I was out canvassing with the Lib Dems in Witney on Saturday. As well as the coachload of Londoners that I travelled there with, there were people from Liverpool, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Yorkshire and Southampton.
And there, in a sentence, is why by elections really aren't that meaningful.
They can help a party massively, just ask UKIP after Clacton.
They got much more benefit from winning the Euro elections than the two by elections, one of which they didn't even hold six months later.
''Which is why I don't understand the lack of reaction from some people. I've never been in that situation, but know a few girls from my university days that had to deal with it on a semi-regular basis. ''
The lack of reaction is to the actions of Bill and Hillary Clinton, not those of Donald Trump. What is astonishing is the lack of scrutiny of what the former two have done.
It all seems to be OK because they mouth duplicitous platitudes about standing up for women.
''B Clinton has already served two terms as President. Clinton, the candidate, is a different Clinton. '' Hillary's role in those presidency terms was as his protector, his shield, His facilitator. And she professes to stand up for women. Do me a favour.
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
sorry Nick there's a lack balance in this. Trump has a point when he says Clinton B actually did what he only talked about.
If the act is the key event then both sides should be hanging their heads in shame, the Clintonites are ramping Trump's crudeness while hoping nobody calls their side out. That;s politics but it would jjust make the site more readable if we didnt have to listen to the moral cant that goes with it from PBers who ought to know better.
Well quite.
Did I miss a post by anyone about 3 ladies saying they'd been raped by Bill and Hillary'd intimated and belittled them?
Ohh.
What a load of twaddle from the most self righteous. Trump being a boorish braggart taking a woman furniture shopping and trying it on SO AWFUL in comparison.
The this pussygate thing, I have two daughters. Both have told me when in public places they have been touched inappropriately on different occasions during nights out in the town. The contact was not encouraged or welcome. I was quite horrified but they seemed almost relaxed about it saying well Dad it happens. They didn't like it but I guess to all intents and purposes it's an assault.
I just don't remember this happening when I was out and about in the 70's and 80's though I suppose it must have gone on. It's just rather sad that young ladies cannot go out without the risk of being molested.
My personal impression is that casual social behaviour has indeed coarsened but in-work behaviour has improved because management has cracked down. I remember professional staff occasionally smacking female colleagues' bottoms "playfully" 30 years ago and both sides treating it as amusing - nowadays, it'd be a breach of almost any office code, and a repeat offence would probably lead to dismissal. The reality was probably that some of the women genuinely thought nothing of it and some were upset but reluctant to show it, and that's a classic abuse scenario: you shouldn't need to be a tough cookie to go to a normal job. Obviously what Trump claims to have got up to is significantly worse, not least because of the power angle.
The this pussygate thing, I have two daughters. Both have told me when in public places they have been touched inappropriately on different occasions during nights out in the town. The contact was not encouraged or welcome. I was quite horrified but they seemed almost relaxed about it saying well Dad it happens. They didn't like it but I guess to all intents and purposes it's an assault.
I just don't remember this happening when I was out and about in the 70's and 80's though I suppose it must have gone on. It's just rather sad that young ladies cannot go out without the risk of being molested.
It is an assault. It did happen in the 70's and 80's. It was wrong then - an assault - a crime. And it is now.
Yes it is sad that women (not just young ladies) are at risk of molestation. It is not just sad. It is outrageous. Some of the views expressed on here may help explain why some men think that they are (a) entitled to behave in such a way; (b) believe they will get away with it; and (c) don't really think it very wrong.
Welcome to our world.
Yes sorry, it is an assault of course that written line came over on here a little different to how I actually intended it. it's a world that since having daughters I have become much more aware of but I would hope most of us are gentlemen and in no way similar.
I am though reminded of one female victim when asked what should be done about the situation just turned and said "stop raping us".
''Which is why I don't understand the lack of reaction from some people. I've never been in that situation, but know a few girls from my university days that had to deal with it on a semi-regular basis. ''
The lack of reaction is to the actions of Bill and Hillary Clinton, not those of Donald Trump. What is astonishing is the lack of scrutiny of what the former two have done.
It all seems to be OK because they mouth duplicitous platitudes about standing up for women.
"Lord King, the former Governor of the Bank of England, echoed the comments on sterling, saying the sell-off was largely welcome. "During the referendum campaign, someone said the real danger of Brexit is you'll end up with higher interest rates, lower house prices and a lower exchange rate, and I thought: dream on. Because that's what we've been trying to achieve for the past three years and now we have a chance of getting it." "I don't think we should fear [Brexit]. It's not a bed of roses, but nor is it the end of the world," he told Sky News." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/10/currency-guru-says-pound-slide-liberates-uk-from-malign-grip-of/
Trump is a NYC liberal from Queens. He talks pugnaciously because that's his home town lingo - so it's hitting people, knocking them out et al. It's just colloquial. It upsets the PC brigade - and loved as common man by blue collars.
He's swapped sides because IMO - he thinks America has lost it's way, it's become supine/losing its edge and pride 'Make America Great Again' isn't a slogan - it's a core belief.
I'd stick him in the Reagan mindset politically - clearly he's not suave - but he's a cowboy.
I thought this could have been true at the beginning of the campaign.
But as time has worn on, his utter lack of fitness for high office, coupled with his misogyny and willingness to play the racist card means I do not think he can supported - even against Clinton.
The grabbing pussy talk is objectionable not because of the word pussy but because it reveals a tolerance and even admiration of sexual violence.
I've been in the odd rugby locker room myself and never heard anyone actually boast of this.
Exactly. Banter is just that and, in my experience, is usually about what people would *like* to do rather than than what they have done (or claim to have done), and even then, is still kept within the bounds of consensuality. i find it disturbing that he clearly felt that these were acceptable comments to make in private, and still feels so. It's all the more disturbing that he made similar comments in his rallies about shooting people on Fifth and not losing support. It reveals the mindset of someone who has no idea where the boundaries of behaviour lie, and that's extremely dangerous in a senior politician.
I said this earlier - it's Queens' language.
My Geordie parly isn't what I'd say down here - but he's reverted to blue collar colloquial. I'm really surprised by how many sophisticated sorts can't see it.
Tony's estuary English or Nigel Kennedy now sounding like a thick yob rather than his 12yrs old self of crisp RP.
Nonsense. Accent and dialect have nothing to do with his claims and even if you are right (which you're not), it's a poor politician who can't talk in the language of his electorate.
Those who think Trump is like Reagan are being as idiotically ignorant as those you describe.
Reagan had a long history of political activism and standing successfully for political office. He had political experience.
Trump has none of these things. He is an ignoramus who thinks that shouting and bluster and offensiveness are a substitute for thought, experience and the hard work needed to achieve political office and make a success of it. He risks betraying the hopes and needs of those he claims to speak for, people who do not have wealth to fall back on, who cannot parlay their way into lucrative TV programmes.
It is easy to sneer at liberal elites. Just because they are wrong about some things does not mean they are wrong about everything. Nor does it mean that those who publicly proclaim themselves to be against the liberal elites are right or worth listening to. That is just attitudinizing and pose-striking and such behaviour is no more worth paying attention to in a 60 year old than in a 16 year old. Indeed rather less since one normally supposes a 60 year old to have achieved some level of maturity.
What a load of cobblers. Trump's been talking politics for decades. I'm genuinely surprised by your post.
"Trump floated the idea of running for president in 1988, 2004, and 2012, and for Governor of New York in 2006 and 2014, but did not enter those races.[244][245] He was considered as a potential running mate for George H. W. Bush on the Republican Party's 1988 presidential ticket but lost out to future Vice President Dan Quayle. There is dispute over whether Trump or the Bush camp made the initial pitch.[246]
You make my point. Lots of talk. No action. A man who has never stood for political office until now. So exactly like someone who spent ages in politics, won political office and had a track record. It is you who is talking cobblers. This is, frankly, given your recent posts no longer a surprise.
Am off. Have work to do. The atmosphere on here has become horrible.
Sorry, no - you were wrong. And left the field. I don't mind disagreeing with anyone - however you made an opinion based statement that contradicted the evidence.
With the turnout likely to be down and the Conservative vote share likely to drop, there is going to be plenty for everyone else. Alastair, completely off topic, do you have any good advice of where to look for information on flexible draw down pensions and benefits versus negatives of switching from existing funds/final salary/etc. Obviously it would eventually mean Financial adviser if really looking at it but want to do some initial searching.
The FCA still generally views it as poor advice to transfer someone out of a DB scheme although that may gradually change. If your benefit is over the limit of the PPF then that might be a reason to transfer if the scheme is 'wobbly' in its finances but again would need weighing up.
Sometimes it can make sense to 'commute' some of the DB pension for a larger tax free cash sum when you come to retire and take the DB pension - this is if you want to 'capture' some of the value against the risk of your early death in retirement AND usually it makes no difference to the spouses benefit if you die first. Worth checking that and how much £ TFC you get for every £ income you give up - the so-called commutation factor. The higher the factor, the more attractive the scheme is making it, anything in single figures (say £9 TFC for every £1 income is pretty paltry). Nearer 20x is much more tempting - depending on circumstances of course!
DC monies much more flexible and can be used to bridge the gap to retirement (when state pension &/or DB pension commence) and also now offer IHT planning opportunities too.
A combination of having both behind you is usually ideal. The value of a DB pension is woefully undervalued when it comes to the lifetime allowance limit of £1m - if that ceiling applies to you then it's perhaps another reason to keep the DB scheme.
I saw earlier someone mentioned investment-linked annuities (something Pru pushed a lot), I've never recommended anyone in to them.
As you mention an adviser will need to properly research and 'sign' off any transfer from a DB scheme and we're not cheap as it puts us in the firing line for future complaints potentially.
I'm the one who mentioned 'Invested Annuity' I had a small pension where I had to take an annuity, no chance of drawdown. The best I could get as an annuity (single, no gtee, no spouse, flat) was £1675/yr. The Invested Annuity (ABR of 3%) for the same conditions was £2120 variable (would go up if growth > 3%), but crucially never below £1570. It was quite an easy decision. Obviously DYOR. Pru and LV no longer do them, only Aviva as far as I know.
Bloody spot on. He was a very savvy negotiator. So is Trump. He's a persuader playing a role. And alpha male.
Those who don't see how sophisticated much of this is aren't watching. He's not a hick who only knows 850 words. He uses 850 words to communicate in short soundbites to those who talk a similar 10yrs old education.
Anyone daft enough to believe a man who went to Wharton is stupid needs a good shake. He's knocked out over a dozen rivals, paid 000,000s for a decade on a TV show, runs a business with assets over $3bn.
Yup - he's a cretin. He's a giant bragger and a load of other stuff - but he's played the media like a fiddle.
He's not stupid but he's a cretin?
I'm confused (or possibly stupid).
He may not be stupid but he is:
a. misogynistic; b. racist; c. a sexual predator; d. a flat track bully; and e. so wrapped in self-adulation that ignorance and instinctive behaviour trumps (as it were) any intelligence; and f. surprisingly lacking in cunning (see d and e perhaps).
Edit: the world has changed and arguments such as JFK was worse or well it was fine in BT in the 90s should be treated with the contempt that they deserve.
If he was a million times more subtle he would've gotten away with it but even the working class can see he's trying to pull of a trick as if just saying "law and order" and the audience will be captivated. Works for a base not for winning electorate. Scary thing is if he was as smart and more articulate he couldve been all of the above (apart from revealed sexual predator and he would need cunning) and won easily.
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
It'd be interesting to see a market on Trump being impeached if elected. Given (1) his lack of partisan support and (2) his apparent contempt for at the least, norms of behaviour and at worst, the law, it'd have to be quite likely.
Given my earlier post re Guiliani that a federal judge had called him after Sunday's debate to say Hillary confessed to her email crimes and her TV appearance was evidence...
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
sorry Nick there's a lack balance in this. Trump has a point when he says Clinton B actually did what he only talked about.
If the act is the key event then both sides should be hanging their heads in shame, the Clintonites are ramping Trump's crudeness while hoping nobody calls their side out. That;s politics but it would jjust make the site more readable if we didnt have to listen to the moral cant that goes with it from PBers who ought to know better.
Well quite.
Did I miss a post by anyone about 3 ladies saying they'd been raped by Bill and Hillary'd intimated and belittled them?
Ohh.
What a load of twaddle from the most self righteous. Trump being a boorish braggart taking a woman furniture shopping and trying it on SO AWFUL in comparison.
FFS.
you mean unproven allegations from women about Bill?
What about trump's accusers? doesnt sound like he was just boasting
''B Clinton has already served two terms as President. Clinton, the candidate, is a different Clinton. '' Hillary's role in those presidency terms was as his protector, his shield, His facilitator. And she professes to stand up for women. Do me a favour.
The this pussygate thing, I have two daughters. Both have told me when in public places they have been touched inappropriately on different occasions during nights out in the town. The contact was not encouraged or welcome. I was quite horrified but they seemed almost relaxed about it saying well Dad it happens. They didn't like it but I guess to all intents and purposes it's an assault.
I just don't remember this happening when I was out and about in the 70's and 80's though I suppose it must have gone on. It's just rather sad that young ladies cannot go out without the risk of being molested.
My personal impression is that casual social behaviour has indeed coarsened but in-work behaviour has improved because management has cracked down. I remember professional staff occasionally smacking female colleagues' bottoms "playfully" 30 years ago and both sides treating it as amusing - nowadays, it'd be a breach of almost any office code, and a repeat offence would probably lead to dismissal. The reality was probably that some of the women genuinely thought nothing of it and some were upset but reluctant to show it, and that's a classic abuse scenario: you shouldn't need to be a tough cookie to go to a normal job. Obviously what Trump claims to have got up to is significantly worse, not least because of the power angle.
Yes that's true and rightly so.
When I go to our offices I'm often greeted with kisses on the cheek from the ladies both young and old It's instigated by the ladies not me I hasten to add. I do find it quite endearing without being considered sexual in any way. That's how it should be.
The this pussygate thing, I have two daughters. Both have told me when in public places they have been touched inappropriately on different occasions during nights out in the town. The contact was not encouraged or welcome. I was quite horrified but they seemed almost relaxed about it saying well Dad it happens. They didn't like it but I guess to all intents and purposes it's an assault.
I just don't remember this happening when I was out and about in the 70's and 80's though I suppose it must have gone on. It's just rather sad that young ladies cannot go out without the risk of being molested.
My personal impression is that casual social behaviour has indeed coarsened but in-work behaviour has improved because management has cracked down. I remember professional staff occasionally smacking female colleagues' bottoms "playfully" 30 years ago and both sides treating it as amusing - nowadays, it'd be a breach of almost any office code, and a repeat offence would probably lead to dismissal. The reality was probably that some of the women genuinely thought nothing of it and some were upset but reluctant to show it, and that's a classic abuse scenario: you shouldn't need to be a tough cookie to go to a normal job. Obviously what Trump claims to have got up to is significantly worse, not least because of the power angle.
Yes that's true and rightly so.
When I go to our offices I'm often greeted with kisses on the cheek from the ladies both young and old It's instigated by the ladies not me I hasten to add. I do find it quite endearing without being considered sexual in any way. That's how it should be.
According to current values if you did not fully and unequivocally consent you can make a claim for sexual assault.
''You also fail to see that I'm not defending Trump but simply pointing out the Clintons are in the same swamp. Bill didnt boast but tried to hide it - is that a better approach ?''
Bill and Hillary are in an even deeper swamp, in my view.
I honestly don't get this moral equivalence malarkey.
Bill lost his license to practice law and paid $800k after one incident, he was IMPEACHED over another and Hillary smeared or intimated at least 4 others. They appeared in person - one of them is 73yrs old.
And Trump bragged about unknown female on a bus tape.
It's bizarre - and mostly media manipulation and Hillary fanning. I find it reprehensible that there's been almost zero coverage of the alleged victims in the media. That says it all.
Many political pundits and professionals said Donald Trump delivered a much-improved performance during his town hall-style debate with Hillary Clinton on Sunday, but a healthy margin of voters still say the former secretary of State was the victor.
According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult survey taken immediately following the debate at Washington University, 42 percent of registered voters said Clinton won the debate, compared with 28 percent who said the Republican nominee won. That margin of victory for Clinton is down 7 points from the first debate, when voters said she defeated Trump, 47 percent to 26 percent.
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
It'd be interesting to see a market on Trump being impeached if elected. Given (1) his lack of partisan support and (2) his apparent contempt for at the least, norms of behaviour and at worst, the law, it'd have to be quite likely.
Given my earlier post re Guiliani that a federal judge had called him after Sunday's debate to say Hillary confessed to her email crimes and her TV appearance was evidence...
well, If honest Rudy says someone told him that, she is toast.
Back in the real world, those polls below would completely wipe out any 'shy trump' effect
Allow free movement of people from Mexico & Canada
Reagan himself was a dreamer, capable of imagining a world without trade barriers. In announcing his presidential candidacy in Nov. 1979, he had proposed a “North American accord” in which commerce & people would move freely across the borders of Canada & Mexico. This idea, largely overlooked or dismissed as a campaign gimmick in the US, rankled nationalist sensibilities in the neighboring nations. But Reagan was serious in his proposal. Though he traveled only once outside the North American continent during his first 57 years, he was neither insular nor isolationist.
''B Clinton has already served two terms as President. Clinton, the candidate, is a different Clinton. '' Hillary's role in those presidency terms was as his protector, his shield, His facilitator. And she professes to stand up for women. Do me a favour.
I have only had a chance to glance at the threads and follow events.
But the willingness of people to overlook or excuse Trump's appalling behavior and comments is simply astonishing and really quite appalling.
Trump is no gentleman. He behaves like an uncivilized uncouth boor. It is no excuse to say that people used to behave like that 30 years ago or may do so still in private. Boasting about sexual assault, about humiliating another person is gross behavior and it was 30 years ago as well. Men were perfectly well able to know the difference between right and wrong, between what it is to behave in a gentlemanly man are really like Trump and only behaving well out of political correctness or fear of being criticized.
If we rightly criticize migrants from certain countries/cultures for their boorish/criminal/insulting/misogynistic behavior to women, then we should also do so when white middle class rich men with an overweening sense of indispensability or entitlement do the same. Or indeed when any man who is not a migrant behaves in such a way. Sexual assault is an abhorrent crime, no matter who does it.
Trump's behavior shows his unfitness for public office. IMO.
Just because he claims to speak for those who feel excluded does not excuse him from expectations of civilized behaviour. The problems of the "left behind" classes are not served (well or at all) by people who condescend to them, who use them for their own purposes and who show, by the way they talk about and treat those who are more vulnerable than they are, that they have no regard for the weak, the abandoned, the isolated, but simply see them as people to be used to advance their own ambitions.
That's all.
Yes.
And I am reasonably confident that plenty of Ohio barflies see this as the sort of behaviour that would render Trump as the bar asshole in their preferred haunts.
I've said it on an earlier thread - but it doesn't bother me an iota. I worked at BT sales offices in the 90s where this was commonplace pub banter, and depending on the company at others.
I think it's a massive fuss about nothing for those who either hear it and dismiss - or care about other stuff a lot more. It shrieks chatterati class outrage who don't get it as a cultural thing. Sex in the City was very ribald. A Twitter friend was a male stripper and most amusing on his hen night experiences.
I simply think it's an attitude divide - women who aren't bothered give as good as they get - in kind. What currency 'in kind' comes in is another matter.
The key words here are "in the 90s". Two decades on, most people have modernised their attitudes.
''You also fail to see that I'm not defending Trump but simply pointing out the Clintons are in the same swamp. Bill didnt boast but tried to hide it - is that a better approach ?''
Bill and Hillary are in an even deeper swamp, in my view.
I honestly don't get this moral equivalence malarkey.
Bill lost his license to practice law and paid $800k after one incident, he was IMPEACHED over another and Hillary smeared or intimated at least 4 others. They appeared in person - one of them is 73yrs old.
And Trump bragged about unknown female on a bus tape.
It's bizarre - and mostly media manipulation and Hillary fanning. I find it reprehensible that there's been almost zero coverage of the alleged victims in the media. That says it all.
yeah. no one knows who paula jones is. Why or why are MSM so biased.
I read they had the Trump tape since late August, after Billy Bush was drunk at a party recounting stories of Trump and the tv network ordered a look through the archives.
Senor is right in the clarts. His wife works for NBC... MGM and the other guy have no rights to share other stuff and released a statement earlier today. The media stuff seems empty speculation.
Trump's threat to go uber hard ball may stop this gutter attack.
It's odd to see long-standing poster Plato increasingly such a Trumpist on here. It's not quite Louise Mensch but it's a slippery slope!
I just think PB is shockingly biased one way and very unhelpful. I could tut along or show what the other side thinks.
What would be better input wise? Comfort blanket?
Not biased, but one by one the people who supported Trump (including me) have turned away. I have no love of Clinton, but I couldn't vote for Trump in good conscience, I'd hope that the GOP have a Senate and House majority to ensure Clinton faces 4 years of gridlock. What's happening right now is that Trump is hurting the GOP in the House which means when Clinton wins, she may have the majority leader on her side paving the way for ultra leftist budgets for at least two years.
Clinton will win, Trump is a busted flush. Most women are not in the same camp as you, my partner who is no friend of modern feminists is utterly repulsed by Trump, the same is true for most women I know. He will not overcome the demographics gap and gender gap, one is possible, two are not. White men account for about 37% of the population, he'd need them to break 60/40 in his favour and turnout among that group to be 10 points higher than the rest of the electorate. It's not going to happen.
Fewer than three in ten (28%) female voters say they would vote for Trump if the election were held today, compared to six in ten (61%) who say they are backing Clinton—a 33-point gap. In sharp contrast, Trump still holds a substantial lead over Clinton among male voters (48% vs. 37%, respectively).
I was out canvassing with the Lib Dems in Witney on Saturday. As well as the coachload of Londoners that I travelled there with, there were people from Liverpool, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Yorkshire and Southampton.
And there, in a sentence, is why by elections really aren't that meaningful.
They can help a party massively, just ask UKIP after Clacton.
Did Clacton make much difference? UKIP had already won the Euroelections across the entire country a few months earlier so picking up a single constituency, while a landmark, didn't exactly explode them on to the map.
I was out canvassing with the Lib Dems in Witney on Saturday. As well as the coachload of Londoners that I travelled there with, there were people from Liverpool, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Yorkshire and Southampton.
And there, in a sentence, is why by elections really aren't that meaningful.
They can help a party massively, just ask UKIP after Clacton.
Did Clacton make much difference? UKIP had already won the Euroelections across the entire country a few months earlier so picking up a single constituency, while a landmark, didn't exactly explode them on to the map.
Some by-elections certainly have made a big difference to national polling. Orpington immediately boosted the Liberals' poll rating and the run of Liberal by election wins in the early '70s were instrumental in the Liberal surge in 1974. During both periods dissatisfaction with a Conservative government was a key factor.
I think there's a fair amount of disquiet about May's government at the moment. It's just being masked by Labour's uselessness and the Lib Dems' invisibility. A Lib Dem by-election win could massively change the national polling, hence the kitchen sink being thrown at Witney.
It's odd to see long-standing poster Plato increasingly such a Trumpist on here. It's not quite Louise Mensch but it's a slippery slope!
I just think PB is shockingly biased one way and very unhelpful. I could tut along or show what the other side thinks.
What would be better input wise? Comfort blanket?
Not biased, but one by one the people who supported Trump (including me) have turned away. I have no love of Clinton, but I couldn't vote for Trump in good conscience, I'd hope that the GOP have a Senate and House majority to ensure Clinton faces 4 years of gridlock. What's happening right now is that Trump is hurting the GOP in the House which means when Clinton wins, she may have the majority leader on her side paving the way for ultra leftist budgets for at least two years.
Clinton will win, Trump is a busted flush. Most women are not in the same camp as you, my partner who is no friend of modern feminists is utterly repulsed by Trump, the same is true for most women I know. He will not overcome the demographics gap and gender gap, one is possible, two are not. White men account for about 37% of the population, he'd need them to break 60/40 in his favour and turnout among that group to be 10 points higher than the rest of the electorate. It's not going to happen.
I think that is probably accurate but we wont know until the counting begins.
What is surprising to me is that many opinion polls still put Trump 5 pts or less behind Clinton, with the monstering he is getting there must still be shy Trumpers out there so still the chance of an upset.
Latest Trump odds are 7/2. If they slip to 6/1 the day before the election or similar, I may have a punt as I did when 6/1 was offered on Brexit the day before.
''B Clinton has already served two terms as President. Clinton, the candidate, is a different Clinton. '' Hillary's role in those presidency terms was as his protector, his shield, His facilitator. And she professes to stand up for women. Do me a favour.
Trump is a NYC liberal from Queens. He talks pugnaciously because that's his home town lingo - so it's hitting people, knocking them out et al. It's just colloquial. It upsets the PC brigade - and loved as common man by blue collars.
He's swapped sides because IMO - he thinks America has lost it's way, it's become supine/losing its edge and pride 'Make America Great Again' isn't a slogan - it's a core belief.
I'd stick him in the Reagan mindset politically - clearly he's not suave - but he's a cowboy.
I thought this could have been true at the beginning of the campaign.
But as time has worn on, his utter lack of fitness for high office, coupled with his misogyny and willingness to play the racist card means I do not think he can supported - even against Clinton.
The grabbing pussy talk is objectionable not because of the word pussy but because it reveals a tolerance and even admiration of sexual violence.
I've been in the odd rugby locker room myself and never heard anyone actually boast of this.
Exactly. Banter is just that and, in my experience, is usually about what people would *like* to do rather than than what they have done (or claim to have done), and even then, is still kept within the bounds of consensuality. i find it disturbing that he clearly felt that these were acceptable comments to make in private, and still feels so. It's all the more disturbing that he made similar comments in his rallies about shooting people on Fifth and not losing support. It reveals the mindset of someone who has no idea where the boundaries of behaviour lie, and that's extremely dangerous in a senior politician.
I said this earlier - it's Queens' language.
My Geordie parly isn't what I'd say down here - but he's reverted to blue collar colloquial. I'm really surprised by how many sophisticated sorts can't see it.
Tony's estuary English or Nigel Kennedy now sounding like a thick yob rather than his 12yrs old self of crisp RP.
You're conflating an accent shift with talk of sexual assault?
This isn't some cuddly clubocracy - it's about discussion. If anyone can't handle what a large section of the US electorate are thinking - get over yourself.
Tut tut tut tut tut. Does that help you feel superior?
It's odd to see long-standing poster Plato increasingly such a Trumpist on here. It's not quite Louise Mensch but it's a slippery slope!
I just think PB is shockingly biased one way and very unhelpful. I could tut along or show what the other side thinks.
What would be better input wise? Comfort blanket?
Not biased, but one by one the people who supported Trump (including me) have turned away. I have no love of Clinton, but I couldn't vote for Trump in good conscience, I'd hope that the GOP have a Senate and House majority to ensure Clinton faces 4 years of gridlock. What's happening right now is that Trump is hurting the GOP in the House which means when Clinton wins, she may have the majority leader on her side paving the way for ultra leftist budgets for at least two years.
Clinton will win, Trump is a busted flush. Most women are not in the same camp as you, my partner who is no friend of modern feminists is utterly repulsed by Trump, the same is true for most women I know. He will not overcome the demographics gap and gender gap, one is possible, two are not. White men account for about 37% of the population, he'd need them to break 60/40 in his favour and turnout among that group to be 10 points higher than the rest of the electorate. It's not going to happen.
Spot on - the transformation of Plato from Blair babe to Trump roadie is one of the funniest things on PB for a long time. God only knows what she puts in her tea.
These directions are required when the civil service do not consider the proposed spending is value for money and require a direction from the relevant Secretary of State that there are wider concerns to be taking into account.
This is unusual as the letters date from May 2016 and are commercially sensitive. I'm not sure why they have been released now rather than before or later.
Interesting that he thinks that this government is " characterised by intense nationalism, dictatorial or draconian police state rule, mass appeal, brutal use of violence, disregard for the law, and a racial policy emphasizing the subjugation or extermination of people considered inferior, "
I was out canvassing with the Lib Dems in Witney on Saturday. As well as the coachload of Londoners that I travelled there with, there were people from Liverpool, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Yorkshire and Southampton.
And there, in a sentence, is why by elections really aren't that meaningful.
They can help a party massively, just ask UKIP after Clacton.
Did Clacton make much difference? UKIP had already won the Euroelections across the entire country a few months earlier so picking up a single constituency, while a landmark, didn't exactly explode them on to the map.
Some by-elections certainly have made a big difference to national polling. Orpington immediately boosted the Liberals' poll rating and the run of Liberal by election wins in the early '70s were instrumental in the Liberal surge in 1974. During both periods dissatisfaction with a Conservative government was a key factor.
I think there's a fair amount of disquiet about May's government at the moment. It's just being masked by Labour's uselessness and the Lib Dems' invisibility. A Lib Dem by-election win could massively change the national polling, hence the kitchen sink being thrown at Witney.
By-elections undoubtedly can make a difference and i agree that the Conservatives' current high vote share is more down to Labour uselessness than innate Tory strength. My point was more about Clacton, which I don't think really changed the narrative or perceptions. As for Witney, I can't see the Lib Dems coming that close to winning. If so, that would make their massive splurge a bit of a waste.
Trump TV will get more viewers if the Democrats control all branches of government, so it's in his interests to rile up his supporters against the GOP and get them spoiling their papers down-ballot.
Fewer than three in ten (28%) female voters say they would vote for Trump if the election were held today, compared to six in ten (61%) who say they are backing Clinton—a 33-point gap. In sharp contrast, Trump still holds a substantial lead over Clinton among male voters (48% vs. 37%, respectively).
Fewer than three in ten (28%) female voters say they would vote for Trump if the election were held today, compared to six in ten (61%) who say they are backing Clinton—a 33-point gap. In sharp contrast, Trump still holds a substantial lead over Clinton among male voters (48% vs. 37%, respectively).
Looking at it, compared to the ICM yesterday, Corbyn and Trump are equally repellent to women voters. Eeesh
It's odd to see long-standing poster Plato increasingly such a Trumpist on here. It's not quite Louise Mensch but it's a slippery slope!
I just think PB is shockingly biased one way and very unhelpful. I could tut along or show what the other side thinks.
What would be better input wise? Comfort blanket?
Not biased, but one by one the people who supported Trump (including me) have turned away. I have no love of Clinton, but I couldn't vote for Trump in good conscience, I'd hope that the GOP have a Senate and House majority to ensure Clinton faces 4 years of gridlock. What's happening right now is that Trump is hurting the GOP in the House which means when Clinton wins, she may have the majority leader on her side paving the way for ultra leftist budgets for at least two years.
Clinton will win, Trump is a busted flush. Most women are not in the same camp as you, my partner who is no friend of modern feminists is utterly repulsed by Trump, the same is true for most women I know. He will not overcome the demographics gap and gender gap, one is possible, two are not. White men account for about 37% of the population, he'd need them to break 60/40 in his favour and turnout among that group to be 10 points higher than the rest of the electorate. It's not going to happen.
Spot on - the transformation of Plato from Blair babe to Trump roadie is one of the funniest things on PB for a long time. God only knows what she puts in her tea.
I believe Brigitte Bardot has also made the journey toward far right cat loving. Indeed, have Plato and Bardot ever been seen in the same room together?
I was out canvassing with the Lib Dems in Witney on Saturday. As well as the coachload of Londoners that I travelled there with, there were people from Liverpool, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Yorkshire and Southampton.
And there, in a sentence, is why by elections really aren't that meaningful.
They can help a party massively, just ask UKIP after Clacton.
Did Clacton make much difference? UKIP had already won the Euroelections across the entire country a few months earlier so picking up a single constituency, while a landmark, didn't exactly explode them on to the map.
It's tricky to see from the graph, but it looks like the campaign for the Clacton By-Election saw UKIP go from 9% to 14%, just as the Euros campaign and election saw them go from 9% to 16%. http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm
It's odd to see long-standing poster Plato increasingly such a Trumpist on here. It's not quite Louise Mensch but it's a slippery slope!
I just think PB is shockingly biased one way and very unhelpful. I could tut along or show what the other side thinks.
What would be better input wise? Comfort blanket?
Not biased, but one by one the people who supported Trump (including me) have turned away. I have no love of Clinton, but I couldn't vote for Trump in good conscience, I'd hope that the GOP have a Senate and House majority to ensure Clinton faces 4 years of gridlock. What's happening right now is that Trump is hurting the GOP in the House which means when Clinton wins, she may have the majority leader on her side paving the way for ultra leftist budgets for at least two years.
Clinton will win, Trump is a busted flush. Most women are not in the same camp as you, my partner who is no friend of modern feminists is utterly repulsed by Trump, the same is true for most women I know. He will not overcome the demographics gap and gender gap, one is possible, two are not. White men account for about 37% of the population, he'd need them to break 60/40 in his favour and turnout among that group to be 10 points higher than the rest of the electorate. It's not going to happen.
I think that is probably accurate but we wont know until the counting begins.
What is surprising to me is that many opinion polls still put Trump 5 pts or less behind Clinton, with the monstering he is getting there must still be shy Trumpers out there so still the chance of an upset.
Latest Trump odds are 7/2. If they slip to 6/1 the day before the election or similar, I may have a punt as I did when 6/1 was offered on Brexit the day before.
During Brexit it was noted that bets of large amounts were going on Remain but lots of smaller bets were going on leave. What is happening this time round on the election.
It's odd to see long-standing poster Plato increasingly such a Trumpist on here. It's not quite Louise Mensch but it's a slippery slope!
I just think PB is shockingly biased one way and very unhelpful. I could tut along or show what the other side thinks.
What would be better input wise? Comfort blanket?
Not biased, but one by one the people who supported Trump (including me) have turned away. I have no love of Clinton, but I couldn't vote for Trump in good conscience, I'd hope that the GOP have a Senate and House majority to ensure Clinton faces 4 years of gridlock. What's happening right now is that Trump is hurting the GOP in the House which means when Clinton wins, she may have the majority leader on her side paving the way for ultra leftist budgets for at least two years.
Clinton will win, Trump is a busted flush. Most women are not in the same camp as you, my partner who is no friend of modern feminists is utterly repulsed by Trump, the same is true for most women I know. He will not overcome the demographics gap and gender gap, one is possible, two are not. White men account for about 37% of the population, he'd need them to break 60/40 in his favour and turnout among that group to be 10 points higher than the rest of the electorate. It's not going to happen.
I think that is probably accurate but we wont know until the counting begins.
What is surprising to me is that many opinion polls still put Trump 5 pts or less behind Clinton, with the monstering he is getting there must still be shy Trumpers out there so still the chance of an upset.
Latest Trump odds are 7/2. If they slip to 6/1 the day before the election or similar, I may have a punt as I did when 6/1 was offered on Brexit the day before.
I'd say the opposite: I'd say the 5 points ahead one are including the shy trumpers as voters. Looking at the current averages ( with that second double digit national lead) we could be looking at 7-8% average national lead for Clinton.
The most reliable and highest turn out voters in most swing states are suburban mothers. If you can't see how that tape completely fucks Trump over with that group, then I despair slightly TBH
I was out canvassing with the Lib Dems in Witney on Saturday. As well as the coachload of Londoners that I travelled there with, there were people from Liverpool, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Yorkshire and Southampton.
And there, in a sentence, is why by elections really aren't that meaningful.
They can help a party massively, just ask UKIP after Clacton.
Did Clacton make much difference? UKIP had already won the Euroelections across the entire country a few months earlier so picking up a single constituency, while a landmark, didn't exactly explode them on to the map.
I was out canvassing with the Lib Dems in Witney on Saturday. As well as the coachload of Londoners that I travelled there with, there were people from Liverpool, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Yorkshire and Southampton.
And there, in a sentence, is why by elections really aren't that meaningful.
They can help a party massively, just ask UKIP after Clacton.
Did Clacton make much difference? UKIP had already won the Euroelections across the entire country a few months earlier so picking up a single constituency, while a landmark, didn't exactly explode them on to the map.
Some by-elections certainly have made a big difference to national polling. Orpington immediately boosted the Liberals' poll rating and the run of Liberal by election wins in the early '70s were instrumental in the Liberal surge in 1974. During both periods dissatisfaction with a Conservative government was a key factor.
I think there's a fair amount of disquiet about May's government at the moment. It's just being masked by Labour's uselessness and the Lib Dems' invisibility. A Lib Dem by-election win could massively change the national polling, hence the kitchen sink being thrown at Witney.
They can't possibly win, but a good second (from fourth) should give them a boost.
This isn't some cuddly clubocracy - it's about discussion. If anyone can't handle what a large section of the US electorate are thinking - get over yourself.
Tut tut tut tut tut. Does that help you feel superior?
You have gone beyond discussing it to defending it.
If this was my club, I'd cough theatrically, signal for stronger liquor, and try to change the subject.
It's odd to see long-standing poster Plato increasingly such a Trumpist on here. It's not quite Louise Mensch but it's a slippery slope!
I just think PB is shockingly biased one way and very unhelpful. I could tut along or show what the other side thinks.
What would be better input wise? Comfort blanket?
Not biased, but one by one the people who supported Trump (including me) have turned away. I have no love of Clinton, but I couldn't vote for Trump in good conscience, I'd hope that the GOP have a Senate and House majority to ensure Clinton faces 4 years of gridlock. What's happening right now is that Trump is hurting the GOP in the House which means when Clinton wins, she may have the majority leader on her side paving the way for ultra leftist budgets for at least two years.
Clinton will win, Trump is a busted flush. Most women are not in the same camp as you, my partner who is no friend of modern feminists is utterly repulsed by Trump, the same is true for most women I know. He will not overcome the demographics gap and gender gap, one is possible, two are not. White men account for about 37% of the population, he'd need them to break 60/40 in his favour and turnout among that group to be 10 points higher than the rest of the electorate. It's not going to happen.
Spot on - the transformation of Plato from Blair babe to Trump roadie is one of the funniest things on PB for a long time. God only knows what she puts in her tea.
I believe Brigitte Bardot has also made the journey toward far right cat loving. Indeed, have Plato and Bardot ever been seen in the same room together?
It's odd to see long-standing poster Plato increasingly such a Trumpist on here. It's not quite Louise Mensch but it's a slippery slope!
I just think PB is shockingly biased one way and very unhelpful. I could tut along or show what the other side thinks.
What would be better input wise? Comfort blanket?
Not biased, but one by one the people who supported Trump (including me) have turned away. I have no love of Clinton, but I couldn't vote for Trump in good conscience, I'd hope that the GOP have a Senate and House majority to ensure Clinton faces 4 years of gridlock. What's happening right now is that Trump is hurting the GOP in the House which means when Clinton wins, she may have the majority leader on her side paving the way for ultra leftist budgets for at least two years.
Clinton will win, Trump is a busted flush. Most women are not in the same camp as you, my partner who is no friend of modern feminists is utterly repulsed by Trump, the same is true for most women I know. He will not overcome the demographics gap and gender gap, one is possible, two are not. White men account for about 37% of the population, he'd need them to break 60/40 in his favour and turnout among that group to be 10 points higher than the rest of the electorate. It's not going to happen.
I think that is probably accurate but we wont know until the counting begins.
What is surprising to me is that many opinion polls still put Trump 5 pts or less behind Clinton, with the monstering he is getting there must still be shy Trumpers out there so still the chance of an upset.
Latest Trump odds are 7/2. If they slip to 6/1 the day before the election or similar, I may have a punt as I did when 6/1 was offered on Brexit the day before.
I'd say the opposite: I'd say the 5 points ahead one are including the shy trumpers as voters. Looking at the current averages ( with that second double digit national lead) we could be looking at 7-8% average national lead for Clinton.
The most reliable and highest turn out voters in most swing states are suburban mothers. If you can't see how that tape completely fucks Trump over with that group, then I despair slightly TBH
And 53% of the US electorate are women, apparently.
''B Clinton has already served two terms as President. Clinton, the candidate, is a different Clinton. '' Hillary's role in those presidency terms was as his protector, his shield, His facilitator. And she professes to stand up for women. Do me a favour.
Which is worse Hillary's sordid private life or her squalid public career ? A thoroughly revolting piece of work.
Yes a revolting piece of work. But the USA has to choose between ScumbagT or ScumbagC, which piece of work repells you less?
I find Trump amusing and attractive, the first presidential candidate I've liked since Reagan.
Weird.
Nothing weird about it at all. Trump is enormously popular amongst his countrymen, the most popular Republican in history going by the primaries.
What attracts you? Is it his policies or his personality and charm?
My concern about Trump is not his attitude to women (reprehensible though that is).
My concern is that he is very dangerous. He is an egotistic, thin-skinned, vindictive bully who admires Putin. As President he would be a danger to the entire world.
He is also a local danger within the US as he is a very effective rabblerouser who can whip up a large crowd. If he claims Clinton's victory is a fraud, there will be trouble on the streets.
Allow free movement of people from Mexico & Canada
Reagan himself was a dreamer, capable of imagining a world without trade barriers. In announcing his presidential candidacy in Nov. 1979, he had proposed a “North American accord” in which commerce & people would move freely across the borders of Canada & Mexico. This idea, largely overlooked or dismissed as a campaign gimmick in the US, rankled nationalist sensibilities in the neighboring nations. But Reagan was serious in his proposal. Though he traveled only once outside the North American continent during his first 57 years, he was neither insular nor isolationist.
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
It'd be interesting to see a market on Trump being impeached if elected. Given (1) his lack of partisan support and (2) his apparent contempt for at the least, norms of behaviour and at worst, the law, it'd have to be quite likely.
Given my earlier post re Guiliani that a federal judge had called him after Sunday's debate to say Hillary confessed to her email crimes and her TV appearance was evidence...
To get a convicted impeachment of Hillary, you'd need several Democrat senators to vote against her. That's not going to happen over emails, both because of party loyalty and, I suspect, because they won't see it as meeting the 'high crimes and misdemeanours' bar.
Trump, on the other hand, wouldn't have the same congressional support.
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
It'd be interesting to see a market on Trump being impeached if elected. Given (1) his lack of partisan support and (2) his apparent contempt for at the least, norms of behaviour and at worst, the law, it'd have to be quite likely.
On what grounds would he be impeached? As he has not held public office the HOR would have to wait for him to do something as POTUS before impeaching him. HRC of course has held public office and could/would be impeached for such things as sale of public offices, lack of security etc
This isn't some cuddly clubocracy - it's about discussion. If anyone can't handle what a large section of the US electorate are thinking - get over yourself.
Tut tut tut tut tut. Does that help you feel superior?
Lol, you've truly turned into a fool who is easily led. A lot of the stuff you post is just rubbish from 4chan, Reddit and now Voat. They aren't for serious discussion, merely to laugh at. A large section of the US public are suffering from endemic wage stagnation and are looking for a different path, absolutely but much like you they are projecting their wishes onto a candidate who is completely unsuited to to deliver reform. Clinton isn't either which is why they are voting for Trump. I don't think 35-40% of Americans really believe that bragging about sexual assault is right, but many are willing to overlook that because Trump might change things to their favour having been ignored for the better part of 20 years. So while you might call it banter or whatever, most Americans, even those still looking to vote for Trump, probably don't see it that way.
Even just a basic amount of logic should tell you Trump is now dead in the water and the longer he stays in the further down he drags the rest of the party, clearing the House and maybe even the Senate for Clinton for a minimum of two years.
As I said, I previously supported Trump and thought he might be okay, clearly he isn't. I'm resigned to a merely "crap" Clinton presidency, with the way Trump is dragging down House and Senate Republicans we may have to downgrade "crap" to "awful" and three ultra liberal justices on the SCOTUS.
Pensions will have to be paid by the children of products of the one-child policy. But they will also inherit their parents wealth. Would the government get part of that ? Otherwise , how will those pensions be paid ?
There's only one poll that counts. Doubt we'll be hearing much from Ryan or yourself once the people have spoken.
"Someday we might look back on this and decide that saving Speaker Ryan was the one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole godawful, shitty mess."
One of the most interesting aspects of this election, and one that in some ways dare not speak its name.
Isn't it fascinating? Men are from Mars, and Women from Venus.
I was immensely dismissive of it - but bought a copy. Golly - what a revelation. I'd a BF who I couldn't get at all and it's usually something I can do in ten minutes. He was an enigma a year on - I could manage his behaviour [Mr Queue Rage] - but everything else was a mystery.
Is that a soft noise of a towel hitting the floor ?
You've just put a horrible image into my head of *redacted* in a ghastly, marble bedecked, coke-smeared bathroom preparing to seek 'comfort' from some dewy eyed teenager.
One of the most interesting aspects of this election, and one that in some ways dare not speak its name.
Isn't it fascinating? Men are from Mars, and Women from Venus.
I was immensely dismissive of it - but bought a copy. Golly - what a revelation. I'd a BF who I couldn't get at all and it's usually something I can do in ten minutes. He was an enigma a year on - I could manage his behaviour [Mr Queue Rage] - but everything else was a mystery.
Allow free movement of people from Mexico & Canada
Reagan himself was a dreamer, capable of imagining a world without trade barriers. In announcing his presidential candidacy in Nov. 1979, he had proposed a “North American accord” in which commerce & people would move freely across the borders of Canada & Mexico. This idea, largely overlooked or dismissed as a campaign gimmick in the US, rankled nationalist sensibilities in the neighboring nations. But Reagan was serious in his proposal. Though he traveled only once outside the North American continent during his first 57 years, he was neither insular nor isolationist.
This isn't some cuddly clubocracy - it's about discussion. If anyone can't handle what a large section of the US electorate are thinking - get over yourself.
Tut tut tut tut tut. Does that help you feel superior?
You have gone beyond discussing it to defending it.
If this was my club, I'd cough theatrically, signal for stronger liquor, and try to change the subject.
What rot - my entire posting history on this is an attempt to get smug liberals to grasp what others think re informed discussion.
Tut. 99% don't have a vote - I assume neither of us do.
I was out canvassing with the Lib Dems in Witney on Saturday. As well as the coachload of Londoners that I travelled there with, there were people from Liverpool, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Yorkshire and Southampton.
And there, in a sentence, is why by elections really aren't that meaningful.
They can help a party massively, just ask UKIP after Clacton.
Did Clacton make much difference? UKIP had already won the Euroelections across the entire country a few months earlier so picking up a single constituency, while a landmark, didn't exactly explode them on to the map.
It's tricky to see from the graph, but it looks like the campaign for the Clacton By-Election saw UKIP go from 9% to 14%, just as the Euros campaign and election saw them go from 9% to 16%. http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm
I don't know how that graph's sourced. The one that's embedded in Wiki (and which accords with my memory of a couple of years ago), shows the by-election being held *at* UKIP's peak rather than preceding it.
This isn't some cuddly clubocracy - it's about discussion. If anyone can't handle what a large section of the US electorate are thinking - get over yourself.
Tut tut tut tut tut. Does that help you feel superior?
You have gone beyond discussing it to defending it.
If this was my club, I'd cough theatrically, signal for stronger liquor, and try to change the subject.
What rot - my entire posting history on this is an attempt to get smug liberals to grasp what others think re informed discussion.
Tut. 99% don't have a vote - I assume neither of us do.
That makes myself, Richard Tyndall, Robert Smithson and many others smug liberals? You're just projecting now. You want everyone who argues against Trump to be an easy to dismiss smug liberal, the fact is that people from all across the political spectrum are now aligning against him, former supporters included. I'm actually surprised that Nige is still there supporting him, I thought he was much cannier than that.
It's odd to see long-standing poster Plato increasingly such a Trumpist on here. It's not quite Louise Mensch but it's a slippery slope!
I just think PB is shockingly biased one way and very unhelpful. I could tut along or show what the other side thinks.
What would be better input wise? Comfort blanket?
Not biased, but one by one the people who supported Trump (including me) have turned away. I have no love of Clinton, but I couldn't vote for Trump in good conscience, I'd hope that the GOP have a Senate and House majority to ensure Clinton faces 4 years of gridlock. What's happening right now is that Trump is hurting the GOP in the House which means when Clinton wins, she may have the majority leader on her side paving the way for ultra leftist budgets for at least two years.
Clinton will win, Trump is a busted flush. Most women are not in the same camp as you, my partner who is no friend of modern feminists is utterly repulsed by Trump, the same is true for most women I know. He will not overcome the demographics gap and gender gap, one is possible, two are not. White men account for about 37% of the population, he'd need them to break 60/40 in his favour and turnout among that group to be 10 points higher than the rest of the electorate. It's not going to happen.
I think that is probably accurate but we wont know until the counting begins.
What is surprising to me is that many opinion polls still put Trump 5 pts or less behind Clinton, with the monstering he is getting there must still be shy Trumpers out there so still the chance of an upset.
Latest Trump odds are 7/2. If they slip to 6/1 the day before the election or similar, I may have a punt as I did when 6/1 was offered on Brexit the day before.
I'd say the opposite: I'd say the 5 points ahead one are including the shy trumpers as voters. Looking at the current averages ( with that second double digit national lead) we could be looking at 7-8% average national lead for Clinton.
The most reliable and highest turn out voters in most swing states are suburban mothers. If you can't see how that tape completely fucks Trump over with that group, then I despair slightly TBH
I see, so people lying that they will vote Dem are boosting Trumps figure.
Is that a soft noise of a towel hitting the floor ?
You've just put a horrible image into my head of *redacted* in a ghastly, marble bedecked, coke-smeared bathroom preparing to seek 'comfort' from some dewy eyed teenager.
After that image you placed in my head yesterday of Steven Woolfe and Nigel Farage, I'm going to need mind bleach and therapy for years
Is that a soft noise of a towel hitting the floor ?
You've just put a horrible image into my head of *redacted* in a ghastly, marble bedecked, coke-smeared bathroom preparing to seek 'comfort' from some dewy eyed teenager.
After that image you placed in my head yesterday of Steven Woolfe and Nigel Farage, I'm going to need mind bleach and therapy for years
One of the most interesting aspects of this election, and one that in some ways dare not speak its name.
Isn't it fascinating? Men are from Mars, and Women from Venus.
I was immensely dismissive of it - but bought a copy. Golly - what a revelation. I'd a BF who I couldn't get at all and it's usually something I can do in ten minutes. He was an enigma a year on - I could manage his behaviour [Mr Queue Rage] - but everything else was a mystery.
It was a superb enlightening read.
I always love "In defence of the caveman". Men speak 2,000 words in a day, women 10,000. They both go to work, speak 2,000 words. When they come back home, the man is all done, the woman has 8,000 to go ...
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
It'd be interesting to see a market on Trump being impeached if elected. Given (1) his lack of partisan support and (2) his apparent contempt for at the least, norms of behaviour and at worst, the law, it'd have to be quite likely.
Given my earlier post re Guiliani that a federal judge had called him after Sunday's debate to say Hillary confessed to her email crimes and her TV appearance was evidence...
To get a convicted impeachment of Hillary, you'd need several Democrat senators to vote against her. That's not going to happen over emails, both because of party loyalty and, I suspect, because they won't see it as meeting the 'high crimes and misdemeanours' bar.
Trump, on the other hand, wouldn't have the same congressional support.
That's interesting perspective. The whole down ticket debacle is another. It's chicken game warfare now.
Trump has c25m followers on Twitter and Facebook IIRC. He's gained about 1m+ on Twitter in the last week.
Some here compare it to Corbyn - I see parallels, but think it's quite different - it's Boris with knob on.
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
It'd be interesting to see a market on Trump being impeached if elected. Given (1) his lack of partisan support and (2) his apparent contempt for at the least, norms of behaviour and at worst, the law, it'd have to be quite likely.
On what grounds would he be impeached? As he has not held public office the HOR would have to wait for him to do something as POTUS before impeaching him. HRC of course has held public office and could/would be impeached for such things as sale of public offices, lack of security etc
I suspect whoever wins will spend most of the next four years fending off impeachment
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
It'd be interesting to see a market on Trump being impeached if elected. Given (1) his lack of partisan support and (2) his apparent contempt for at the least, norms of behaviour and at worst, the law, it'd have to be quite likely.
On what grounds would he be impeached? As he has not held public office the HOR would have to wait for him to do something as POTUS before impeaching him. HRC of course has held public office and could/would be impeached for such things as sale of public offices, lack of security etc
No grounds as yet. I was simply basing my observation on the character and behaviour of the man.
Comments
The lack of reaction is to the actions of Bill and Hillary Clinton, not those of Donald Trump. What is astonishing is the lack of scrutiny of what the former two have done.
It all seems to be OK because they mouth duplicitous platitudes about standing up for women.
Did I miss a post by anyone about 3 ladies saying they'd been raped by Bill and Hillary'd intimated and belittled them?
Ohh.
What a load of twaddle from the most self righteous. Trump being a boorish braggart taking a woman furniture shopping and trying it on SO AWFUL in comparison.
FFS.
I am though reminded of one female victim when asked what should be done about the situation just turned and said "stop raping us".
"During the referendum campaign, someone said the real danger of Brexit is you'll end up with higher interest rates, lower house prices and a lower exchange rate, and I thought: dream on. Because that's what we've been trying to achieve for the past three years and now we have a chance of getting it." "I don't think we should fear [Brexit]. It's not a bed of roses, but nor is it the end of the world," he told Sky News."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/10/currency-guru-says-pound-slide-liberates-uk-from-malign-grip-of/
You make my point. Lots of talk. No action. A man who has never stood for political office until now. So exactly like someone who spent ages in politics, won political office and had a track record. It is you who is talking cobblers. This is, frankly, given your recent posts no longer a surprise.
Am off. Have work to do. The atmosphere on here has become horrible.
@PlatoSaid replies
Sorry, no - you were wrong. And left the field. I don't mind disagreeing with anyone - however you made an opinion based statement that contradicted the evidence.
What about trump's accusers? doesnt sound like he was just boasting
http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/exclusive-trump-business-associate-accuses-him-of-sexual-assault-demands-apology/
BBC JOURNALIST CALLS GOVERNMENT “NEW NAZIS”
http://order-order.com/2016/10/11/bbc-journalist-calls-government-new-nazis/
What would be better input wise? Comfort blanket?
A new Politico/Morning Consult poll finds Clinton leading by five points, 42% to 37%, followed by Johnson at 10%.
https://politicalwire.com/2016/10/11/clinton-double-digits-nationally/
Clinton 51 .. Trump 38
http://www.roanoke.edu/about/news/rc_poll_oct_2016_politics
When I go to our offices I'm often greeted with kisses on the cheek from the ladies both young and old It's instigated by the ladies not me I hasten to add. I do find it quite endearing without being considered sexual in any way. That's how it should be.
Bill lost his license to practice law and paid $800k after one incident, he was IMPEACHED over another and Hillary smeared or intimated at least 4 others. They appeared in person - one of them is 73yrs old.
And Trump bragged about unknown female on a bus tape.
It's bizarre - and mostly media manipulation and Hillary fanning. I find it reprehensible that there's been almost zero coverage of the alleged victims in the media. That says it all.
Chris Christie, completeltlt without morals
According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult survey taken immediately following the debate at Washington University, 42 percent of registered voters said Clinton won the debate, compared with 28 percent who said the Republican nominee won. That margin of victory for Clinton is down 7 points from the first debate, when voters said she defeated Trump, 47 percent to 26 percent.
https://morningconsult.com/2016/10/11/voters-say-clinton-won-debate-trumps-support-remains-stable/
Back in the real world, those polls below would completely wipe out any 'shy trump' effect
Both polls put Trump with the same % other than MoE.
wonder what they actually asked
Allow free movement of people from Mexico & Canada
Reagan himself was a dreamer, capable of imagining a world without trade barriers. In announcing his presidential candidacy in Nov. 1979, he had proposed a “North American accord” in which commerce & people would move freely across the borders of Canada & Mexico. This idea, largely overlooked or dismissed as a campaign gimmick in the US, rankled nationalist sensibilities in the neighboring nations. But Reagan was serious in his proposal. Though he traveled only once outside the North American continent during his first 57 years, he was neither insular nor isolationist.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/07/venezuela-stocks-up-300-percent.html
Trump's threat to go uber hard ball may stop this gutter attack.
Clinton will win, Trump is a busted flush. Most women are not in the same camp as you, my partner who is no friend of modern feminists is utterly repulsed by Trump, the same is true for most women I know. He will not overcome the demographics gap and gender gap, one is possible, two are not. White men account for about 37% of the population, he'd need them to break 60/40 in his favour and turnout among that group to be 10 points higher than the rest of the electorate. It's not going to happen.
"By 2050, 30 per cent of Chinese will be 60 or over, the UN estimates, versus 20 per cent worldwide and 10 per cent in China in 2000."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/11/more-than-1300-elderly-people-go-missing-in-china-every-day-repo/
http://www.prri.org/research/prri-atlantic-october-11-2016-presidential-election-horserace-clinton-trump/
Check out the monster gender gap:
I think there's a fair amount of disquiet about May's government at the moment. It's just being masked by Labour's uselessness and the Lib Dems' invisibility. A Lib Dem by-election win could massively change the national polling, hence the kitchen sink being thrown at Witney.
What is surprising to me is that many opinion polls still put Trump 5 pts or less behind Clinton, with the monstering he is getting there must still be shy Trumpers out there so still the chance of an upset.
Latest Trump odds are 7/2. If they slip to 6/1 the day before the election or similar, I may have a punt as I did when 6/1 was offered on Brexit the day before.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785806702641807360
This isn't some cuddly clubocracy - it's about discussion. If anyone can't handle what a large section of the US electorate are thinking - get over yourself.
Tut tut tut tut tut. Does that help you feel superior?
These directions are required when the civil service do not consider the proposed spending is value for money and require a direction from the relevant Secretary of State that there are wider concerns to be taking into account.
This is unusual as the letters date from May 2016 and are commercially sensitive. I'm not sure why they have been released now rather than before or later.
Well It's a view I suppose?
http://www.conservapedia.com/National_Socialism
One of the most interesting aspects of this election, and one that in some ways dare not speak its name.
Gender divide or genital divide?
Looking at it, compared to the ICM yesterday, Corbyn and Trump are equally repellent to women voters. Eeesh
http://www.ukpolitical.info/General_election_polls.htm
The most reliable and highest turn out voters in most swing states are suburban mothers. If you can't see how that tape completely fucks Trump over with that group, then I despair slightly TBH
If this was my club, I'd cough theatrically, signal for stronger liquor, and try to change the subject.
My concern about Trump is not his attitude to women (reprehensible though that is).
My concern is that he is very dangerous. He is an egotistic, thin-skinned, vindictive bully who admires Putin. As President he would be a danger to the entire world.
He is also a local danger within the US as he is a very effective rabblerouser who can whip up a large crowd. If he claims Clinton's victory is a fraud, there will be trouble on the streets.
Trump, on the other hand, wouldn't have the same congressional support.
Even just a basic amount of logic should tell you Trump is now dead in the water and the longer he stays in the further down he drags the rest of the party, clearing the House and maybe even the Senate for Clinton for a minimum of two years.
As I said, I previously supported Trump and thought he might be okay, clearly he isn't. I'm resigned to a merely "crap" Clinton presidency, with the way Trump is dragging down House and Senate Republicans we may have to downgrade "crap" to "awful" and three ultra liberal justices on the SCOTUS.
I was immensely dismissive of it - but bought a copy. Golly - what a revelation. I'd a BF who I couldn't get at all and it's usually something I can do in ten minutes. He was an enigma a year on - I could manage his behaviour [Mr Queue Rage] - but everything else was a mystery.
It was a superb enlightening read.
- tenuous relationship with the truth 'every poll'
- inability to take responsibility for his own failings
Publicity shy Paddy Power have an impeachment market up
To win the Presidency and resign due to impeachment in their first term
Trump 16/1
Clinton 50/1
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politics/other-politics/us-politics?ev_oc_grp_ids=2637256
Tut. 99% don't have a vote - I assume neither of us do.
Right.
Trump has c25m followers on Twitter and Facebook IIRC. He's gained about 1m+ on Twitter in the last week.
Some here compare it to Corbyn - I see parallels, but think it's quite different - it's Boris with knob on.