Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.
Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?
Lot of it about these days on here. Witness the absurd Plato who puts people on ignore merely for challenging her, and the many PB Leavers who opine that those who backed Remain should just shut up about it and smile, despite their thinking Brexit is a disaster for the country.
@faisalislam: I think the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union just likened Brexit negotiations to buying a house... expecting a gazumping?
Clinton is awful. That Trump is more awful is one of the few things she has going for her. A choice of neocon loons - one who you worry might start a war to sooth his ego, the other has been involved in starting wars to sooth other people's egos.
On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.
They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms
In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
That is interesting. What did he say about 'Shy Trumpers' or whether the Supreme Court nomination is an important factor? Or was he not that specific?
Trumpers aren't shy, far from it.
I'd categorise about 10% of Trump's support as high noise, high visibility. I'd categorise about 90% of those who will still vote for him as appalled that some of his supporters are prepared to strut about in a "Hillary is a C***" t-shirts.
Trump is saying things that many American's want hear their politician's saying. No, more than that. They want their politicians's acting upon it. Their misfortune is that their standard bearer is Donald Trump. And they aren't going to be seen in public under his standard.
I think the irony of the polls moving towards Hillary is that it could be good for Trump. I believe there is one great similarity with Brexit here - those who think he can't win can still feel good about themselves by voting Trump, comfortable that they have not voted for the man but have stayed true to their principles as voiced by him. I honestly think those voting what they believed was the losing cause got Brexit over the line. It could yet cause the votes in many states to be much, much closer than polled.
Got to say I'm enjoying Rise of the Tomb Raider (for the PS4). Not played much, though. Using it as a reward after doing a certain amount of proofreading (large word counts are nice when published, but less so when you have to check the bloody thing).
It would be an intriguing market to price up. You'd have to include Hamas/anti-Zionism in the mix. Given his past dedication to obscure causes, we could be completely blindsided by something from leftfield.
On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.
They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms
In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
If that's right it's not only the Republicans that need to think hard after the election, the Democrats will have to assume that Clinton is a single term president and plan accordingly.
I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020.
I think highly unlikely we will see Clinton in 2020. Not buying into the conspiracy theory nuts of Parkinsons or whatever their latest theory is, it is no secret she does have a number of long term health conditions and the next 5-10 years are going to be extremely testing.
I think after 5 years and being the first woman POTUS that will be enough.
Is there any evidence that she has long-term health problems? If so, I haven't seen it!
On the topic of what form of Brexit was "mandated" by the public in the Referendum, regardless of what we individually prefer wasn't it exactly a 'Hard Brexit' that was debated? By the campaigns, if not on sites like this.
The Remain campaign argued in Project Fear that the Single Market would be lost if we voted to Leave, yet we voted Leave anyway.
The Leave campaign promised: No EU contributions, full control of immigration, no ECJ.
So the Remain campaign threatened a Hard Brexit, the Leave campaign promised one. Where is the question regarding mandate? We may still get a soft Brexit, but if its a hard one then that matches what both Remain and Leave threatened/promised.
Weren't many of the home county seats north west of London - in the belt up to Oxford and across to the Cotswolds and Bristol (where the proportion of people with qualifications is probably higher than in Kent or Essex) declared for Remain? I don't remember Witney being particularly out of line?
Yes, Witney is largely Oxford hinterland and would therefore always have leant significantly towards Remain compared with Conservative rural seats generally.
Got to say I'm enjoying Rise of the Tomb Raider (for the PS4). Not played much, though. Using it as a reward after doing a certain amount of proofreading (large word counts are nice when published, but less so when you have to check the bloody thing).
I've bought it, but my study is currently being repainted etc, and as I have my in laws staying I can't play much at all.
On the topic of what form of Brexit was "mandated" by the public in the Referendum, regardless of what we individually prefer wasn't it exactly a 'Hard Brexit' that was debated? By the campaigns, if not on sites like this.
The Remain campaign argued in Project Fear that the Single Market would be lost if we voted to Leave, yet we voted Leave anyway.
The Leave campaign promised: No EU contributions, full control of immigration, no ECJ.
So the Remain campaign threatened a Hard Brexit, the Leave campaign promised one. Where is the question regarding mandate? We may still get a soft Brexit, but if its a hard one then that matches what both Remain and Leave threatened/promised.
In 1975 we voted to join the Single (Common) Market. In 2016 we voted to reverse that, surely?
If I could venture a prediction: Trump's business empire will falter following an election loss, and it is entirely possible that we see (another) bankruptcy in the near future.
Why?
Firstly, there can be no doubt that Trump's run has damaged his personal brand. Bookings at his hotels are down sharply. And as Gerald Ratner discovered, brand damage can be extremely long lived.
Secondly, Donald has always been a thin sliver of equity on top of a lot of debt. He makes the claim that he has minimal personal debt, his individual projects all have meaningful debt. (The New York Times did an analysis of some of the debt sitting inside his various entities.) My experience is that there is an implicit guarantee with these kind of projects: banks say "Yes, Mr Trump you can borrow at a rate lower than other people, because you agree that if there are probables here, then you will subsidise it with profits from other businesses." In other words, the contingent liabilities might be very significant.
If his empire is 70% debt, 30% equity, then a 30% shift in the enterprise value would wipe him out completely.
I think you mean *buy* some Trump CDS's. If I shorted them, I would be betting on his credit rating improving
Can I blame autocorrect and be believed?
I've always wondered how many complex trades made in haste then have to be reversed when it becomes apparent the opposite move was intended....
Or are there simple systems in place to stop this?
There are some systems in place. If you wanted to buy something at 8 where the market was 9-10 and you pressed "sell", most systems would be designed to kick the trade back.
But nothing is foolproof. Reverses don't happen that much, but do happen.
The more complex the trade, the less likelihood of such an error. Plenty of other error possibilities with complex trades, however....
Report on Vote2012 website from a Conservative campaigner at Witney " I was there on Saturday , the Lib Dem campaign very visible around Witney itself , 30% plus and a strong 2nd place is very do-able "
That would imply something like Con 50 / LD 30 / Lab 10 / UKIP 5 / loose change.
And still a week to go, Mr Herdson! But it is very reasonable to think that the Lib Dems will do very well. How many local Conservatives will have been appalled by the discourteous way Mrs May has behaved towards their very own Mr Cameron? And indeed the change in tone of the whole Conservative approach to governing? Not to mention the personaility and performance of the Conservative candidate - reports of the the first hustings tell of a steady cooling towards him, until at the end he had to be hustled away by his minders.
On top of that, Witney came out strongly for Remain, and this hapless Tory candidate is very much a Leaver. There is every reason why traditional Conservative voters should decide to "send a message" to Mrs May in this byelection.
As a bonus, of course, the Labour candidate is no threat. He currently stands at 400 on Betfair. And the UKIP and Green Party candidates are at 1000. The Tory campaign cannot play that card. It`s a straight choice for the people of Witney, and you know very well what happens when one of them is the Lib Dem candidate!
The Lib Dem loses, I think?
It's more than a decade since the Lib Dems gained a seat at a Westminster by-election, isn't it?
F1: Ladbrokes have their US market up (only the winner market, mind). Rosberg and Hamilton are both 2.2 to win which got me thinking how odd it was, given Rosberg's won 4/5 of the last races, and Hamilton's won 0/5.
However, best value based on past performance, which is no guarantee of future success, must be Ricciardo at each way (11, third the odds for top 2). He's been top 2 in 3/5 of the last races and won once.
Not a tip (I'll probably think about it for a few days) but worth considering.
Mind you, Ferrari were really rather fast at Suzuka, albeit damaged by penalties from qualifying and more clunky strategy calls.
It should be remembered the founding fathers weren't the beacons of liberty, truth, and justice, after all they valued a negro as three fifths of a white man.
You could buy a white man through slavery?
Plenty of white slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries. Have you never read Robinson Crusoe? I'd be wary of judging historical figures by modern standards. Maybe we should then decry all modern Muslims as they split umma/dhimmi and their value 100/50 in eg court cases.
White Slavery was common in North Africa and the Ottoman empire, and serfdom in parts of Eastern Europe, but even in the New World occurred via the device of indentured service.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?
That phrase is liberal code for judges who will seek to make up law rather than interpret it.
A very good example of this is Roe v Wade. Whatever you think about Abortion, the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.
The idea that they intended when writing the constitution to prevent the states from banning abortion is laughable.
The SCOTUS judges who decided this were engaging in judicial activism ie making new laws by intentionally perversely interpreting existing ones.
The threat of Hilary seeing to it that a majority of SCOTUS judges in years to come are such liberal judicial activists would be enough to see to it that me and many like me would vote for him to block this, however repulsive and loathsome a character he is.
I wouldnt go round telling people I was doing that though unless I knew they were of a similar view.
Equally good examples of "this" are the current broad interpretation of the First Amendment, on which everyone agrees, but is just as much a result of modern judicial activism... and the recent (to my mind entirely arbitrary) interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is a great example of right wing judges doing exactly what you excoriate left wing ones for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
"That phrase is liberal code.." point me to the codebook, please.
"the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.." Shows ignorance of the character of several founding fathers. And in any event, that the current constitution of the US should depend upon mindreading what two centuries dead men might think about today's society is manifestly absurd, and constitutionally incorrect.
Alistair-Far from ridiculous actually.The difference is all her misdemeanors are churned by the liberal press & spat out.Obama was never scrutinised properly & as a result what has he actually achieved after 2 terms in office.The second term was mostly spent on the golf course.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?
That phrase is liberal for judges who will seek to make up law rather than interpret it.
A very good example of this is Roe v Wade. Whatever you think about Abortion, the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.
The idea that they intended when writing the constitution to prevent the states from banning abortion is laughable.
The SCOTUS judges who decided this were engaging in judicial activism ie making new laws by intentionally perversely interpreting existing ones.
The threat of Hilary seeing to it that a majority of SCOTUS judges in years to come are such liberal judicial activists would be enough to see to it that me and many like me would vote for him to block this, however repulsive and loathsome a character he is.
I wouldnt go round telling people I was doing that though unless I knew they were of a similar view.
You've made it very clear what YOU think about abortion. I take it you think that the Founding Fathers wanted their values to be set in stone forever. Those values were, of course, at least in part the result of centuries of judicial activism on both sides of the Pond.
The founding fathers values are not set in stone forever. They can be repealed, as can any part of the constitution by a 2/3 majority in both houses by elected representatives.
Judicial activists use egregious interpretation of laws to subvert those safeguards and by extension subvert the will of the people through their elected representatives.
Therefore people choosing the person who chooses the nine Judges may well consider the presidential candidates likely choice of judge more important than the presidential candidates repulsive personality.
On the topic of what form of Brexit was "mandated" by the public in the Referendum, regardless of what we individually prefer wasn't it exactly a 'Hard Brexit' that was debated? By the campaigns, if not on sites like this.
The Remain campaign argued in Project Fear that the Single Market would be lost if we voted to Leave, yet we voted Leave anyway.
The Leave campaign promised: No EU contributions, full control of immigration, no ECJ.
So the Remain campaign threatened a Hard Brexit, the Leave campaign promised one. Where is the question regarding mandate? We may still get a soft Brexit, but if its a hard one then that matches what both Remain and Leave threatened/promised.
Yes I agree (not on list, AFAIK*).
A moment's thought about what the Leave campaign promised (regardless of what Remain threatened) leads unambiguously to exit from the single market.
Of course, there will be a fudge of some type and I'm sure the minions at all four relevant departments will be war-gaming scenarios as we speak. Or at least I hope they will be.
Mr. Nabavi, indeed. Access is inevitable, the question is the terms upon which trade is done.
Mr. Slackbladder, I feel your pain. If you got the previous game, gameplay seems largely similar, graphics are very good (possibly better than The Witcher 3) and so far it's very enjoyable.
When you do get a chance to play, check your gifts quickly. If you access it within a week of release you get 100,000 credits. Not sure yet how good that is but free stuff is free stuff.
Alistair-Far from ridiculous actually.The difference is all her misdemeanors are churned by the liberal press & spat out.Obama was never scrutinised properly & as a result what has he actually achieved after 2 terms in office.The second term was mostly spent on the golf course.
Things are starting to get questions - all those journalists have been shamed into it. Must feel pretty awkward to be outed by your own words for a change.
On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.
They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms
In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
If that's right it's not only the Republicans that need to think hard after the election, the Democrats will have to assume that Clinton is a single term president and plan accordingly.
I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020.
I think highly unlikely we will see Clinton in 2020. Not buying into the conspiracy theory nuts of Parkinsons or whatever their latest theory is, it is no secret she does have a number of long term health conditions and the next 5-10 years are going to be extremely testing.
I think after 5 years and being the first woman POTUS that will be enough.
Is there any evidence that she has long-term health problems? If so, I haven't seen it!
Hypothyroidism. issues with brittle bones and propensity for DVT which means she is on daily Warfarin. Nothing that life threatening (or that bad for modern medicine to handle), but I don't think you need to be an expert to say she doesn't look in fantastic shape for somebody in their 60s.
As I say, I am not going for the conspiracy nut stuff....more another 5 years down the road, under extreme pressure (with Syria, ISIS, Putin, let alone the world economy, going to be a rough ride), I wouldn't back a second term.
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.
A moment's thought about what the Leave campaign promised (regardless of what Remain threatened) leads unambiguously to exit from the single market.
Of course, there will be a fudge of some type and I'm sure the minions at all four relevant departments will be war-gaming scenarios as we speak. Or at least I hope they will be.
*might be on list.
Somebody tell the SoS
@faisalislam: Davis: during referendum "British people will have assumed the British government will do best possible for all sectors" not soft or hard.
Alistair-Far from ridiculous actually.The difference is all her misdemeanors are churned by the liberal press & spat out.Obama was never scrutinised properly & as a result what has he actually achieved after 2 terms in office.The second term was mostly spent on the golf course.
It would be an intriguing market to price up. You'd have to include Hamas/anti-Zionism in the mix. Given his past dedication to obscure causes, we could be completely blindsided by something from leftfield.
It should be remembered the founding fathers weren't the beacons of liberty, truth, and justice, after all they valued a negro as three fifths of a white man.
You could buy a white man through slavery?
Plenty of white slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries. Have you never read Robinson Crusoe? I'd be wary of judging historical figures by modern standards. Maybe we should then decry all modern Muslims as they split umma/dhimmi and their value 100/50 in eg court cases.
Blacks = slaves. Whites = "indentured servants"
"In April 1775, two days after the American War of Independence began, a notice appeared in the Virginia Gazette offering rewards for the return of 10 runaways. Two were "Negro slaves", but the other eight were white servants, including Thomas Pearce, a 20-year-old Bristol joiner, and William Webster, a middle-aged Scottish brick-maker. Whether they were ever found remains a mystery; almost nothing is known about them but their names. But their irate master was to become very famous indeed, for the man pursuing his absconding servants was called George Washington."
Looks like a really comfortable victory for Clinton the way the polls are going. Seems she'll win all the remotely tight contests, which takes things to 357-181. All a bit boring for betting purposes.
I'd like to see some polls in Georgia and Missouri especially, but also S Carolina, Indiana and Texas now. South Dakota and Montana are longer shots, but I guess unlikely to be polled.
Mr. Nabavi, indeed. Access is inevitable, the question is the terms upon which trade is done.
Mr. Slackbladder, I feel your pain. If you got the previous game, gameplay seems largely similar, graphics are very good (possibly better than The Witcher 3) and so far it's very enjoyable.
When you do get a chance to play, check your gifts quickly. If you access it within a week of release you get 100,000 credits. Not sure yet how good that is but free stuff is free stuff.
I've played the first game (on the prior generation console) and always been a fan of old Lara. I'll see if i can load it up sneakly one evening.
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
This. For all of Trump's inadequacies he has at least expressed the concerns of so many Americans (something the establishment in GOP and RNC can't do) and has offered solutions (albeit stupid ones). Clinton is continuity Obama who was continuity Bush etc etc - something will give eventually. An anti-politics vote still strikes me as a realistic prospect.
On topic, I've just had lunch with someone in the polling industry about whether the American polls are wrong, and Trump is on course for victory.
They said no, their logic is where the polls have got it wrong, in say at GE2015 or the Israeli elections, it was either neck and neck, or one side marginally ahead, but in the underlying numbers had the voters overwhelmingly preferring the suprise winner to be PM/CinC, best for the economy etc, and Hillary is opening up 5% plus leads as the norms
In the American polls we're not seeing that, pretty on all the metrics, in a straight fight Hillary Clinton wins all those match ups against Donald, what Trump supporters lack in number they make up in fervour.
So Clinton to win, but they did point out, Hillary has appalling trust and favourability numbers which in most electoral years would doom her, except Trump's ratings are even worse.
If that's right it's not only the Republicans that need to think hard after the election, the Democrats will have to assume that Clinton is a single term president and plan accordingly.
I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020.
I think highly unlikely we will see Clinton in 2020. Not buying into the conspiracy theory nuts of Parkinsons or whatever their latest theory is, it is no secret she does have a number of long term health conditions and the next 5-10 years are going to be extremely testing.
I think after 5 years and being the first woman POTUS that will be enough.
Is there any evidence that she has long-term health problems? If so, I haven't seen it!
Hypothyroidism. issues with brittle bones and propensity for DVT which means she is on daily Warfarin. Nothing that life threatening (or that bad for modern medicine to handle), but I don't think you need to be an expert to say she doesn't look in fantastic shape for somebody in their 60s.
As I say, I am not going for the conspiracy nut stuff....more another 5 years down the road, under extreme pressure (with Syria, ISIS, Putin, let alone the world economy, going to be a rough ride), I wouldn't back a second term.
Should also add...first leaders always seem to age way more than the time in office. Always seems like 10 years = 20 years of most people. Furthermore, if Clinton went for the full 2 terms, she would be 78.
"Jeremy Corbyn believes that there should be protests outside the US embassy over bombings in Syria because the focus on Russia is distracting from "other civilian casualties".
The Labour leader's official spokesman criticised the US intervention in Syria and said that "people are free to protest outside all the intervening powers' embassies". Asked if that includes the US, he replied "absolutely".
He said: "The focus on Russian atrocities sometimes diverts attention away from other civilian casualties that have been taking place.""
I don't know why the Government doesn't say that the opening negotiating position is to go for WTO rules then negotiate upwards. It therefore satisfies the demands for a statement and doesn't give too much away.
Logical song-Plse note the source-Politico-enough said.As for Obamacare the middle classes say it is far too expensive & the lower end cannot afford to take it up.
Mr. Slackbladder, you can get the gifts (cards for expeditions... apparently, not used them yet) from the start menu, so as long as you've got an internet connection it'll just be a moment's work.
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.
Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
This. For all of Trump's inadequacies he has at least expressed the concerns of so many Americans (something the establishment in GOP and RNC can't do) and has offered solutions (albeit stupid ones). Clinton is continuity Obama who was continuity Bush etc etc - something will give eventually. An anti-politics vote still strikes me as a realistic prospect.
Looks like a really comfortable victory for Clinton the way the polls are going. Seems she'll win all the remotely tight contests, which takes things to 357-181. All a bit boring for betting purposes.
I'd like to see some polls in Georgia and Missouri especially, but also S Carolina, Indiana and Texas now. South Dakota and Montana are longer shots, but I guess unlikely to be polled.
I think it's most likely that her ECV tally will be somewhere between what Obama got each time. I think pushing beyond that would be difficult given the structural nature of US electorate but we are off the map a bit here.
I always treat any of these leaks about what is being discussed with a massive pinch of salt. How much of Cameron's EU was accurately reported? We had all sorts of nonsense.
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.
Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.
Biden would have slaughtered Trump. Hillary still may, of course, but we're talking 450+ ECV with Biden as the candidate.
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.
Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.
Biden would have slaughtered Trump.
Bernie Sanders would have slaughtered Trump....the bar is very low :-)
I always treat any of these leaks about what is being discussed with a massive pinch of salt. How much of Cameron's EU was accurately reported? We had all sorts of nonsense.
Remember it was leaked that Cameron would get a good deal from his negociations pre-referendum ?
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.
Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.
Biden would have slaughtered Trump.
Bernie Sanders would have slaughtered Trump....the bar is very low :-)
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.
Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.
Biden would have slaughtered Trump.
Bernie Sanders would have slaughtered Trump....the bar is very low :-)
Ed Miliband Jeremy Corbyn would have slaughtered Trump
I don't know why the Government doesn't say that the opening negotiating position is to go for WTO rules then negotiate upwards. It therefore satisfies the demands for a statement and doesn't give too much away.
I think the government should say we want single market access and restriction on freedom of movement. Plus a seat at the table of regulatory formation. Plus an owl.
OK, perhaps not the owl.
The point has been made that any minimum acceptable position, if disclosed, becomes the maximum we're going to get.
So set the minimum high.
But the problem is deeper than that. As we know, a large proportion (21% on here earlier) of EU "laws" are single market regulations and the three stooges don't agree amongst themselves whether having 21% of EU laws would be tolerable to the country. How much control is control?? Perhaps even Tezza is unsure.
If she announces to the country great news, we are still in the single market, plus we have some fudge on immigration, she worries now ahead of that moment that her bastards will skewer her for her "victory".
I don't know why the Government doesn't say that the opening negotiating position is to go for WTO rules then negotiate upwards. It therefore satisfies the demands for a statement and doesn't give too much away.
Because of the various options, one is not necessarily worse than the others. Its just that they all involve different trade-offs and different priorities with each one setting the UK on a different path. Each option would also require different adaptations to UK policy over the medium term.
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.
Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.
Biden would have slaughtered Trump.
Bernie Sanders would have slaughtered Trump....the bar is very low :-)
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.
Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.
Biden would have slaughtered Trump.
Bernie Sanders would have slaughtered Trump....the bar is very low :-)
Ed Miliband Jeremy Corbyn would have slaughtered Trump
My dog perhaps, but Jezza...now you are just been silly....
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.
Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.
Biden would have slaughtered Trump.
Bernie Sanders would have slaughtered Trump....the bar is very low :-)
Ed Miliband Jeremy Corbyn would have slaughtered Trump
My dog perhaps, but Jezza...now you are just been silly....
Looks like a really comfortable victory for Clinton the way the polls are going. Seems she'll win all the remotely tight contests, which takes things to 357-181. All a bit boring for betting purposes.
I'd like to see some polls in Georgia and Missouri especially, but also S Carolina, Indiana and Texas now. South Dakota and Montana are longer shots, but I guess unlikely to be polled.
The latest Alaska poll put Trump only 3 points up but the survey suggests Clinton might have hit her vote ceiling but that was before last weekend's nonsense.
One site I've seen suggests Trump has a 76% chance of winning the state which would make him 1/4 and Clinton would be 4/1 though given bookies have to make money those odds would probably be 1/6 and 5/2.
The trouble with the margin is, at 4/1 I see value at 5/2 I don't.
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.
Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?
Clinton is continuity Obama who was continuity Bush etc etc - something will give eventually. An anti-politics vote still strikes me as a realistic prospect.
YOu could tell the people featured in the programme wanted something - anything - to change and were wanting to use Trump as a blunt instrument.
Hell, even the black owner of a barber shop went as far as any black guy could go on TV to hinting he might be prepared to give Trump whirl.
It's all very reminiscent of John Harris's outstanding reports from Stoke on the chances of Brexit last year.
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
Do you seriously expect him to give away the negotiating position?
I expect him to at least say what the opening bids will be. We will have to tell the other EU members at some point.
Surely what the opening bids will be are currently getting determined and once it is determined we will invoke Article 50 and inform the other EU members.
If we say what our opening bid is right now that rules out changing it (apart from to our detriment) when Article 50 is invoked.
If she announces to the country great news, we are still in the single market, plus we have some fudge on immigration, she worries now ahead of that moment that her bastards will skewer her for her "victory".
Fudge, no. A full resetting of immigration policy along the lines of Dominic Cummings' tweets yesterday (see @odysseanproject for the full thread) would probably command widespread support.
1/ Principles for new imgrtn policy that wd be better for UK econ & world in general & have ~80% support: 2 Make it MUCH EASIER for hi-skill imgrnts to move: #1 priority=scientists & esp hard quant skills - free m/ment for maths/physics PhDs etc 3/ Hard tough rules on criminals/terrorists etc - also dump all ECHR crap on subject as well as EU/Charter of Fnd Rights 4/ Outside EU & Charter of FR, UK then controls how we implement 1951 UN Convention on refugees, which also needs to be changed 5/ Fewer low-skilled migrants for a decade while e/thing adapts 6/ System based on skills not geography
"Plenty of white slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries..."
Well into the 19th Century, I think Mr. Patrick. The Barbary Wars (1801 - 1805?) were fought by the Yanks over the holding of US citizens in conditions of slavery by the Barbary States. Further serfdom was not abolished in Russia until the 1860s.
Conditions of slavery still exist not least in the UK, as recent court cases prove.
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.
Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.
Biden should have run anyway. He'd probably have won both the nomination and the general election.
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.
Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?
Dearie me. I am not Plato in disguise, you know, I was just trying to nullify the effect whereby any post making a general point is pounced on for evidence as to which primary-school-playground gang the poster belongs to. Unsuccessfully, it seems.
Clinton is continuity Obama who was continuity Bush etc etc - something will give eventually. An anti-politics vote still strikes me as a realistic prospect.
YOu could tell the people featured in the programme wanted something - anything - to change and were wanting to use Trump as a blunt instrument.
Hell, even the black owner of a barber shop went as far as any black guy could go on TV to hinting he might be prepared to give Trump whirl.
It's all very reminiscent of John Harris's outstanding reports from Stoke on the chances of Brexit last year.
Yes - unfortunately Trump is Neil Hamilton and not even Farage , Jezza or Boris.
Mike-your anti Trump rhetoric is extremely tiresome.Plse show some balance.Clinton in many respects is as obnoxious but as with Obama no proper scrutiny has or will ever take place.Are you now saying Trump's situation is irredeemable or do you acknowledge he could still turn this around.
Clinton's been a politician for yonks, and has been subject to loads of scrutiny: as are most top politicians.
Trump's been a celebrity businessman, and has not been subject to quite the same degree of scrutiny.
As against that, trump has never been shy of the limelight, and Clinton has admitted to lying (the landing under fire) and dissembling and obfuscating (by using the private email server) so your distinction isn't that clear cut.
Note to the Clinton rapid yebbutal unit: I don't have a vote, I am not anti-Clinton, I am not pro-Trump, so save it.
Being 'shy of the limelight' and subject to the harsh inspection that top politicians get are two very different things. The journalists involved tend to be different, as one minor point.
Your last paragraph is... interesting. I guess you don't like your comment being challenged?
Lot of it about these days on here. Witness the absurd Plato who puts people on ignore merely for challenging her, and the many PB Leavers who opine that those who backed Remain should just shut up about it and smile, despite their thinking Brexit is a disaster for the country.
Is that poor Bobajob gone backwards, or another village idiot
One of my colleagues has just asked a very interesting (to me) question: does Trump have any friends? As in actual friends who he can relax with in an atmosphere of easy informality? If not (and my guess would be that he hasn't), who keeps him in touch with reality?
''I think Hillary will prove to be a good president and will stand a decent chance of reelection in 2020. ''
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
I still find it extraordinary that no credible Democratic alternative to Hillary emerged. There must have been some governor who could have made more of a credible appeal to be a man of the people while also holding a record of delivery. It's not as if taking on a candidate perceived as strong did her husband any harm.
Hillary had built up a strong base in the Democratic party over many years. If she hadn't run Biden would have run.
Biden would have slaughtered Trump.
Bernie Sanders would have slaughtered Trump....the bar is very low :-)
Not sure about that.
Polling suggested that would have been the case.
Hypothetical polling is not to be fully trusted, especially in the context of live primaries. Better to think about how the arguments will play out amongst the various constituencies of the electorate. Sanders' positions would be seen as threatening by a lot of the Establishment, as opposed to their problem with Trump mostly being that he is hugely distasteful.
Not that US Presidents have that much power in the domestic arena anyway, especially if they've run against their party.
One of my colleagues has just asked a very interesting (to me) question: does Trump have any friends? As in actual friends who he can relax with in an atmosphere of easy informality? If not (and my guess would be that he hasn't), who keeps him in touch with reality?
One thing I noticed (and shouldn't be a huge surprise), basically the only people he follows on twitter are his businesses and a few other people like Piers Morgan.....not that twitter is a good way of keeping in touch with reality, but he certainly won't be getting it from there.
It should be remembered the founding fathers weren't the beacons of liberty, truth, and justice, after all they valued a negro as three fifths of a white man.
Looks like a really comfortable victory for Clinton the way the polls are going. Seems she'll win all the remotely tight contests, which takes things to 357-181. All a bit boring for betting purposes.
I'd like to see some polls in Georgia and Missouri especially, but also S Carolina, Indiana and Texas now. South Dakota and Montana are longer shots, but I guess unlikely to be polled.
The latest Alaska poll put Trump only 3 points up but the survey suggests Clinton might have hit her vote ceiling but that was before last weekend's nonsense.
One site I've seen suggests Trump has a 76% chance of winning the state which would make him 1/4 and Clinton would be 4/1 though given bookies have to make money those odds would probably be 1/6 and 5/2.
The trouble with the margin is, at 4/1 I see value at 5/2 I don't.
Hills' 7/1 on Clinton winning Alaska is must-bet material. Not to mention an arb.
And if it's a genuine 80-20 contest, bookies usually go 1/5 vs 10/3. 1/6 vs 5/2 is abhorrent!
One of my colleagues has just asked a very interesting (to me) question: does Trump have any friends? As in actual friends who he can relax with in an atmosphere of easy informality? If not (and my guess would be that he hasn't), who keeps him in touch with reality?
One of my colleagues has just asked a very interesting (to me) question: does Trump have any friends? As in actual friends who he can relax with in an atmosphere of easy informality? If not (and my guess would be that he hasn't), who keeps him in touch with reality?
< Biden should have run anyway. He'd probably have won both the nomination and the general election.
Biden didn't run because of the death of his son. As to whether he would have beaten Clinton to the nomination, don't know.
It is rare for the same party to win the White House four elections in a row - the last time I can think is FDR and Truman who kept the Democrats in the WH from the early 30s to the early 50s and won five successive elections.
Even if Clinton stands again in 2020, about which I'm doubtful, a moderate Republican will have a huge chance - the problem the GOP had this time, paradoxically, was the number of candidates who got in each other's way and allowed the maverick to come through the middle.
As they did following Goldwater in 1964, the GOP will tack back toward the centre and unify early around a single figure in case Trump (or someone) decides to make a run from the populist fringe.
If she announces to the country great news, we are still in the single market, plus we have some fudge on immigration, she worries now ahead of that moment that her bastards will skewer her for her "victory".
Fudge, no. A full resetting of immigration policy along the lines of Dominic Cummings' tweets yesterday (see @odysseanproject for the full thread) would probably command widespread support.
1/ Principles for new imgrtn policy that wd be better for UK econ & world in general & have ~80% support: 2 Make it MUCH EASIER for hi-skill imgrnts to move: #1 priority=scientists & esp hard quant skills - free m/ment for maths/physics PhDs etc 3/ Hard tough rules on criminals/terrorists etc - also dump all ECHR crap on subject as well as EU/Charter of Fnd Rights 4/ Outside EU & Charter of FR, UK then controls how we implement 1951 UN Convention on refugees, which also needs to be changed 5/ Fewer low-skilled migrants for a decade while e/thing adapts 6/ System based on skills not geography
3/Hard tough rules on criminals/terrorists.
LOL.
Customs officer: So, Mr X, I see you put on your visa application form that you are a terrorist...
And we used to laugh at the US visa question: do you advocate the overthrow of the United States by force...
More seriously,
2/ why the love affair with poor put-upon quants? They walk into jobs easily at the moment wherever they are from..India..EU..you name it - it is an uninformed soundbite. Check out e-financial careers and type in "quantitative" if you doubt it.
4/Fine for the refugees, haven't looked at 1951 UN Convention...sounds like an at the margin issue. Refugees aren't the problem, EU immigration is.
5/ k, that is the nub of the problem. How do we do this? Work visas presumably.
6/ fine, more Canadian navvies rather than Polish ones. Are we sure we will get the same number sufficient for our grand house-building programme? Or perhaps he means Indian ones. Or perhaps he really doesn't
It should be remembered the founding fathers weren't the beacons of liberty, truth, and justice, after all they valued a negro as three fifths of a white man.
You could buy a white man through slavery?
Indentured servitude captured similar principles.
"As soon as a negro comes to England he is free; one may be a villein in England, but not a slave." per Holt J. Smith v Brown (1702) 2 Salk 666.
One of my colleagues has just asked a very interesting (to me) question: does Trump have any friends? As in actual friends who he can relax with in an atmosphere of easy informality? If not (and my guess would be that he hasn't), who keeps him in touch with reality?
A very good point actually. Narcissists inevitably struggle with friendships, they can get close to people for a while, but the friendships always end up in tears, dramas and acrimony.
The turnover of Trump's staff suggests the difficulty in maintaining any kind of relationship with him.
I doubt that Trump has anyone even remotely close to tell him some hard truths. We all need it.
@TSE Ta - 4/9 for the Democrats controlling the Senate looks too long to me. With the everTrumps looking to sabotage the waverers, the Democrats should profit from the Republicans internal war.
If HRC gets hold of the SCOTUS nominations, then it could change the entire dynamic of the US's trajectory. Obamacare would be entrenched and there may even be challenges to the way in which House electoral districts are currently drawn up - something that would hurt the Republicans big time. The death penalty may well disappear.
She was very clear in the second debatethat she intends to appoint judicial activists to entrench her views.
I think the phrase was something like "judges with experience of his real people live and what matters to them"
Because we ought to prefer judges without experience of how real people live and what matters to them ?
That phrase is liberal code for judges who will seek to make up law rather than interpret it.
A very good example of this is Roe v Wade. Whatever you think about Abortion, the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.
The idea that they intended when writing the constitution to prevent the states from banning abortion is laughable.
The SCOTUS judges who decided this were engaging in judicial activism ie making new laws by intentionally perversely interpreting existing ones.
The threat of Hilary seeing to it that a majority of SCOTUS judges in years to come are such liberal judicial activists would be enough to see to it that me and many like me would vote for him to block this, however repulsive and loathsome a character he is.
I wouldnt go round telling people I was doing that though unless I knew they were of a similar view.
So you would prefer the US to still ban abortion based on the fact that the founding fathers wouldn't have allowed it? That's not back to the 70s that's back to the 1770s.
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
On that exchange I'd side very much with DD. We'll have some kind of access to the Single Market, the question is to what degree.
The attempt to force a yes/no response is I a of the most tedious journalistic devices there are especially as it's usually a false choice that is presented. Soubry should be embarassed
Hills' 7/1 on Clinton winning Alaska is must-bet material. Not to mention an arb.
Interesting spot, yes. Have to wonder about specific local factors to that state, but otherwise I'd be thinking it was somewhere in the Georgia/Missouri bracket. Looking at Betfair, Georgia is 2.70, Missouri 5.40. Alaska was nearer to the latter, but seems someone recently gobbled the price, best is 3.45 now.
If she announces to the country great news, we are still in the single market, plus we have some fudge on immigration, she worries now ahead of that moment that her bastards will skewer her for her "victory".
Fudge, no. A full resetting of immigration policy along the lines of Dominic Cummings' tweets yesterday (see @odysseanproject for the full thread) would probably command widespread support.
1/ Principles for new imgrtn policy that wd be better for UK econ & world in general & have ~80% support: 2 Make it MUCH EASIER for hi-skill imgrnts to move: #1 priority=scientists & esp hard quant skills - free m/ment for maths/physics PhDs etc 3/ Hard tough rules on criminals/terrorists etc - also dump all ECHR crap on subject as well as EU/Charter of Fnd Rights 4/ Outside EU & Charter of FR, UK then controls how we implement 1951 UN Convention on refugees, which also needs to be changed 5/ Fewer low-skilled migrants for a decade while e/thing adapts 6/ System based on skills not geography
3/Hard tough rules on criminals/terrorists.
LOL.
Customs officer: So, Mr X, I see you put on your visa application form that you are a terrorist...
And we used to laugh at the US visa question: do you advocate the overthrow of the United States by force...
More seriously,
2/ why the love affair with poor put-upon quants? They walk into jobs easily at the moment wherever they are from..India..EU..you name it - it is an uninformed soundbite. Check out e-financial careers and type in "quantitative" if you doubt it.
4/Fine for the refugees, haven't looked at 1951 UN Convention...sounds like an at the margin issue. Refugees aren't the problem, EU immigration is.
5/ k, that is the nub of the problem. How do we do this? Work visas presumably.
6/ fine, more Canadian navvies rather than Polish ones. Are we sure we will get the same number sufficient for our grand house-building programme? Or perhaps he means Indian ones. Or perhaps he really doesn't
Some of this may be LOL stuff (though 3 is surely more about ease of deportment than entry?) but the point is for the Government to set out a clear post-Brexit policy, which doesn't have to be repressive.
If she announces to the country great news, we are still in the single market, plus we have some fudge on immigration, she worries now ahead of that moment that her bastards will skewer her for her "victory".
1/ PriU & Chd on skills not geography
3/Hard tough rules on criminals/terrorists.
LOL.
Customs officer: So, Mr X, I see you put on your visa application form that you are a terrorist...
And we used to laugh at the US visa question: do you advocate the overthrow of the United States by force...
More seriously,
2/ why the love affair with poor put-upon quants? They walk into jobs easily at the moment wherever they are from..India..EU..you name it - it is an uninformed soundbite. Check out e-financial careers and type in "quantitative" if you doubt it.
4/Fine for the refugees, haven't looked at 1951 UN Convention...sounds like an at the margin issue. Refugees aren't the problem, EU immigration is.
5/ k, that is the nub of the problem. How do we do this? Work visas presumably.
6/ fine, more Canadian navvies rather than Polish ones. Are we sure we will get the same number sufficient for our grand house-building programme? Or perhaps he means Indian ones. Or perhaps he really doesn't
Some of this may be LOL stuff (though 3 is surely more about ease of deportment than entry?) but the point is for the Government to set out a clear post-Brexit policy, which doesn't have to be repressive.
Yes well it is a start. My view is that the more debate there is about what we want post-Brexit UK to look like, the better. I worry that Tezza's strategy is to say nothing not because of negotiating tactics (they will leak Day 1 of actual negotiations), but because she is worried that anything she says will become a hostage to fortune.
I would prefer that the UK could unite, or at least agree to agree on a set of aims that we then send our negotiating team in to achieve.
Naive perhaps but that way national unity is preserved and when or if we don't achieve all we set out to, we all feel nevertheless feel invested in the outcome. The problem with this no running commentary thing is that whatever we get will come as a perhaps nasty surprise to a large number of people and I don't think that's the right approach in this critical and sensitive time.
It should be remembered the founding fathers weren't the beacons of liberty, truth, and justice, after all they valued a negro as three fifths of a white man.
You could buy a white man through slavery?
Indentured servitude captured similar principles.
"As soon as a negro comes to England he is free; one may be a villein in England, but not a slave." per Holt J. Smith v Brown (1702) 2 Salk 666.
Comments
SoS for Brexit "There are a spectrum of outcomes"
WTF is he talking about?
If this is the cream of our negotiating crop, we are going to get mollicated...
Trump is saying things that many American's want hear their politician's saying. No, more than that. They want their politicians's acting upon it. Their misfortune is that their standard bearer is Donald Trump. And they aren't going to be seen in public under his standard.
I think the irony of the polls moving towards Hillary is that it could be good for Trump. I believe there is one great similarity with Brexit here - those who think he can't win can still feel good about themselves by voting Trump, comfortable that they have not voted for the man but have stayed true to their principles as voiced by him. I honestly think those voting what they believed was the losing cause got Brexit over the line. It could yet cause the votes in many states to be much, much closer than polled.
That - and Putin hacking the voting machines!
Got to say I'm enjoying Rise of the Tomb Raider (for the PS4). Not played much, though. Using it as a reward after doing a certain amount of proofreading (large word counts are nice when published, but less so when you have to check the bloody thing).
Do you seriously expect him to give away the negotiating position?
Last night's Newnight revealed that Ohio folk are on average 10,000 a year worse off than they were at the turn of the century.
I'm sure eight more years of the elitist, beltway, Goldman Sachs sponsored same is exactly what they want.
The Remain campaign argued in Project Fear that the Single Market would be lost if we voted to Leave, yet we voted Leave anyway.
The Leave campaign promised:
No EU contributions, full control of immigration, no ECJ.
So the Remain campaign threatened a Hard Brexit, the Leave campaign promised one. Where is the question regarding mandate? We may still get a soft Brexit, but if its a hard one then that matches what both Remain and Leave threatened/promised.
In 2016 we voted to reverse that, surely?
But nothing is foolproof. Reverses don't happen that much, but do happen.
The more complex the trade, the less likelihood of such an error. Plenty of other error possibilities with complex trades, however....
It's more than a decade since the Lib Dems gained a seat at a Westminster by-election, isn't it?
However, best value based on past performance, which is no guarantee of future success, must be Ricciardo at each way (11, third the odds for top 2). He's been top 2 in 3/5 of the last races and won once.
Not a tip (I'll probably think about it for a few days) but worth considering.
Mind you, Ferrari were really rather fast at Suzuka, albeit damaged by penalties from qualifying and more clunky strategy calls.
https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
Many later went to the frontier to become pioneers, and hence the raucous distrust of government typical of hillbilly America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
"That phrase is liberal code.." point me to the codebook, please.
"the founding fathers were devout eighteenth century nonconformist protestants who would have viewed it as an utter abomination.."
Shows ignorance of the character of several founding fathers. And in any event, that the current constitution of the US should depend upon mindreading what two centuries dead men might think about today's society is manifestly absurd, and constitutionally incorrect.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/05/22/perhaps-leave-really-are-going-to-win-this-referendum/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/hillarys-state-dept-gave-special-attention-friends-bill-42745387
Judicial activists use egregious interpretation of laws to subvert those safeguards and by extension subvert the will of the people through their elected representatives.
Therefore people choosing the person who chooses the nine Judges may well consider the presidential candidates likely choice of judge more important than the presidential candidates repulsive personality.
A moment's thought about what the Leave campaign promised (regardless of what Remain threatened) leads unambiguously to exit from the single market.
Of course, there will be a fudge of some type and I'm sure the minions at all four relevant departments will be war-gaming scenarios as we speak. Or at least I hope they will be.
*might be on list.
Mr. Nabavi, indeed. Access is inevitable, the question is the terms upon which trade is done.
Mr. Slackbladder, I feel your pain. If you got the previous game, gameplay seems largely similar, graphics are very good (possibly better than The Witcher 3) and so far it's very enjoyable.
When you do get a chance to play, check your gifts quickly. If you access it within a week of release you get 100,000 credits. Not sure yet how good that is but free stuff is free stuff.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/300388-clinton-camp-appeared-to-have-contacts-with-doj-on-email-case
As I say, I am not going for the conspiracy nut stuff....more another 5 years down the road, under extreme pressure (with Syria, ISIS, Putin, let alone the world economy, going to be a rough ride), I wouldn't back a second term.
@faisalislam: Davis: during referendum "British people will have assumed the British government will do best possible for all sectors" not soft or hard.
"In April 1775, two days after the American War of Independence began, a notice appeared in the Virginia Gazette offering rewards for the return of 10 runaways. Two were "Negro slaves", but the other eight were white servants, including Thomas Pearce, a 20-year-old Bristol joiner, and William Webster, a middle-aged Scottish brick-maker. Whether they were ever found remains a mystery; almost nothing is known about them but their names. But their irate master was to become very famous indeed, for the man pursuing his absconding servants was called George Washington."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3664862/The-forgotten-history-of-Britains-white-slaves.html
I'd like to see some polls in Georgia and Missouri especially, but also S Carolina, Indiana and Texas now. South Dakota and Montana are longer shots, but I guess unlikely to be polled.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/11/boris-johnson-calls-for-demonstrations-outside-the-russian-embas/
"Jeremy Corbyn believes that there should be protests outside the US embassy over bombings in Syria because the focus on Russia is distracting from "other civilian casualties".
The Labour leader's official spokesman criticised the US intervention in Syria and said that "people are free to protest outside all the intervening powers' embassies". Asked if that includes the US, he replied "absolutely".
He said: "The focus on Russian atrocities sometimes diverts attention away from other civilian casualties that have been taking place.""
Ho ho.
Ed MilibandJeremy Corbyn would have slaughtered TrumpOK, perhaps not the owl.
The point has been made that any minimum acceptable position, if disclosed, becomes the maximum we're going to get.
So set the minimum high.
But the problem is deeper than that. As we know, a large proportion (21% on here earlier) of EU "laws" are single market regulations and the three stooges don't agree amongst themselves whether having 21% of EU laws would be tolerable to the country. How much control is control?? Perhaps even Tezza is unsure.
If she announces to the country great news, we are still in the single market, plus we have some fudge on immigration, she worries now ahead of that moment that her bastards will skewer her for her "victory".
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2016/Moore_AK_Oct_2016.pdf
One site I've seen suggests Trump has a 76% chance of winning the state which would make him 1/4 and Clinton would be 4/1 though given bookies have to make money those odds would probably be 1/6 and 5/2.
The trouble with the margin is, at 4/1 I see value at 5/2 I don't.
YOu could tell the people featured in the programme wanted something - anything - to change and were wanting to use Trump as a blunt instrument.
Hell, even the black owner of a barber shop went as far as any black guy could go on TV to hinting he might be prepared to give Trump whirl.
It's all very reminiscent of John Harris's outstanding reports from Stoke on the chances of Brexit last year.
If we say what our opening bid is right now that rules out changing it (apart from to our detriment) when Article 50 is invoked.
1/ Principles for new imgrtn policy that wd be better for UK econ & world in general & have ~80% support:
2 Make it MUCH EASIER for hi-skill imgrnts to move: #1 priority=scientists & esp hard quant skills - free m/ment for maths/physics PhDs etc
3/ Hard tough rules on criminals/terrorists etc - also dump all ECHR crap on subject as well as EU/Charter of Fnd Rights
4/ Outside EU & Charter of FR, UK then controls how we implement 1951 UN Convention on refugees, which also needs to be changed
5/ Fewer low-skilled migrants for a decade while e/thing adapts
6/ System based on skills not geography
"Plenty of white slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries..."
Well into the 19th Century, I think Mr. Patrick. The Barbary Wars (1801 - 1805?) were fought by the Yanks over the holding of US citizens in conditions of slavery by the Barbary States. Further serfdom was not abolished in Russia until the 1860s.
Conditions of slavery still exist not least in the UK, as recent court cases prove.
Not that US Presidents have that much power in the domestic arena anyway, especially if they've run against their party.
And if it's a genuine 80-20 contest, bookies usually go 1/5 vs 10/3. 1/6 vs 5/2 is abhorrent!
It is rare for the same party to win the White House four elections in a row - the last time I can think is FDR and Truman who kept the Democrats in the WH from the early 30s to the early 50s and won five successive elections.
Even if Clinton stands again in 2020, about which I'm doubtful, a moderate Republican will have a huge chance - the problem the GOP had this time, paradoxically, was the number of candidates who got in each other's way and allowed the maverick to come through the middle.
As they did following Goldwater in 1964, the GOP will tack back toward the centre and unify early around a single figure in case Trump (or someone) decides to make a run from the populist fringe.
LOL.
Customs officer: So, Mr X, I see you put on your visa application form that you are a terrorist...
And we used to laugh at the US visa question: do you advocate the overthrow of the United States by force...
More seriously,
2/ why the love affair with poor put-upon quants? They walk into jobs easily at the moment wherever they are from..India..EU..you name it - it is an uninformed soundbite. Check out e-financial careers and type in "quantitative" if you doubt it.
4/Fine for the refugees, haven't looked at 1951 UN Convention...sounds like an at the margin issue. Refugees aren't the problem, EU immigration is.
5/ k, that is the nub of the problem. How do we do this? Work visas presumably.
6/ fine, more Canadian navvies rather than Polish ones. Are we sure we will get the same number sufficient for our grand house-building programme? Or perhaps he means Indian ones. Or perhaps he really doesn't
The turnover of Trump's staff suggests the difficulty in maintaining any kind of relationship with him.
I doubt that Trump has anyone even remotely close to tell him some hard truths. We all need it.
As a regular racegoer and on-course punter, I've seen some of the margins on horse racing and believe me, the prices I quote wouldn't be unusual !!
Isn't "Free Movement" racist against Africans, Americans, Arabs, Aussies, Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc, etc.?
I would prefer that the UK could unite, or at least agree to agree on a set of aims that we then send our negotiating team in to achieve.
Naive perhaps but that way national unity is preserved and when or if we don't achieve all we set out to, we all feel nevertheless feel invested in the outcome. The problem with this no running commentary thing is that whatever we get will come as a perhaps nasty surprise to a large number of people and I don't think that's the right approach in this critical and sensitive time.
Anna Soubry. From progressivist laughing stock to remainer icon. What a transformation