the old parties are about the same age (more or less inevitable since parties are defined by the divide).
labour, the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid are 20thC parties. The old Liberal party still existed,which is the other of the original pair, but it's almost dead
Only by those who opposed the merger. I think the Lib Dems are the true successors to the old Liberal party.
I'm not sure Gladstone would approve ;-)
The Lib Dems are the continuation of the Liberal party, whatever those who opposed to the merger liked to claim.
Fox .@TuckerCarlson: "There are a lot of people that feel lectured at, hectored by, judged by people who've succeeded in this country." #Debate https://t.co/ikYgTRIsnZ
Having the there ladies in question in the front row is a pretty low stunt, designed to unsettle the Clintons. Who know, it might work. But how low has this though the looking glass campaign got to sink before the American public just storm capitol Hill with pitchforks and press the reset button properly?
Having the there ladies in question in the front row is a pretty low stunt, designed to unsettle the Clintons. Who know, it might work. But how low has this though the looking glass campaign got to sink before the American public just storm capitol Hill with pitchforks and press the reset button properly?
Is that investment advice?
The town hill format will calm the atmosphere a bit, but at some point things will go off and it'll be "pussy grab" vs "attacked sexual assault victims".
Then the crowd rushes the stage and it really kicks off.
Hilary's physical positioning is reminiscent of Bill Clinton's in 1992. It's hard to look natural perched on one of those stoolish chairs, she knows the camera positions and is standing where the camera catches him in the background.
Comments
But you can have a waiver for the visa for tourism, such as in the US.
"Here is my work visa, I'd like to get my residence permit"
or
"Here is my proof of ability to support myself, I'm not on any persona non grata list, and here's my health insurance"
The point I'm making, simply, is that if you wish to stay illegally, you just turn up as a tourist and don't leave. (Which is, of course, exactly how the vast bulk of Mexican immigrants end up in the US.)
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/donald-trump-howard-stern-tapes-women-35_uk_57fa46e1e4b01fa2b904368b?utm_hp_ref=uk-news&
https://toronto.craigslist.ca/search/cas
The main difference if the UK had such rules would probably be the relative ease of avoiding government bureaucrats.
Just been listening to Thinking Allowed on Radio 4, and research finds that:
Democrats detest Republicans.
Republicans detest Democrats.
Labour supporters detest Conservative supporters.
But Conservative supporters don't particularly mind Labour supporters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qy05
Edited to add - the SNP are (even) worse than Labour on this....a quarter of a century on, still blaming Thatcher....
(Grabs coat.)
Judge sets date for hearing of lawsuit accusing Donald Trump of underage rape
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-accused-underage-rape-lawsuit-a7352976.html
Seems they will be in the audience tonight.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10157857037430725&id=153080620724&_rdr
For my sins, I just flicked on Fox News to see how they are covering things, and they think he is done for and no scandal could sink Clinton now. This is Fox News saying this....although not massive Trump fans, they certainly hate the Clinton more.
Far better for the Republicans to have no candidate at this juncture.
Normally,he wouldn't even be a footnote but he's a Mormon from Utah. Buzzfeed had an article yesterday about Republican leaders there dumping Trump and getting fully behind McMullin. Which is interesting. For the record, the last poll in the state in mid-September had him at 12% versus Trump (39%), Clinton (25%) and Johnson (13%).
https://twitter.com/i/live/778347749217406976
…However, his apology video didn't do terribly with undecideds, even if he spent more time attacking than apologizing. https://t.co/zjnmzSkWu3
Currently on mute.. we'll see how I feel in 30 mins....
It was the "Just In..." bit. I presume they mean new dirt, not the Howard Stern stuff.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/debate-live-stream-blog/
.@TuckerCarlson: "There are a lot of people that feel lectured at, hectored by, judged by people who've succeeded in this country." #Debate https://t.co/ikYgTRIsnZ
The town hill format will calm the atmosphere a bit, but at some point things will go off and it'll be "pussy grab" vs "attacked sexual assault victims".
Then the crowd rushes the stage and it really kicks off.
You never know where his hands have been...
Clinton might as well just say, no its ok I will let Trump talk for 90 minutes.