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.
Comes back to 'Vote Trump. He'll be easier to impeach"
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
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.
What a silly and absurd post. You know precisely what I meant sentiment wise. Tut.
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
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.
There is definitely worth in puncturing a complacent bubble. But you seem to be defending his actions / comments. If not I retract.
John Wheatley does not appear say what is actually happening, it is a general resumee, mainly historic. The information I have received from folk actually involved is that the Lib dems are doing really well. Probably enough to exceed 25/30%.
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.
I'd go one step further and add that his ego and temper are such, and his self-awareness and self-control so absent, that Putin will be able to push all his buttons to get him to dance to Putin's tune.
Dangerous on his own, even more dangerous when manipulated by Putin.
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.
Right.
Um no. I'm saying they are allowing for the Shy Trumpers as Republican voters by pushing them on it.
Surely Clinton is far more likely to be impeached, given her years of public office?
Nope, for a full impeachment and conviction two thirds of the Senate needs to vote for conviction, I just cannot see it happening, unless it is an egregious high crime and misdemeanour, I cannot see roughly 15-20 Democratic Party Senators voting to convict
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.
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.
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.
Right.
Um no. I'm saying they are allowing for the Shy Trumpers as Republican voters by pushing them on it.
They are at best guessing how many shy trumpers there are and adjusting. No one has any idea what the real figure is.
Campaign for Hillary if you want, the more the better as it increases Trumps odds to the point that its worth a bet.
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.
What a silly and absurd post. You know precisely what I meant sentiment wise. Tut.
Not at all, you claim to understand the US psyche better than other observers on here. The blue collar one especially, and yet Trump has fallen back in Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Two of which he held leads in until recently. We've pointed out the reasons for that are his comments on women and his poor debate performance. You say, paraphrasing here, you liberal twats don't know anything about blue collar workers, it's just banter, when I worked with men I loved it so the women must do as well etc... Many have tried to point out the confirmation bias, the lack of evidence and the projection. You have singularly failed to provide any evidence for your claims beyond screaming "IT'S BREXIT!", despite so many of us pointing out that Brexit was built on a coalition of voters, one group of that coalition despises Trump.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
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.
I'd go one step further and add that his ego and temper are such, and his self-awareness and self-control so absent, that Putin will be able to push all his buttons to get him to dance to Putin's tune.
Dangerous on his own, even more dangerous when manipulated by Putin.
Personally I think the world is rather safer with someone who gets on with Putin that a sanctimonious liberal righteous interventionist who will metaphorically poke him with sharp sticks.
Possibly if you live in the Ukraine the opposite might apply but I don't.
''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.
Take a look on Snopes if you want to know the truth about that story. I understand the victim's unhappiness but Clinton took on the case reluctantly when the court chose her to replace the original public defender. She then did what any lawyer defending someone accused of a criminal offence should do - she defended him.
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 ...
Ha! Absolutely. My chappy was so reserved and caveman. My husband was the girly in our relationship and the change was WTF territory
Best book I ever bought for incomprehensible stuff. I'm still a bit embarrassed about it.
The question is not whether Trump has now fallen significantly behind - that much is obvious - but, before a Clinton bet becomes easy money - what relatively credible event would it now take to put him back in contention?
''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.
Take a look on Snopes if you want to know the truth about that story. I understand the victim's unhappiness but Clinton took on the case reluctantly when the court chose her to replace the original public defender. She then did what any lawyer defending someone accused of a criminal offence should do - she defended him.
Also, he was convicted via a plea bargain. And she wasn't laughing about her.
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.
What a silly and absurd post. You know precisely what I meant sentiment wise. Tut.
Not at all, you claim to understand the US psyche better than other observers on here. The blue collar one especially, and yet Trump has fallen back in Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Two of which he held leads in until recently. We've pointed out the reasons for that are his comments on women and his poor debate performance. You say, paraphrasing here, you liberal twats don't know anything about blue collar workers, it's just banter, when I worked with men I loved it so the women must do as well etc... Many have tried to point out the confirmation bias, the lack of evidence and the projection. You have singularly failed to provide any evidence for your claims beyond screaming "IT'S BREXIT!", despite so many of us pointing out that Brexit was built on a coalition of voters, one group of that coalition despises Trump.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
Impeaching Hillary is about the only thing that is ever going to get the Republicans united. 50/1 looks outstanding value. The only question is whether they've got the material to actually oust her. Some might think that the top the Republican Party would rather sit on it for now, than use it to get Trump elected....
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.
What a silly and absurd post. You know precisely what I meant sentiment wise. Tut.
Not at all, you claim to understand the US psyche better than other observers on here. The blue collar one especially, and yet Trump has fallen back in Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Two of which he held leads in until recently. We've pointed out the reasons for that are his comments on women and his poor debate performance. You say, paraphrasing here, you liberal twats don't know anything about blue collar workers, it's just banter, when I worked with men I loved it so the women must do as well etc... Many have tried to point out the confirmation bias, the lack of evidence and the projection. You have singularly failed to provide any evidence for your claims beyond screaming "IT'S BREXIT!", despite so many of us pointing out that Brexit was built on a coalition of voters, one group of that coalition despises Trump.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
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.
There is definitely worth in puncturing a complacent bubble. But you seem to be defending his actions / comments. If not I retract.
OMG !!!!!
I don't agree with your POV!!!!
Shocker !!!
Seriously, we can have different viewpoints on 11yrs old bragging.
The question is not whether Trump has now fallen significantly behind - that much is obvious - but, before a Clinton bet becomes easy money - what relatively credible event would it now take to put him back in contention?
Nothing he can do IMO. Perceptions of him are baked in, and he is doubling down on all of the things which made him unpopular in the first place.
Maybe wikileaks, but I'd think they would have used anything explosive by now.
Her collapsing maybe? that seems very unlikely IMO
The question is not whether Trump has now fallen significantly behind - that much is obvious - but, before a Clinton bet becomes easy money - what relatively credible event would it now take to put him back in contention?
Collapsing and or vomiting (from being ill, not drunkenness, if she got drunk I think more people might vote for her) in public could do 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 .
What a silly and absurd post. You know precisely what I meant sentiment wise. Tut.
Not at all, you claim to understand the US psyche better than other observers on here. The blue collar one especially, and yet Trump has fallen back in Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Two of which he held leads in until recently. We've pointed out the reasons for that are his comments on women and his poor debate performance. You say, paraphrasing here, you liberal twats don't know anything about blue collar workers, it's just banter, when I worked with men I loved it so the women must do as well etc... Many have tried to point out the confirmation bias, the lack of evidence and the projection. You have singularly failed to provide any evidence for your claims beyond screaming "IT'S BREXIT!", despite so many of us pointing out that Brexit was built on a coalition of voters, one group of that coalition despises Trump.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
Brexit for example did quite well with British BME voters, Trump has actively insulted them, and in a country where they make up a bigger part of the electorate (and of the blue collar workforce).
Trump is not Brexit, though I accept that both have some grounding in populist anti-globalisation movements.
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.
I'd go one step further and add that his ego and temper are such, and his self-awareness and self-control so absent, that Putin will be able to push all his buttons to get him to dance to Putin's tune.
Dangerous on his own, even more dangerous when manipulated by Putin.
I know it's terribly unfashionable to not stereotype - but his kids aren't weird. He employs a wide variety of talent irrespective of gender and race.
He's 70. And run businesses for longer than I've lived. Why has he suddenly become a crazed loony with no IQ or judgement? It's daft.
The hyperbole is immense and seductive for haters and weird for everyone else.
The question is not whether Trump has now fallen significantly behind - that much is obvious - but, before a Clinton bet becomes easy money - what relatively credible event would it now take to put him back in contention?
A second Clinton Collapse. It's the only thing stopping me piling on more on my Clinton position .
The question is not whether Trump has now fallen significantly behind - that much is obvious - but, before a Clinton bet becomes easy money - what relatively credible event would it now take to put him back in contention?
Nothing he can do IMO. Perceptions of him are baked in, and he is doubling down on all of the things which made him unpopular in the first place.
Maybe wikileaks, but I'd think they would have used anything explosive by now.
Her collapsing maybe? that seems very unlikely IMO
There is a way back for him. The third and final debate is on foreign policy, her weakest area by far. I expect Trump to bring a Benghazi family to the debate as well. If he has a really good debate like blows it out of the water then he could close the gap.
There's only one poll that counts. Doubt we'll be hearing much from Ryan or yourself once the people have spoken.
Is that a prediction that Trump will win?
He'll win. Your political life is a series of shocks and disappointments despite all the cool-headed analysis, isn't it .
IMO - it's touch and go. The polls are largely cobblers - terribly small samples and biased to Dems.
We'd dismiss them as laughable in seconds here. Even ones with 1000 respondents get nitpicked to death FFS.
I'll be paying a lot more attention to sample sizes in future knowing what I do now. Especially those cited as important in the news.
Urgh, just trying to interpret media and polling bias is giving me a headache. Its all prism stuff.
Did you read my link on how many people are registered and identify as Democrat?
Dosent mean they will actually vote Democrat. Its a secret ballot.
Plato is complaining about polls over sampling Democrats. I've pointed her to a resource that shows how many people in America identify Democrat vs Republican. It is in line with the polls she is critiquing.
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.
I'd go one step further and add that his ego and temper are such, and his self-awareness and self-control so absent, that Putin will be able to push all his buttons to get him to dance to Putin's tune.
Dangerous on his own, even more dangerous when manipulated by Putin.
Personally I think the world is rather safer with someone who gets on with Putin that a sanctimonious liberal righteous interventionist who will metaphorically poke him with sharp sticks.
Possibly if you live in the Ukraine the opposite might apply but I don't.
Perhaps you'd have thought the world would have been safer in 1939 if we'd ignored our commitments to Poland.
I agree that poking a bear is not a good strategy for sleeping well in your tent in the woods. However, I don't think we have the leaders at the moment that Putin would respect enough to do an honest deal. And I most certainly don't think Trump is the person who could change that.
And, as I said, Trump bizarre behaviour since the first debate has shown that he would be blind to the rings Putin would run around him.
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.
I'd go one step further and add that his ego and temper are such, and his self-awareness and self-control so absent, that Putin will be able to push all his buttons to get him to dance to Putin's tune.
Dangerous on his own, even more dangerous when manipulated by Putin.
I know it's terribly unfashionable to not stereotype - but his kids aren't weird. He employs a wide variety of talent irrespective of gender and race.
He's 70. And run businesses for longer than I've lived. Why has he suddenly become a crazed loony with no IQ or judgement? It's daft.
The hyperbole is immense and seductive for haters and weird for everyone else.
He is certainly capable of ruthlessness and defending by attacking when on the back foot as we saw at the weekend. Something voters might like in their commander in chief.
Actually he reminds me of David Cameron a bit - both are at their best when their back is against the wall.
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.
snip
What a silly and absurd post. You know precisely what I meant sentiment wise. Tut.
Not at all, you claim to understand the US psyche better than other observers on here. The blue collar one especially, and yet Trump has fallen back in Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Two of which he held leads in until recently. We've pointed out the reasons for that are his comments on women and his poor debate performance. You say, paraphrasing here, you liberal twats don't know anything about blue collar workers, it's just banter, when I worked with men I loved it so the women must do as well etc... Many have tried to point out the confirmation bias, the lack of evidence and the projection. You have singularly failed to provide any evidence for your claims beyond screaming "IT'S BREXIT!", despite so many of us pointing out that Brexit was built on a coalition of voters, one group of that coalition despises Trump.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
You're citing polls of 500? With oodles more Dems in the sample?
Give me a break - that's my whole point on this thread - it's narrative not evidence any of us would accept on a UK Tuesday.
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.
I'd go one step further and add that his ego and temper are such, and his self-awareness and self-control so absent, that Putin will be able to push all his buttons to get him to dance to Putin's tune.
Dangerous on his own, even more dangerous when manipulated by Putin.
I know it's terribly unfashionable to not stereotype - but his kids aren't weird. He employs a wide variety of talent irrespective of gender and race.
He's 70. And run businesses for longer than I've lived. Why has he suddenly become a crazed loony with no IQ or judgement? It's daft.
The hyperbole is immense and seductive for haters and weird for everyone else.
He is certainly capable of ruthlessness and defending by attacking when on the back foot as we saw at the weekend. Something voters might like in their commander in chief.
Actually he reminds me of David Cameron a bit - both are at their best when their back is against the wall.
Until he meekly gave up the PM-ship and then his seat in Parliament...
''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.
Take a look on Snopes if you want to know the truth about that story. I understand the victim's unhappiness but Clinton took on the case reluctantly when the court chose her to replace the original public defender. She then did what any lawyer defending someone accused of a criminal offence should do - she defended him.
Hillary Clinton was so proud of getting just a one year sentence for the rapist that she also boasted about how she did it in a book. She is quoted as explaining that she went to New York and using her contacts got an expert to have the blood and semen evidence disregarded on that technicality. She also subjected the 12 year old to a psychiatric examination on the basis that she might be making it up or fixated on older men when the medical evidence was that she had been violated - a rape so severe for a small 12 year old that it probably ended her chances of children. Yes there is also Hillary laughing about how the rapist passed the lie detector test ...... And that is the Hillary Clinton who boasts about all that she has done for women! Pass the sick bucket.
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.
Tut. 99% don't have a vote - I assume neither of us do.
That makes myself, Richard Tyndall, Robert Smithson and many others .
What a silly and absurd post. You know precisely what I meant sentiment wise. Tut.
Not at all, you claim to understand the US psyche better than other observers on here. The blue collar one especially, and yet Trump has fallen back in Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Two of which he held leads in until recently. We've pointed out the reasons for that are his comments on women and his poor debate performance. You say, paraphrasing here, you liberal twats don't know anything about blue collar workers, it's just banter, when I worked with men I loved it so the women must do as well etc... Many have tried to point out the confirmation bias, the lack of evidence and the projection. You have singularly failed to provide any evidence for your claims beyond screaming "IT'S BREXIT!", despite so many of us pointing out that Brexit was built on a coalition of voters, one group of that coalition despises Trump.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
Brexit for example did quite well with British BME voters, Trump has actively insulted them, and in a country where they make up a bigger part of the electorate (and of the blue collar workforce).
Trump is not Brexit, though I accept that both have some grounding in populist anti-globalisation movements.
Indeed - if you insist on doing a Brexit comparison, the Trump campaign is like Leave but with a promise to repatriate all British Asians and Nigel Farage bragging about all the women he's shagged.
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.
snip
What a silly and absurd post. You know precisely what I meant sentiment wise. Tut.
Not at all, you claim to understand the US psyche better than other observers on here. The blue collar one especially, and yet Trump has fallen back in Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Two of which he held leads in until recently. We've pointed out the reasons for that are his comments on women and his poor debate performance. You say, paraphrasing here, you liberal twats don't know anything about blue collar workers, it's just banter, when I worked with men I loved it so the women must do as well etc... Many have tried to point out the confirmation bias, the lack of evidence and the projection. You have singularly failed to provide any evidence for your claims beyond screaming "IT'S BREXIT!", despite so many of us pointing out that Brexit was built on a coalition of voters, one group of that coalition despises Trump.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
You're citing polls of 500? With oodles more Dems in the sample?
Give me a break - that's my whole point on this thread - it's narrative not evidence any of us would accept on a UK Tuesday.
The question is not whether Trump has now fallen significantly behind - that much is obvious - but, before a Clinton bet becomes easy money - what relatively credible event would it now take to put him back in contention?
Hillary taken sick again, has to pull out of the final debate or is clearly unwell in public.
Most of the political shenanigans have bounced off her so far, but a credible witness or document that *proves* she purjured herself at the Benghazi hearings or in statements on her emails might just do it.
The odds look about right at the moment. Trump's down but not out. On his side possibly the rumoured n-word video would kill him off.
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?
Hi Plato
It's good to have the discussion and you are of course right that a large section of the US electorate agree with you and think in these terms. I initially underestimated Trump but then probably overestimated him for a while; I think he's probably done for now but I've only leveled off at flat Trump, win Clinton on my betting.
Tutting doesn't do much good on here and of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions (and to have them challenged). But I do think you may look back upon your support for the boorish and demagogic Trump with some distaste after the adrenaline of this horse race has passed. Clinton's a poor candidate with lots of issues, but, as PJ O'Rourke says, she's at least wrong within normal parameters.
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.
snip
What a silly and absurd post. You know precisely what I meant sentiment wise. Tut.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
You're citing polls of 500? With oodles more Dems in the sample?
Give me a break - that's my whole point on this thread - it's narrative not evidence any of us would accept on a UK Tuesday.
Not at all, you claim to understand the US psyche better than other observers on here. The blue collar one especially, and yet Trump has fallen back in Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Two of which he held leads in until recently. We've pointed out the reasons for that are his comments on women and his poor debate performance. You say, paraphrasing here, you liberal twats don't know anything about blue collar workers, it's just banter, when I worked with men I loved it so the women must do as well etc... Many have tried to point out the confirmation bias, the lack of evidence and the projection. You have singularly failed to provide any evidence for your claims beyond screaming "IT'S BREXIT!", despite so many of us pointing out that Brexit was built on a coalition of voters, one group of that coalition despises Trump.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
Brexit for example did quite well with British BME voters, Trump has actively insulted them, and in a country where they make up a bigger part of the electorate (and of the blue collar workforce).
Trump is not Brexit, though I accept that both have some grounding in populist anti-globalisation movements.
Which is sort of my point. The "Coalition of Brexit" was very wide and included:
Libertarians such as myself
Minorities who don't like immigration from their home countries being closed off while the EU had unlimited migration
Anti-globalisation working class voters
Anti-globalisation leftists
Democracy defenders
Those who just didn't like the EU or Europe
As I see it Trump has the American equivalent of one of those groups, possibly the biggest one, but still only one. Putting the Brexit coalition together for a political party is probably impossible for GOP, but they could get a winning coalition among there somewhere. Trump won't though.
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.
I'd go one step further and add that his ego and temper are such, and his self-awareness and self-control so absent, that Putin will be able to push all his buttons to get him to dance to Putin's tune.
Dangerous on his own, even more dangerous when manipulated by Putin.
I know it's terribly unfashionable to not stereotype - but his kids aren't weird. He employs a wide variety of talent irrespective of gender and race.
He's 70. And run businesses for longer than I've lived. Why has he suddenly become a crazed loony with no IQ or judgement? It's daft.
The hyperbole is immense and seductive for haters and weird for everyone else.
Oh come on, his sons are bloody weird. They look like they have definitely murdered prostitutes.
Ivanka looks normal, but having her dad sleaze all over her for her entire life has probably scarred her mentally.
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.
I'd go one step further and add that his ego and temper are such, and his self-awareness and self-control so absent, that Putin will be able to push all his buttons to get him to dance to Putin's tune.
Dangerous on his own, even more dangerous when manipulated by Putin.
Personally I think the world is rather safer with someone who gets on with Putin that a sanctimonious liberal righteous interventionist who will metaphorically poke him with sharp sticks.
Possibly if you live in the Ukraine the opposite might apply but I don't.
I have to admit that the one policy area where I agree with Trump is about Syria.
He thinks Aleppo is gone and that we should join Russia and Assad to defeat ISIS. I agree with that.
I've seen today's 2016 polls, both say that Trump was down by double digits before the debate and has recovered to his pre-tape position after the debate, as I expected.
Trump's debate victory cancelled the tape, so he is back to where he was, still losing by 5%.
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.
snip
What a silly and absurd post. You know precisely what I meant sentiment wise. Tut.
Not at all, you claim to understand the US psyche better than other observers on here. The blue collar one especially, and yet Trump has fallen back in Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Two of which he held leads in until recently. We've pointed out the reasons for that are his comments on women and his poor debate performance. You say, paraphrasing here, you liberal twats don't know anything about blue collar workers, it's just banter, when I worked with men I loved it so the women must do as well etc... Many have tried to point out the confirmation bias, the lack of evidence and the projection. You have singularly failed to provide any evidence for your claims beyond screaming "IT'S BREXIT!", despite so many of us pointing out that Brexit was built on a coalition of voters, one group of that coalition despises Trump.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
You're citing polls of 500? With oodles more Dems in the sample?
Give me a break - that's my whole point on this thread - it's narrative not evidence any of us would accept on a UK Tuesday.
Feel free to wager some of your money on Trump surprising us all, the polls could be wrong it's happened before. However I'm happier taking Nate Silver's scientific best guess that Hillary will win with around 333 electoral votes to 205, rather than something you've seen on Fox News (so called because it does).
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.
I'd go one step further and add that his ego and temper are such, and his self-awareness and self-control so absent, that Putin will be able to push all his buttons to get him to dance to Putin's tune.
Dangerous on his own, even more dangerous when manipulated by Putin.
I know it's terribly unfashionable to not stereotype - but his kids aren't weird. He employs a wide variety of talent irrespective of gender and race.
He's 70. And run businesses for longer than I've lived. Why has he suddenly become a crazed loony with no IQ or judgement? It's daft.
The hyperbole is immense and seductive for haters and weird for everyone else.
He is certainly capable of ruthlessness and defending by attacking when on the back foot as we saw at the weekend. Something voters might like in their commander in chief.
Actually he reminds me of David Cameron a bit - both are at their best when their back is against the wall.
He's a total alpha male - his entire body language behaviour - prowling during the debate is a prime example.
He's a US version of Putin - he'd be on horseback shirtless if a bit younger. I can see them getting on.
Frankly - I'd rather the US got on Reagan like with Russia than revert to Cold War Bogey Man silly stuff.
The Russkies are very canny - but surely by now the USA can match them?
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.
snip
What a silly and absurd post. You know precisely what I meant sentiment wise. Tut.
Not at all, you claim to understand the US psyche better than other observers on here. The blue collar one especially, and yet Trump has fallen back in Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Two of which he held leads in until recently. We've pointed out the reasons for that are his comments on women and his poor debate performance. You say, paraphrasing here, you liberal twats don't know anything about blue collar workers, it's just banter, when I worked with men I loved it so the women must do as well etc... Many have tried to point out the confirmation bias, the lack of evidence and the projection. You have singularly failed to provide any evidence for your claims beyond screaming "IT'S BREXIT!", despite so many of us pointing out that Brexit was built on a coalition of voters, one group of that coalition despises Trump.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
You're citing polls of 500? With oodles more Dems in the sample?
Give me a break - that's my whole point on this thread - it's narrative not evidence any of us would accept on a UK Tuesday.
That's because there are more registered Dems. Not rocket science really. The GOP have always done better with independents which makes up for their registered voter shortfall.
I've seen today's 2016 polls, both say that Trump was down by double digits before the debate and has recovered to his pre-tape position after the debate, as I expected.
Trump's debate victory cancelled the tape, so he is back to where he was, still losing by 5%.
One poll. The other poll has Clinton 11 ahead. And another poll was out having Clinton winning the debate massively.
So very much too early to say he is losing by just 5%
With the turnout likely to be down and the Conservative vote share likely to drop, there is going to be plenty for everyone else. Corbynites are motivated for their man so I don't expect the Labour vote share to drop much, if at all. I've bet on the 2/1 that Labour will get between 10-15% of the vote share and I'm as anxious about the top end as the bottom end.
To date Labour have exceeded (admittedly low) expectations in every electoral test that they've faced to date. That pattern might well continue.
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.
You could start off here (if you haven't already):
Google 'Invested Annuity' too, can go up and down but better rate than standard annuity. I think only Aviva doing them now, LV and Pru have stopped. If you're lucky enough to have final salary, look carefully before moving out of it. DYOR.
Thanks for that , I have mainly final salary but have £150K+ in DC as well. As other post , biggest concern is popping my clogs early and leaving all that cash to the company, .
The other thing you (may) need to be aware of is the 'Life Time Allowance' - go over it & you can get taxed quite a bit - but you can get protection:
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.
snip
What a silly and absurd post. You know precisely what I meant sentiment wise. Tut.
Not at all, you claim to understand the US psyche better than other observers on here. The blue collar one especially, and yet Trump has fallen back in Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Two of which he held leads in until recently. We've pointed out the reasons for that are his comments on women and his poor debate performance. You say, paraphrasing here, you liberal twats don't know anything about blue collar workers, it's just banter, when I worked with men I loved it so the women must do as well etc... Many have tried to point out the confirmation bias, the lack of evidence and the projection. You have singularly failed to provide any evidence for your claims beyond screaming "IT'S BREXIT!", despite so many of us pointing out that Brexit was built on a coalition of voters, one group of that coalition despises Trump.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
You're citing polls of 500? With oodles more Dems in the sample?
Give me a break - that's my whole point on this thread - it's narrative not evidence any of us would accept on a UK Tuesday.
Oodles more people identify as Dem.
And that's before revulsion at the nominee by traditional GOP voters and revulsion at GOP defectors by Trump supporters squeezes the brand from both ends.
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 tend to agree. Eastleigh was the by election that really put UKIP on the map - despite only coming a close second!
Hillary Clinton was so proud of getting just a one year sentence for the rapist that she also boasted about how she did it in a book. She is quoted as explaining that she went to New York and using her contacts got an expert to have the blood and semen evidence disregarded on that technicality. She also subjected the 12 year old to a psychiatric examination on the basis that she might be making it up or fixated on older men when the medical evidence was that she had been violated - a rape so severe for a small 12 year old that it probably ended her chances of children. Yes there is also Hillary laughing about how the rapist passed the lie detector test ...... And that is the Hillary Clinton who boasts about all that she has done for women! Pass the sick bucket.
Somehow I suspect that many women will be more forgiving of Trumps behaviour than Mrs Clintons.
A lot of women can be very indulgent when it comes to alpha males.
I rather doubt they will admit it to anyone other than the ballot box though.
''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.
Take a look on Snopes if you want to know the truth about that story. I understand the victim's unhappiness but Clinton took on the case reluctantly when the court chose her to replace the original public defender. She then did what any lawyer defending someone accused of a criminal offence should do - she defended him.
Hillary Clinton was so proud of getting just a one year sentence for the rapist that she also boasted about how she did it in a book. She is quoted as explaining that she went to New York and using her contacts got an expert to have the blood and semen evidence disregarded on that technicality. She also subjected the 12 year old to a psychiatric examination on the basis that she might be making it up or fixated on older men when the medical evidence was that she had been violated - a rape so severe for a small 12 year old that it probably ended her chances of children. Yes there is also Hillary laughing about how the rapist passed the lie detector test ...... And that is the Hillary Clinton who boasts about all that she has done for women! Pass the sick bucket.
TBH, citing Snopes these days doesn't convince me at all - it isn't 1998. All 'fact checking' sites are crammed with liberals.
It's a pseudo front for their bias. Any network that pops them out - I dismiss - same goes for PBers claiming some font of truth. Cite a source and let the rest of us judge it on our personal radar for merit.
I've seen today's 2016 polls, both say that Trump was down by double digits before the debate and has recovered to his pre-tape position after the debate, as I expected.
Trump's debate victory cancelled the tape, so he is back to where he was, still losing by 5%.
I can only see the LA Times poll today which is trundling along with +2 to Trump on its seven day moving average.
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.
snip
What a silly and absurd post. You know precisely what I meant sentiment wise. Tut.
Not at all, you claim to understand the US psyche better than other observers on here. The blue collar one especially, and yet Trump has fallen back in Iowa, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Two of which he held leads in until recently. We've pointed out the reasons for that are his comments on women and his poor debate performance. You say, paraphrasing here, you liberal twats don't know anything about blue collar workers, it's just banter, when I worked with men I loved it so the women must do as well etc... Many have tried to point out the confirmation bias, the lack of evidence and the projection. You have singularly failed to provide any evidence for your claims beyond screaming "IT'S BREXIT!", despite so many of us pointing out that Brexit was built on a coalition of voters, one group of that coalition despises Trump.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
You're citing polls of 500? With oodles more Dems in the sample?
Give me a break - that's my whole point on this thread - it's narrative not evidence any of us would accept on a UK Tuesday.
Even the non-voodoo US polls seem low on sample sizes and high on subsamples making headlines.
Didn't YouGov get 2-3000 samples for post-debate polls in the UK before last year's general election?
PS. You're doing a good one-woman defence of the Donald today, it's much more difficult for men to defend what can be seen as misogyny.
"... Hard to imagine she could spend that much in any event."
Have you seen the price of shoes and handbags?
*Ducks and runs for cover before Mrs Free sees this post*
Life, Malcom, is very different in retirement. Freed from Philip Larkin’s Toad all sorts of opportunities open up. Long overseas trips for example, can be quite expensive.
With the turnout likely to be down and the Conservative vote share likely to drop, there is going to be plenty for everyone else. Corbynites are motivated for their man so I don't expect the Labour vote share to drop much, if at all. I've bet on the 2/1 that Labour will get between 10-15% of the vote share and I'm as anxious about the top end as the bottom end.
Final salary transfer unlikely to be suitable unless you are in poorly health and/or single. The increasing pension payments in retirement are v costly to secure outside of a DB scheme, the spousal option/income isn't actually as valuable as that increasing income feature to replicate with a DC scheme.
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.
It looks very much Like Trump is going to lose. Which is a tremendous pity. Both candidates suck in their different ways. But Trump winning would also offer the prospect of breaking the system. And the system is broken. Badly broken. Clinton winning will mean 4 more years of the same old same old. The USA in 4 years' time will then be more broken and more angry and more divided and the political establishment will be more entrenched than ever.
I'm no fan of Trump himself but a very big fan of the potential discontinuity he offers in a way Clinton just doesn't.
''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.
Take a look on Snopes if you want to know the truth about that story. I understand the victim's unhappiness but Clinton took on the case reluctantly when the court chose her to replace the original public defender. She then did what any lawyer defending someone accused of a criminal offence should do - she defended him.
Hillary Clinton was so proud of getting just a one year sentence for the rapist that she also boasted about how she did it in a book. She is quoted as explaining that she went to New York and using her contacts got an expert to have the blood and semen evidence disregarded on that technicality. She also subjected the 12 year old to a psychiatric examination on the basis that she might be making it up or fixated on older men when the medical evidence was that she had been violated - a rape so severe for a small 12 year old that it probably ended her chances of children. Yes there is also Hillary laughing about how the rapist passed the lie detector test ...... And that is the Hillary Clinton who boasts about all that she has done for women! Pass the sick bucket.
To be fair to Hillary (not often I say that!), her job was to defend the guy. Every lawyer has to defend scumbags at some point in their career, but they should still do it to the best of their ability.
I've seen today's 2016 polls, both say that Trump was down by double digits before the debate and has recovered to his pre-tape position after the debate, as I expected.
Trump's debate victory cancelled the tape, so he is back to where he was, still losing by 5%.
I can only see the LA Times poll today which is trundling along with +2 to Trump on its seven day moving average.
Do you have a link to any others?
I just noticed that 538 adjust that as a Clinton plus 3
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.
I don't think the wider public are the intended audience for the Witney push: I think it's for the slightly disengaged LibDem supporter. The higher-up LibDems want to mobilise these guys by creating the appearance of progress- going from 6% to 20%, and from fourth to second.
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?
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.
It's just like the reception that we get here, isn't it?
Comments
Yes, Nigel is toxifying himself here.
All decent people ought to evacuating ship.
Good to see McCain has done so. Better late then never.
http://tinyurl.com/hnzbldk
The information I have received from folk actually involved is that the Lib dems are doing really well. Probably enough to exceed 25/30%.
Dangerous on his own, even more dangerous when manipulated by Putin.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/timelines/zykx2p3
Campaign for Hillary if you want, the more the better as it increases Trumps odds to the point that its worth a bet.
We'd dismiss them as laughable in seconds here. Even ones with 1000 respondents get nitpicked to death FFS.
I'll be paying a lot more attention to sample sizes in future knowing what I do now. Especially those cited as important in the news.
Urgh, just trying to interpret media and polling bias is giving me a headache. Its all prism stuff.
Discussion, yes let's have it. Delusional ranting, no thank you.
Possibly if you live in the Ukraine the opposite might apply but I don't.
Best book I ever bought for incomprehensible stuff. I'm still a bit embarrassed about it.
Aside from that EVIL CLINTON
Post of the day.
Is he Compouter in disguise?
I don't agree with your POV!!!!
Shocker !!!
Seriously, we can have different viewpoints on 11yrs old bragging.
Maybe wikileaks, but I'd think they would have used anything explosive by now.
Her collapsing maybe? that seems very unlikely IMO
Trump is not Brexit, though I accept that both have some grounding in populist anti-globalisation movements.
He's 70. And run businesses for longer than I've lived. Why has he suddenly become a crazed loony with no IQ or judgement? It's daft.
The hyperbole is immense and seductive for haters and weird for everyone else.
I agree that poking a bear is not a good strategy for sleeping well in your tent in the woods. However, I don't think we have the leaders at the moment that Putin would respect enough to do an honest deal. And I most certainly don't think Trump is the person who could change that.
And, as I said, Trump bizarre behaviour since the first debate has shown that he would be blind to the rings Putin would run around him.
Actually he reminds me of David Cameron a bit - both are at their best when their back is against the wall.
Give me a break - that's my whole point on this thread - it's narrative not evidence any of us would accept on a UK Tuesday.
And that is the Hillary Clinton who boasts about all that she has done for women!
Pass the sick bucket.
Most of the political shenanigans have bounced off her so far, but a credible witness or document that *proves* she purjured herself at the Benghazi hearings or in statements on her emails might just do it.
The odds look about right at the moment. Trump's down but not out. On his side possibly the rumoured n-word video would kill him off.
It's good to have the discussion and you are of course right that a large section of the US electorate agree with you and think in these terms. I initially underestimated Trump but then probably overestimated him for a while; I think he's probably done for now but I've only leveled off at flat Trump, win Clinton on my betting.
Tutting doesn't do much good on here and of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions (and to have them challenged). But I do think you may look back upon your support for the boorish and demagogic Trump with some distaste after the adrenaline of this horse race has passed. Clinton's a poor candidate with lots of issues, but, as PJ O'Rourke says, she's at least wrong within normal parameters.
(Just my 2c, as the Yanks say)
Libertarians such as myself
Minorities who don't like immigration from their home countries being closed off while the EU had unlimited migration
Anti-globalisation working class voters
Anti-globalisation leftists
Democracy defenders
Those who just didn't like the EU or Europe
As I see it Trump has the American equivalent of one of those groups, possibly the biggest one, but still only one. Putting the Brexit coalition together for a political party is probably impossible for GOP, but they could get a winning coalition among there somewhere. Trump won't though.
Ivanka looks normal, but having her dad sleaze all over her for her entire life has probably scarred her mentally.
He thinks Aleppo is gone and that we should join Russia and Assad to defeat ISIS. I agree with that.
I am very suspicious of the West's motives in supporting the disparate rebel groups against Assad in the first place. Read what Robert F Kennedy Jr has to say about that:
http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/
The way to stop the killing and for people to able to return home is for the war to stop. That will only happen if one side wins. Only Assad can win.
What he is doing to Aleppo is horrendous - a war crime in my view. It is morally equivalent to Dresden and Hiroshima in killing hundreds of thousands of innocents to shorten the war and thereby save more lives than those taken. I don't buy that argument for Aleppo, Dresden or Hiroshima. As I said, Trump thinks Aleppo is gone:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-2nd-2016-presidential-debate/trump-disagrees-with-pence-on-syria-says-aleppo-is-gone/
I hope he is right and the war ends soon. Clinton could prolong it. That's my main concern about her presidency.
Trump's debate victory cancelled the tape, so he is back to where he was, still losing by 5%.
However I'm happier taking Nate Silver's scientific best guess that Hillary will win with around 333 electoral votes to 205, rather than something you've seen on Fox News (so called because it does).
He's a US version of Putin - he'd be on horseback shirtless if a bit younger. I can see them getting on.
Frankly - I'd rather the US got on Reagan like with Russia than revert to Cold War Bogey Man silly stuff.
The Russkies are very canny - but surely by now the USA can match them?
So very much too early to say he is losing by just 5%
NEW THREAD
A lot of women can be very indulgent when it comes to alpha males.
I rather doubt they will admit it to anyone other than the ballot box though.
It's a pseudo front for their bias. Any network that pops them out - I dismiss - same goes for PBers claiming some font of truth. Cite a source and let the rest of us judge it on our personal radar for merit.
Snopes isn't some Top Trump for me.
Do you have a link to any others?
Didn't YouGov get 2-3000 samples for post-debate polls in the UK before last year's general election?
PS. You're doing a good one-woman defence of the Donald today, it's much more difficult for men to defend what can be seen as misogyny.
I'm no fan of Trump himself but a very big fan of the potential discontinuity he offers in a way Clinton just doesn't.
The threads would be empty!