Wow, how on earth did gotnews manage to find this jaw dropping information that she is a registered Democract and donor to Clinton's campaign. Maybe from the Guardian article?
Heller readily acknowledged that she is a Clinton supporter who would not have backed Trump regardless of how he behaved the one time they met. Heller met Clinton briefly at a March fundraiser, and in January she donated the individual maximum of $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign. She believes she has also attended a party where the Clintons were present.
Thank you. What I do post is the post popular stuff I see and read.
I'm guessing bar the two Tim's - I watch and read more US media than almost everyone here - so... feel free to dismiss what I post to feel superior - or note it.
I watch all the main political shows, rallies, activist site videos and read hundreds of Twitter posts. A day.
I'm very engaged - but clearly a troll because some don't like stuff. Seriously? I do wonder what PB has become here - do you want information or just pile on?
Most of us are in Britain. We don't have a vote so there is no point in posting campaign rhetoric. It's not us who Trump needs to persuade. We can and do bet on the outcome, so analysis or reasons the polls might be wrong is of greater interest.
Perhaps a checklist, real or imagined, would help. Is the material new or old? Is it from a credible source or from one of the satirical sites? Has it been picked up by mainstream news outlets? Does it pass the smell test or is it tin foil hat time, like the pneumonia-ridden body double with the wrong-shaped ear lobes? Is it even about Hillary or is it an attack on Bill, Obama or someone else who is not actually standing?
In the past, you have rightly criticised those who attacked Cameron or Boris for being posh. It is irrelevant and in any case, priced in. Many of the Trump camp's attacks on Hillary fall into the same class. Everyone knows she is the ultimate political insider. Of course she wants to appoint liberal justices to the supreme court, and has taken money from Wall Street. Even the email server falls into this general category of baggage that everyone knows about so it is not going to swing the election and we need not change our bets.
And tell us why we should care. Like others, I've spent a lot of time reading through your links without really knowing what I am looking for, since you've not summarised it. After a while, I give up. I doubt I'm alone in that.
Seriously? I have to not only watch it all, post the popular stuff - but provide a digest for free for the too lazy?
No.
Is that no because you've not actually read half the links you've copied and pasted from Trump-aligned twitter feeds?
Oh, so I don't read it, but can summarise it in a sentence or two? Well that's a shallow argument given what I've already said, just stop.
If you want to have a head to head spat that'll bore everyone else to death on US activist politics - feel free.
TSE, for heaven sake, go and join the libdems, you know you want to and I'm sure Cleggie could do with someone to help him leaflet Sheffield in 2020.
This cannot be right, when I was on holiday in Majorca, I was being told that we would hardly notice. now its . 5 p on diesel, 5 p on my heating oil, and now all prices are going to rise across the board... wAit till you buy a G and T on holiday and splutter at the cost.
Liberal elite experts dont like it up 'em. Who'd have thought it.
He's right though, whether he is 'liberal elite' or not.
The major problem in schools is the ~20% who leave each year functionally illiterate and/or innumerate. It is a tragedy for not just them, but the country as a whole. What is more, anyone wanting to reduce immigration should be intensely interested in improving the education of that particular cohort.
May's policy did nothing to address that problem. In fact, it would make it worse.
Why do you imply that basic standards of reading and writing have improved since grammar schools were mostly abolished when you must know that isn't true?
I don't mean to imply that: the standards have remained stubbornly low - I don't have the figures to hand, but I think since the 1950s; i.e. before the abolition of grammar schools. Decades of utter failure.
As such, you have a point. But the reverse does not apply, and the evidence, as linked on here in the past, shows that areas that have grammar schools do not help those who most need it.
Grammar schools will, by their very nature, suck up resources that would best be spent on the 20%.
Having said all that, I'm unsure how much money you can throw to help many of that 20%. Parenting is a massively important factor. But concentrating on the top end does nothing for them.
The Sutton Trust report into Selective education showed there was no evidence that they reduce standards in surrounding non selective schools. Overall because they improve their own results without reducing the results of the neighbouring schools they result in a rise in overall standards for a district that has selective schooling compared to one that doesn't.
There is evidence elsewhere of a "drain" on other schools, then it comes to teachers: https://t.co/eV9k4dGWkl
But my main problem is that they would draw the government's focus in the long run.
Liberal elite experts dont like it up 'em. Who'd have thought it.
He's right though, whether he is 'liberal elite' or not.
The major problem in schools is the ~20% who leave each year functionally illiterate and/or innumerate. It is a tragedy for not just them, but the country as a whole. What is more, anyone wanting to reduce immigration should be intensely interested in improving the education of that particular cohort.
May's policy did nothing to address that problem. In fact, it would make it worse.
Why do you imply that basic standards of reading and writing have improved since grammar schools were mostly abolished when you must know that isn't true?
I don't mean to imply that: the standards have remained stubbornly low - I don't have the figures to hand, but I think since the 1950s; i.e. before the abolition of grammar schools. Decades of utter failure.
As such, you have a point. But the reverse does not apply, and the evidence, as linked on here in the past, shows that areas that have grammar schools do not help those who most need it.
Grammar schools will, by their very nature, suck up resources that would best be spent on the 20%.
Having said all that, I'm unsure how much money you can throw to help many of that 20%. Parenting is a massively important factor. But concentrating on the top end does nothing for them.
The per capita funding of grammar schools is just the same as the rest so in what respect do they 'suck up resources' ? The brightest kids ? I'm agnostic on the issue, but many of the objections to grammars appear to be found in antipathy to what existed in the 50s, when there was a genuine and massive disparity in resources, rather than a level headed analysis of May's rather unrevolutionary (and at this stage rather undefined) proposals.
In any event, if you are concerned about basic numeracy and literacy, preschool parenting, early years and primary schooling are of far more salience.
TSE, for heaven sake, go and join the libdems, you know you want to and I'm sure Cleggie could do with someone to help him leaflet Sheffield in 2020.
I guess the most intelligent thing to ever come out of you left a brown stain in the toilet bowl didn't it?
Ooh, a raw nerve.
Not a raw nerve, just amused at your stupidity.
Seriously, why would I vote Lib Dem/Nick Clegg in 2020 when I declined the opportunity to do so in 2015?
Moronic driblings from you and your ilk, telling me, who will be celebrating 20 years in the Tory party next year, that I'm actually a Lib Dem was amusing at first, it is bloody tedious now.
Besides after your last great success campaigning for Remain and swearing blind Sheffield was going to be an easy Remain win, who the hell would want you on their side?
Liberal elite experts dont like it up 'em. Who'd have thought it.
He's right though, whether he is 'liberal elite' or not.
The major problem in schools is the ~20% who leave each year functionally illiterate and/or innumerate. It is a tragedy for not just them, but the country as a whole. What is more, anyone wanting to reduce immigration should be intensely interested in improving the education of that particular cohort.
May's policy did nothing to address that problem. In fact, it would make it worse.
Why do you imply that basic standards of reading and writing have improved since grammar schools were mostly abolished when you must know that isn't true?
I don't mean to imply that: the standards have remained stubbornly low - I don't have the figures to hand, but I think since the 1950s; i.e. before the abolition of grammar schools. Decades of utter failure.
As such, you have a point. But the reverse does not apply, and the evidence, as linked on here in the past, shows that areas that have grammar schools do not help those who most need it.
Grammar schools will, by their very nature, suck up resources that would best be spent on the 20%.
Having said all that, I'm unsure how much money you can throw to help many of that 20%. Parenting is a massively important factor. But concentrating on the top end does nothing for them.
The per capita funding of grammar schools is just the same as the rest so in what respect do they 'suck up resources' ? The brightest kids ?
The pushiest parents. Parents interested in their child's education are interested in fund raising for the school their child goes to. Put all the parents most interest and able to fundraise in one school and that schools gets a funding advantage.
Its giving me great amusement to see remoaners cack themselves as they realise Brexit is real.
It's more amusing to see the prominent Brexiteers cack themselves as they realise Brexit is real and not what they thought they wanted.
Dan Hannan is particularly hilarious
Boris has never recovered from getting what he never wanted (and not getting what he always wanted, into the bargain)
Difficult to disentangle your sentence. but I think I disagree, Boris got what what he wanted a top three job. I think now he understands he is not PM material, I hope Osborne wakes up to that reality soon.
Just out of interest, do you feel it's really a vital distinction between Trump actually having forcibly kissed women and grabbed at their genitals, and Trump having falsely boasted that he made a habit of forcibly kissing women and grabbed at their genitals?
I mean, do you think if he was only a fantasist who made up a lot of lies about molesting women, that's all fine and dandy?
It's all fine Chris, because anything Donald did, Billy did better, Bill did anything better than Don, no he didn't, yes he did, no he didn't, Yes He Did!
But unless the FBI actually arrest her for perjury it'll probably go nowhere.
The FBI does not want to veto a candidate, particularly at this late stage of the campaign.
If the FBI has to arrest a lying politician, then would the US not have to build many more prisons ?
It's a bit more serious that lying about your record and making campaign promises you know you won't keep, but it seems the DOJ has done all it can to avoid taking substantial action.
TSE claiming to be soon celebrating 20 years as a member of the Tory party whilst doing all he can to undermine a Tory PM.
Perhaps he's learnt something from the eurosceptics after watching them over the last 20 years.
Exactly, eurosceptics whined, misrepresented and generally poisoned the well for 40 years but now expect pro-europeans to immediately accept their total and absolute victory of 52-48.
Well they can ram it, Holding charlatans to account is the order of the day.
Loving it -lol
We joined 40 years ago called a common market,ever since the charlatans have been the pro EU political union nut jobs who have lied to the British public for years.
Liberal elite experts dont like it up 'em. Who'd have thought it.
He's right though, whether he is 'liberal elite' or not.
The major problem in schools is the ~20% who leave each year functionally illiterate and/or innumerate. It is a tragedy for not just them, but the country as a whole. What is more, anyone wanting to reduce immigration should be intensely interested in improving the education of that particular cohort.
May's policy did nothing to address that problem. In fact, it would make it worse.
Why do you imply that basic standards of reading and writing have improved since grammar schools were mostly abolished when you must know that isn't true?
I don't mean to imply that: the standards have remained stubbornly low - I don't have the figures to hand, but I think since the 1950s; i.e. before the abolition of grammar schools. Decades of utter failure.
As such, you have a point. But the reverse does not apply, and the evidence, as linked on here in the past, shows that areas that have grammar schools do not help those who most need it.
Grammar schools will, by their very nature, suck up resources that would best be spent on the 20%.
Having said all that, I'm unsure how much money you can throw to help many of that 20%. Parenting is a massively important factor. But concentrating on the top end does nothing for them.
The Sutton Trust report into Selective education showed there was no evidence that they reduce standards in surrounding non selective schools. Overall because they improve their own results without reducing the results of the neighbouring schools they result in a rise in overall standards for a district that has selective schooling compared to one that doesn't.
I'd appreciate if you could point out the relevant passage(s) - the report is rather long.
To back up my point:
The first claim is easy to check. There is no aggregate improvement in results in areas that are wholly selective. The most important change is a clear distributional shift in who does well. In short, the minority of children streamed into the grammars do better. The remaining majority of children - who are not educated in grammars - do slightly worse.
Not for the first time the King of the North and the Sage of the South are in full accord.
(Now about Mrs May.....)
Hah, I did a Populus poll at lunchtime, one of the questions was I was satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the unelected PM Mrs May was doing her job,.
Theresa May is a bit too nanny-statist for my liking, but she's a pretty mainstream Conservative, I'd say.
I very much like her politics. We had plenty of nanny-statism on sugar tax, social policy and heavy flirting with minimum alcohol pricing during the Cameron years.
Ministers have watered down the UK’s long-awaited childhood obesity strategy, dropping proposed curbs on junk food television advertisements and focusing instead on the importance of school sport in moves seen as a victory for the food industry over health campaigners.
Now I happen to think we need to do more on childhood obesity (probably starting with parental education) but to criticise May for on one hand 'nanny statism' then on the other 'watering down guidelines' seems a bit confused....
It would be interesting to see a few chars on this: obesity rates over time, average calorie intake over time, and average activity per day over time.
I'm not sure the story should be all about the food industry.
My understanding is that on average, people consumed more calories 60-70 years ago, but with more people performing manual labour/walking to work or school, obesity wasn't a problem.
Or, the energy balance hypothesis of fat growth is incorrect.
Not for the first time the King of the North and the Sage of the South are in full accord.
(Now about Mrs May.....)
Hah, I did a Populus poll at lunchtime, one of the questions was I was satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the unelected PM Mrs May was doing her job,.
Theresa May is a bit too nanny-statist for my liking, but she's a pretty mainstream Conservative, I'd say.
I very much like her politics. We had plenty of nanny-statism on sugar tax, social policy and heavy flirting with minimum alcohol pricing during the Cameron years.
Ministers have watered down the UK’s long-awaited childhood obesity strategy, dropping proposed curbs on junk food television advertisements and focusing instead on the importance of school sport in moves seen as a victory for the food industry over health campaigners.
Now I happen to think we need to do more on childhood obesity (probably starting with parental education) but to criticise May for on one hand 'nanny statism' then on the other 'watering down guidelines' seems a bit confused....
It would be interesting to see a few chars on this: obesity rates over time, average calorie intake over time, and average activity per day over time.
I'm not sure the story should be all about the food industry.
My understanding is that on average, people consumed more calories 60-70 years ago, but with more people performing manual labour/walking to work or school, obesity wasn't a problem.
Or, the energy balance hypothesis of fat growth is incorrect.
You're right, the basic laws of thermo dynamics could be wrong.
Liberal elite experts dont like it up 'em. Who'd have thought it.
He's right though, whether he is 'liberal elite' or not.
The major problem in schools is the ~20% who leave each year functionally illiterate and/or innumerate. It is a tragedy for not just them, but the country as a whole. What is more, anyone wanting to reduce immigration should be intensely interested in improving the education of that particular cohort.
May's policy did nothing to address that problem. In fact, it would make it worse.
Why do you imply that basic standards of reading and writing have improved since grammar schools were mostly abolished when you must know that isn't true?
I don't mean to imply that: the standards have remained stubbornly low - I don't have the figures to hand, but I think since the 1950s; i.e. before the abolition of grammar schools. Decades of utter failure.
As such, you have a point. But the reverse does not apply, and the evidence, as linked on here in the past, shows that areas that have grammar schools do not help those who most need it.
Grammar schools will, by their very nature, suck up resources that would best be spent on the 20%.
Having said all that, I'm unsure how much money you can throw to help many of that 20%. Parenting is a massively important factor. But concentrating on the top end does nothing for them.
The Sutton Trust report into Selective education showed there was no evidence that they reduce standards in surrounding non selective schools. Overall because they improve their own results without reducing the results of the neighbouring schools they result in a rise in overall standards for a district that has selective schooling compared to one that doesn't.
I'd appreciate if you could point out the relevant passage(s) - the report is rather long.
To back up my point:
The first claim is easy to check. There is no aggregate improvement in results in areas that are wholly selective. The most important change is a clear distributional shift in who does well. In short, the minority of children streamed into the grammars do better. The remaining majority of children - who are not educated in grammars - do slightly worse.
Just out of interest, do you feel it's really a vital distinction between Trump actually having forcibly kissed women and grabbed at their genitals, and Trump having falsely boasted that he made a habit of forcibly kissing women and grabbed at their genitals?
I mean, do you think if he was only a fantasist who made up a lot of lies about molesting women, that's all fine and dandy?
It's all fine Chris, because anything Donald did, Billy did better, Bill did anything better than Don, no he didn't, yes he did, no he didn't, Yes He Did!
Comments
Heller readily acknowledged that she is a Clinton supporter who would not have backed Trump regardless of how he behaved the one time they met. Heller met Clinton briefly at a March fundraiser, and in January she donated the individual maximum of $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign. She believes she has also attended a party where the Clintons were present.
"This is dismal stuff"
I assume the above two sentences are what you self-aggrandisingly praised as "summarise it in a sentence or two" ?
Also, you should always consider the source.
But my main problem is that they would draw the government's focus in the long run.
I'm agnostic on the issue, but many of the objections to grammars appear to be found in antipathy to what existed in the 50s, when there was a genuine and massive disparity in resources, rather than a level headed analysis of May's rather unrevolutionary (and at this stage rather undefined) proposals.
In any event, if you are concerned about basic numeracy and literacy, preschool parenting, early years and primary schooling are of far more salience.
NEW THREAD
Never... ever... lose an election. https://t.co/cHbQdxsokp
I think now he understands he is not PM material, I hope Osborne wakes up to that reality soon.
We joined 40 years ago called a common market,ever since the charlatans have been the pro EU political union nut jobs who have lied to the British public for years.
To back up my point:
The first claim is easy to check. There is no aggregate improvement in results in areas that are wholly selective. The most important change is a clear distributional shift in who does well. In short, the minority of children streamed into the grammars do better. The remaining majority of children - who are not educated in grammars - do slightly worse.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36662965
Though it is unsourced.
May is not, as far as I can see, proposing to replicate Kent.