Ohio still challenging for Dems early vote. 10/15/16 comparison to 10/13/12 Coyahoga -18.1% Franklin -31.9% 49 other counties +0.1%
Trump is going to win Ohio and Iowa and lose N.Carolina.
I will not be shocked if the result is exactly like 2012 with the above exemption.
Yep. 100% agree.
Indeed, 322-216 with Hillary winning by a 4% margin nationally is probably the safest estimate now.
More interesting is the senate. Missouri for a Dem gain is a good possibility despite being behind in the public polling as Kabder is a good candidate.
You were the one discussing FTT and the like, weren't you?
Oh, and immigration.
I was discussing influence and the fairly non-existent presence of it.
The deal Dave did tells you all you need to know about our influence on immigation alongside the Turkey payout provoked by Merkel acting like the Empress of Europe.
The bailout of Greece is another example, and earlier this week Moscovici was babbling on about advances on FTT.
The FTT would only apply to the 10 EU countries that signed up for it. The rest have an opt-out. Exactly how is that evidence of the nasty EU? I'd hate to think you'd voted Leave because you hadn't read beyond the headline.
chestnut's wider point is good though. If the UK had real clout, the EU would have offered us a better deal than that ludicrous pile of shite Cameron served up before the referendum.
Theoretically the UK SHOULD have influence, and in some practical forms we do, but we are not in the DNA of the EU the same way as France and Germany. We were not there at the conception, so we never have the rights of a parent. We're like a rich boozy uncle who brings champagne to the Christmas dinner table, and gets sage and onion stuffing and a temporary kind of family in return. But we're not intrinsic, and arguments develop every Boxing Day.
Alternatively the pile of shite was merely an opening offer which no one expected Cameron to accept, and if he had persevered we could have had a deal reflecting our clout, but Cameron was too lazy and conceited to bother.
Cameron's legacy is so confusing.
Without Brexit, I would have put him in the top flight. It's easy to forget how terribly screwed things seemed in 2008/9 and also how challenging to run a coalition government.
But Brexit immediately puts him on a par with Chamberlain. Even if it turns out successful in 25 years, he might only get promotion to Brown.
Cameron may well be fondly remembered as a great democrat. History views Major far more favourably than he was at the time. Blair has had the opposite effect with time.
I can't see how history will look kindly on Cameron, what did he achieve ? scant f all.
In the end, would that be really better than what we had or will it save our "face" by claiming we are independent.
I wonder what assurances did May give Ghosn of Nissan.
According to Ghosn, trade would be on on the same terms as now. Maybe she will sign up to the Customs Union. That will give Ghosn most of what he needs.
Is any website reporting that Clinton is taking a week off? I haven't been able to find any yet.
Far from being unremarkable because normal, or even sensible, disappearing for several days would be idiotic if by choice. It would give a lot of ammunition to her opponent regarding her health, which is one of the main things he's focusing on in his TV advertising.
Those are factual event-listing sites so there can be no arguing with those. As you are partisan in all this you may not like the language of the analysis here but it seems reasonable to me:
Hillary, meanwhile, is relying on public appearances from President Barack Obama, her husband, former president Bill Clinton, and her daughter, Chelsea on Oct. 14.
Sen. Tim Kaine, Clinton’s running mate, will speak on her behalf during appearances in Florida and Maryland on Oct. 16 and 17.
From Oct. 18-25, Clinton will be represented by Kaine, Hollywood star Jon Favreau, musician Moby and others during private fundraisers.
This is not the first time Clinton has disappeared during the campaign.
Throughout the campaign, the former secretary of state has avoided press conferences, and, in leu of holding rallies, has held private fundraisers.
As the Washington Examiner reported in August, Clinton’s campaign schedule has always been “noticeably thin.”
You really can spot the posters on here who don't work in the financial services, banking, and insurance industries a mile off.
You mean the majority of the public who aren't involved in 'spivving'?
Poor show old fruit.
Eight years ago the City and it's decision making had this country on it's knees. A little humility is in order.
No it didn't. The profligacy of one G. Brown who'd maxed out the nations credit card relying on taxes the City was paying under the regulation he'd put in place had this country on its knees.
Recessions happen, we should be sturdy enough to cope when one does. Though again that G Brown believed he had eliminates boom and bust.
You were the one discussing FTT and the like, weren't you?
Oh, and immigration.
I was discussing influence and the fairly non-existent presence of it.
The deal Dave did tells you all you need to know about our influence on immigation alongside the Turkey payout provoked by Merkel acting like the Empress of Europe.
The bailout of Greece is another example, and earlier this week Moscovici was babbling on about advances on FTT.
The FTT would only apply to the 10 EU countries that signed up for it. The rest have an opt-out. Exactly how is that evidence of the nasty EU? I'd hate to think you'd voted Leave because you hadn't read beyond the headline.
chestnut's wider point is good though. If the UK had real clout, the EU would have offered us a better deal than that ludicrous pile of shite Cameron served up before the referendum.
Theoretically the UK SHOULD have influence, and in some practical forms we do, but we are not in the DNA of the EU the same way as France and Germany. We were not there at the conception, so we never have the rights of a parent. We're like a rich boozy uncle who brings champagne to the Christmas dinner table, and gets sage and onion stuffing and a temporary kind of family in return. But we're not intrinsic, and arguments develop every Boxing Day.
Alternatively the pile of shite was merely an opening offer which no one expected Cameron to accept, and if he had persevered we could have had a deal reflecting our clout, but Cameron was too lazy and conceited to bother.
Cameron's legacy is so confusing.
Without Brexit, I would have put him in the top flight. It's easy to forget how terribly screwed things seemed in 2008/9 and also how challenging to run a coalition government.
But Brexit immediately puts him on a par with Chamberlain. Even if it turns out successful in 25 years, he might only get promotion to Brown.
Cameron may well be fondly remembered as a great democrat. History views Major far more favourably than he was at the time. Blair has had the opposite effect with time.
No. He will be remembered as the ultimate loser.
What proof is there history views "Major far more favourably than he was at the time" Can you substantiate that claim ? My more view is he was a tosser.
I can't see how history will look kindly on Cameron, what did he achieve ? scant f all.
On leaving, he said what he was most proud of was legislation allowing a man to walk another man up the aisle.
And he was prime minister for about as long as Clement Attlee.
It's a pretty impressive achievement. My daughter was born just after the law changed, I'm proud she will never live in a country where that was forbidden. She will never understand such prejudice and when she grows up it will be as alien to her as laws forbidding interracial marriages etc are to me. Well done Mr Cameron.
If TMpm negotiates a price for passporting rights, she should also arrange for it to be paid by the beneficiaries, i.e. "the City". I will applaud if she manages that.
Given her marvellous conference speech, that is a tremendous idea.
You were the one discussing FTT and the like, weren't you?
Oh, and immigration.
I was discussing influence and the fairly non-existent presence of it.
The deal Dave did tells you all you need to know about our influence on immigation alongside the Turkey payout provoked by Merkel acting like the Empress of Europe.
The bailout of Greece is another example, and earlier this week Moscovici was babbling on about advances on FTT.
The FTT would only apply to the 10 EU countries that signed up for it. The rest have an opt-out. Exactly how is that evidence of the nasty EU? I'd hate to think you'd voted Leave because you hadn't read beyond the headline.
The way the tax is structured it would have caught transactions taking place in countries, such as Britain, which opted out of it. It was, a cynic might argue, designed to raise money from the one country which had a significant financial services industry despite that country theoretically having an opt out and despite all our influence, an influence which would have got smaller as a result of QMV being applied to financial services.
Brexit - in whatever form it takes - will mean less influence than before in financial services regulation. But the level of influence we would have had in future was pretty small and likely to get smaller. Financial services are not just provided to the EU. London's main competitor is not Paris or Frankfurt but New York and Asia.
And there is a world beyond the City of London.
As someone who has worked in financial services and government, including in a very small way on the Single European Act, for ca. 30 years, I have probably forgotten more EU directives than is decent in a well ordered life. The level of ignorance about what the City does and the EU's approach to it is staggering.
But then the City has been its own worst enemy - much like the EU, in fact - and neither are particularly popular with the British public, no matter what economic advantages they may bring.
I can't see how history will look kindly on Cameron, what did he achieve ? scant f all.
On leaving, he said what he was most proud of was legislation allowing a man to walk another man up the aisle.
And he was prime minister for about as long as Clement Attlee.
It's a pretty impressive achievement. My daughter was born just after the law changed, I'm proud she will never live in a country where that was forbidden. She will never understand such prejudice and when she grows up it will be as alien to her as laws forbidding interracial marriages etc are to me. Well done Mr Cameron.
How do you know she won't live in one of the 90% of the countries in the world where it doesn't happen? Why not let groups of three people get married, or someone marry their sibling? Men and women are different, children do best when raised by adults of both sexes, the state should recognise those facts, and most states still do. Well done, the 90% of the world that's less susceptible to Hollywood.
I can't see how history will look kindly on Cameron, what did he achieve ? scant f all.
On leaving, he said what he was most proud of was legislation allowing a man to walk another man up the aisle.
And he was prime minister for about as long as Clement Attlee.
Cameron will be forgotten. It will be May, not Cameron, associated with Brexit.
I think sadly Cameron will be remembered like Eden. If I think Eden I think Suez and that is what it will be like for Cameron. A shame but it is what it is.
But then the City has been its own worst enemy - much like the EU, in fact - and neither are particularly popular with the British public, no matter what economic advantages they may bring.
Despite massive propaganda by the City, many people still despise moneylending and insurance arseholes, especially when they claim they're so productive. Why can it be?
I can't see how history will look kindly on Cameron, what did he achieve ? scant f all.
On leaving, he said what he was most proud of was legislation allowing a man to walk another man up the aisle.
And he was prime minister for about as long as Clement Attlee.
It's a pretty impressive achievement. My daughter was born just after the law changed, I'm proud she will never live in a country where that was forbidden. She will never understand such prejudice and when she grows up it will be as alien to her as laws forbidding interracial marriages etc are to me. Well done Mr Cameron.
How do you know she won't live in one of the 90% of the countries in the world where it doesn't happen? Why not let groups of three people get married, or someone marry their sibling? Men and women are different, children do best when raised by adults of both sexes, the state should recognise those facts, and most states still do. Well done, the 90% of the world that's less susceptible to Hollywood.
"children do best when raised by adults of both sexes" = Nothing to do with marriage of course.
I can't see how history will look kindly on Cameron, what did he achieve ? scant f all.
On leaving, he said what he was most proud of was legislation allowing a man to walk another man up the aisle.
And he was prime minister for about as long as Clement Attlee.
It's a pretty impressive achievement. My daughter was born just after the law changed, I'm proud she will never live in a country where that was forbidden. She will never understand such prejudice and when she grows up it will be as alien to her as laws forbidding interracial marriages etc are to me. Well done Mr Cameron.
How do you know she won't live in one of the 90% of the countries in the world where it doesn't happen? Why not let groups of three people get married, or someone marry their sibling? Men and women are different, children do best when raised by adults of both sexes, the state should recognise those facts, and most states still do. Well done, the 90% of the world that's less susceptible to Hollywood.
By the time she's 18 that 90% will be far smaller and viewed like those nations where women can't drive. Sure it exists but not what we want for our future.
Marriage isn't about children, infertile couples can get married and unmarried people can have kids. Approximately half of all children are born out of wedlock. The proportion of children who will reach 18 with both their parents still married to them is even smaller. Your fantasies of what family should be are not an excuse to deny people the right to get married.
I can't see how history will look kindly on Cameron, what did he achieve ? scant f all.
On leaving, he said what he was most proud of was legislation allowing a man to walk another man up the aisle.
And he was prime minister for about as long as Clement Attlee.
It's a pretty impressive achievement. My daughter was born just after the law changed, I'm proud she will never live in a country where that was forbidden. She will never understand such prejudice and when she grows up it will be as alien to her as laws forbidding interracial marriages etc are to me. Well done Mr Cameron.
How do you know she won't live in one of the 90% of the countries in the world where it doesn't happen? Why not let groups of three people get married, or someone marry their sibling? Men and women are different, children do best when raised by adults of both sexes, the state should recognise those facts, and most states still do. Well done, the 90% of the world that's less susceptible to Hollywood.
Indeed the UK does recognise that biological fact that men and women are different, we do have legal gender categories after all. Seeing as the same sex marriage act doesn't ban heterosexual marriage, what relevance does that have? Presumably marriage is founded on something stronger than just the fact that men and women are different?
If there was any legitimate fact that children did better raised in different sex couples, then surely that would be an issue for child adoption by same sex couples, as marriage doesn't actually legally force you to have children?
I can't see how history will look kindly on Cameron, what did he achieve ? scant f all.
On leaving, he said what he was most proud of was legislation allowing a man to walk another man up the aisle.
And he was prime minister for about as long as Clement Attlee.
It's a pretty impressive achievement. My daughter was born just after the law changed, I'm proud she will never live in a country where that was forbidden. She will never understand such prejudice and when she grows up it will be as alien to her as laws forbidding interracial marriages etc are to me. Well done Mr Cameron.
How do you know she won't live in one of the 90% of the countries in the world where it doesn't happen? Why not let groups of three people get married, or someone marry their sibling? Men and women are different, children do best when raised by adults of both sexes, the state should recognise those facts, and most states still do. Well done, the 90% of the world that's less susceptible to Hollywood.
By the time she's 18 that 90% will be far smaller and viewed like those nations where women can't drive. Sure it exists but not what we want for our future.
Marriage isn't about children, infertile couples can get married and unmarried people can have kids. Approximately half of all children are born out of wedlock. The proportion of children who will reach 18 with both their parents still married to them is even smaller. Your fantasies of what family should be are not an excuse to deny people the right to get married.
Can you distinguish between fantasy and an opinion you disagree with?
Basically you think the law as it has existed for a few years is just right, right? You'd still deny marriage rights to siblings, polygamists and threesomes? It's ridiculous to change marriage from its long-time meaning just because some within a tiny minority of abnormal people want to imitate normal people.
I can't see how history will look kindly on Cameron, what did he achieve ? scant f all.
On leaving, he said what he was most proud of was legislation allowing a man to walk another man up the aisle.
And he was prime minister for about as long as Clement Attlee.
It's a pretty impressive achievement. My daughter was born just after the law changed, I'm proud she will never live in a country where that was forbidden. She will never understand such prejudice and when she grows up it will be as alien to her as laws forbidding interracial marriages etc are to me. Well done Mr Cameron.
How do you know she won't live in one of the 90% of the countries in the world where it doesn't happen? Why not let groups of three people get married, or someone marry their sibling? Men and women are different, children do best when raised by adults of both sexes, the state should recognise those facts, and most states still do. Well done, the 90% of the world that's less susceptible to Hollywood.
By the time she's 18 that 90% will be far smaller and viewed like those nations where women can't drive. Sure it exists but not what we want for our future.
Marriage isn't about children, infertile couples can get married and unmarried people can have kids. Approximately half of all children are born out of wedlock. The proportion of children who will reach 18 with both their parents still married to them is even smaller. Your fantasies of what family should be are not an excuse to deny people the right to get married.
Can you distinguish between fantasy and an opinion you disagree with?
Basically you think the law as it has existed for a few years is just right, right? You'd still deny marriage rights to siblings, polygamists and threesomes? It's ridiculous to change marriage from its long-time meaning just because some within a tiny minority of abnormal people want to imitate normal people.
Not sure if you're just trolling or just ignorant. Would you support bans on interracial marriages?
I can't see how history will look kindly on Cameron, what did he achieve ? scant f all.
On leaving, he said what he was most proud of was legislation allowing a man to walk another man up the aisle.
And he was prime minister for about as long as Clement Attlee.
It's a pretty impressive achievement. My daughter was born just after the law changed, I'm proud she will never live in a country where that was forbidden. She will never understand such prejudice and when she grows up it will be as alien to her as laws forbidding interracial marriages etc are to me. Well done Mr Cameron.
How do you know she won't live in one of the 90% of the countries in the world where it doesn't happen? Why not let groups of three people get married, or someone marry their sibling? Men and women are different, children do best when raised by adults of both sexes, the state should recognise those facts, and most states still do. Well done, the 90% of the world that's less susceptible to Hollywood.
By the time she's 18 that 90% will be far smaller and viewed like those nations where women can't drive. Sure it exists but not what we want for our future.
Marriage isn't about children, infertile couples can get married and unmarried people can have kids. Approximately half of all children are born out of wedlock. The proportion of children who will reach 18 with both their parents still married to them is even smaller. Your fantasies of what family should be are not an excuse to deny people the right to get married.
Can you distinguish between fantasy and an opinion you disagree with?
Basically you think the law as it has existed for a few years is just right, right? You'd still deny marriage rights to siblings, polygamists and threesomes? It's ridiculous to change marriage from its long-time meaning just because some within a tiny minority of abnormal people want to imitate normal people.
Interesting. Your last sentence indicates your problem is with LGBT people, who you regard as abnormal.
I can't see how history will look kindly on Cameron, what did he achieve ? scant f all.
On leaving, he said what he was most proud of was legislation allowing a man to walk another man up the aisle.
And he was prime minister for about as long as Clement Attlee.
It's a pretty impressive achievement. My daughter was born just after the law changed, I'm proud she will never live in a country where that was forbidden. She will never understand such prejudice and when she grows up it will be as alien to her as laws forbidding interracial marriages etc are to me. Well done Mr Cameron.
How do you know she won't live in one of the 90% of the countries in the world where it doesn't happen? Why not let groups of three people get married, or someone marry their sibling? Men and women are different, children do best when raised by adults of both sexes, the state should recognise those facts, and most states still do. Well done, the 90% of the world that's less susceptible to Hollywood.
By the time she's 18 that 90% will be far smaller and viewed like those nations where women can't drive. Sure it exists but not what we want for our future.
Marriage isn't about children, infertile couples can get married and unmarried people can have kids. Approximately half of all children are born out of wedlock. The proportion of children who will reach 18 with both their parents still married to them is even smaller. Your fantasies of what family should be are not an excuse to deny people the right to get married.
Can you distinguish between fantasy and an opinion you disagree with?
Basically you think the law as it has existed for a few years is just right, right? You'd still deny marriage rights to siblings, polygamists and threesomes? It's ridiculous to change marriage from its long-time meaning just because some within a tiny minority of abnormal people want to imitate normal people.
Long-term meaning? How many characters in the Bible were monogamous?
But then the City has been its own worst enemy - much like the EU, in fact - and neither are particularly popular with the British public, no matter what economic advantages they may bring.
Despite massive propaganda by the City, many people still despise moneylending and insurance arseholes, especially when they claim they're so productive. Why can it be?
Is any website reporting that Clinton is taking a week off? I haven't been able to find any yet.
Far from being unremarkable because normal, or even sensible, disappearing for several days would be idiotic if by choice. It would give a lot of ammunition to her opponent regarding her health, which is one of the main things he's focusing on in his TV advertising.
Those are factual event-listing sites so there can be no arguing with those. As you are partisan in all this you may not like the language of the analysis here but it seems reasonable to me:
Hillary, meanwhile, is relying on public appearances from President Barack Obama, her husband, former president Bill Clinton, and her daughter, Chelsea on Oct. 14.
Sen. Tim Kaine, Clinton’s running mate, will speak on her behalf during appearances in Florida and Maryland on Oct. 16 and 17.
From Oct. 18-25, Clinton will be represented by Kaine, Hollywood star Jon Favreau, musician Moby and others during private fundraisers.
This is not the first time Clinton has disappeared during the campaign.
Throughout the campaign, the former secretary of state has avoided press conferences, and, in leu of holding rallies, has held private fundraisers.
As the Washington Examiner reported in August, Clinton’s campaign schedule has always been “noticeably thin.”
I can't see how history will look kindly on Cameron, what did he achieve ? scant f all.
On leaving, he said what he was most proud of was legislation allowing a man to walk another man up the aisle.
And he was prime minister for about as long as Clement Attlee.
It's a pretty impressive achievement. My daughter was born just after the law changed, I'm proud she will never live in a country where that was forbidden. She will never understand such prejudice and when she grows up it will be as alien to her as laws forbidding interracial marriages etc are to me. Well done Mr Cameron.
How do you know she won't live in one of the 90% of the countries in the world where it doesn't happen? Why not let groups of three people get married, or someone marry their sibling? Men and women are different, children do best when raised by adults of both sexes, the state should recognise those facts, and most states still do. Well done, the 90% of the world that's less susceptible to Hollywood.
By the time she's 18 that 90% will be far smaller and viewed like those nations where women can't drive. Sure it exists but not what we want for our future.
Marriage isn't about children, infertile couples can get married and unmarried people can have kids. Approximately half of all children are born out of wedlock. The proportion of children who will reach 18 with both their parents still married to them is even smaller. Your fantasies of what family should be are not an excuse to deny people the right to get married.
Can you distinguish between fantasy and an opinion you disagree with?
Basically you think the law as it has existed for a few years is just right, right? You'd still deny marriage rights to siblings, polygamists and threesomes? It's ridiculous to change marriage from its long-time meaning just because some within a tiny minority of abnormal people want to imitate normal people.
You were the one discussing FTT and the like, weren't you?
Oh, and immigration.
I was discussing influence and the fairly non-existent presence of it.
The deal Dave did tells you all you need to know about our influence on immigation alongside the Turkey payout provoked by Merkel acting like the Empress of Europe.
The bailout of Greece is another example, and earlier this week Moscovici was babbling on about advances on FTT.
The FTT would only apply to the 10 EU countries that signed up for it. The rest have an opt-out. Exactly how is that evidence of the nasty EU? I'd hate to think you'd voted Leave because you hadn't read beyond the headline.
chestnut's wider point is good though. If the UK had real clout, the EU would have offered us a better deal than that ludicrous pile of shite Cameron served up before the referendum.
Theoretically the UK SHOULD have influence, and in some practical forms we do, but we are not in the DNA of the EU the same way as France and Germany. We were not there at the conception, so we never have the rights of a parent. We're like a rich boozy uncle who brings champagne to the Christmas dinner table, and gets sage and onion stuffing and a temporary kind of family in return. But we're not intrinsic, and arguments develop every Boxing Day.
Alternatively the pile of shite was merely an opening offer which no one expected Cameron to accept, and if he had persevered we could have had a deal reflecting our clout, but Cameron was too lazy and conceited to bother. Edit sorry point already made by Gw.
They weren't going to go for it. They never were. Britain has a lot of clout, but it was already reflected in the treaties that had been negotiated to date.
Renegotiations are pretty much always a scam. It was a scam when Tsipras pretended he was going to get the Germans to pay for Greek pensions, it was a scam when Obama pretended he was going to renegotiate NAFTA, it was a scam when Cameron pretended he was going to persuade the EU to turn it into something else.
You're a public schoolboy Osbornite who thinks the grammar school vicars daughter is not up to the job.
Much as other public schoolboys thought the grammar school grocers daughter wasn't up to the job forty years ago....
They were wrong then.......
her mediocrity is right there in her record
(without wishing to insult yr personal friend/acquaintance/classmate)
Her record is fair game - just list the Tory Party Chairmen who confronted their own party with unpleasant truths or Home Secretaries who did the same to the Police Federation.......
You're a public schoolboy Osbornite who thinks the grammar school vicars daughter is not up to the job.
Much as other public schoolboys thought the grammar school grocers daughter wasn't up to the job forty years ago....
They were wrong then.......
her mediocrity is right there in her record
(without wishing to insult yr personal friend/acquaintance/classmate)
Her record is fair game - just list the Tory Party Chairmen who confronted their own party with unpleasant truths or Home Secretaries who did the same to the Police Federation.......
She has made some "brave" speeches, indeed. But, still the record is mediocre. And the party is rapidly regaining the "nasty" via its flirtation with UKIP politics, after all Dave's hard work (possibly)
You're a public schoolboy Osbornite who thinks the grammar school vicars daughter is not up to the job.
Much as other public schoolboys thought the grammar school grocers daughter wasn't up to the job forty years ago....
They were wrong then.......
her mediocrity is right there in her record
(without wishing to insult yr personal friend/acquaintance/classmate)
Her record is fair game - just list the Tory Party Chairmen who confronted their own party with unpleasant truths or Home Secretaries who did the same to the Police Federation.......
the record is mediocre.
Saying something doesn't make it true.
How does a 'mediocre' Home Secretary get left in position for so long?
From that Tory fanzine - the BBC:
Home secretaries don't usually last longer than a couple of years: Mrs May was the sixth holder of the post in six years.
Yet this vicar's daughter with a penchant for stylish footwear confounded my expectations, and those of many others, by remaining in post for longer than any other home secretary in modern times.
Mrs May's single-mindedness helped drive through the most far-reaching changes to policing in a generation, with the replacement of police authorities by 41 police and crime commissioners: the way forces are governed will never be the same again.
Organisations that she distrusted - the National Policing Improvement Agency, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation - have either been scrapped or neutered. Those which are independent of the police - HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Independent Police Complaints Commission - have seen their budgets and influence increase.
"After reading through some two hundred Post editorials and op-eds about Sanders, I found a very basic disparity. Of the Post stories that could be said to take an obvious stand, the negative outnumbered the positive roughly five to one.2 (Opinion pieces about Hillary Clinton, by comparison, came much closer to a fifty-fifty split.)
Comments
And he was prime minister for about as long as Clement Attlee.
https://hillaryspeeches.com/scheduled-events/
...shows nothing from HRC until the debate on the 19th and then not afterwards either.
Similarly https://www.willhillarywin.com/hillary-clintons-events/
Those are factual event-listing sites so there can be no arguing with those. As you are partisan in all this you may not like the language of the analysis here but it seems reasonable to me:
Hillary, meanwhile, is relying on public appearances from President Barack Obama, her husband, former president Bill Clinton, and her daughter, Chelsea on Oct. 14.
Sen. Tim Kaine, Clinton’s running mate, will speak on her behalf during appearances in Florida and Maryland on Oct. 16 and 17.
From Oct. 18-25, Clinton will be represented by Kaine, Hollywood star Jon Favreau, musician Moby and others during private fundraisers.
This is not the first time Clinton has disappeared during the campaign.
Throughout the campaign, the former secretary of state has avoided press conferences, and, in leu of holding rallies, has held private fundraisers.
As the Washington Examiner reported in August, Clinton’s campaign schedule has always been “noticeably thin.”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillary-clintons-schedule-razor-thin-ahead-of-oct-19-debate/
He achieved nothing of worth.
Recessions happen, we should be sturdy enough to cope when one does. Though again that G Brown believed he had eliminates boom and bust.
Can you substantiate that claim ?
My more view is he was a tosser.
Brexit - in whatever form it takes - will mean less influence than before in financial services regulation. But the level of influence we would have had in future was pretty small and likely to get smaller. Financial services are not just provided to the EU. London's main competitor is not Paris or Frankfurt but New York and Asia.
And there is a world beyond the City of London.
As someone who has worked in financial services and government, including in a very small way on the Single European Act, for ca. 30 years, I have probably forgotten more EU directives than is decent in a well ordered life. The level of ignorance about what the City does and the EU's approach to it is staggering.
But then the City has been its own worst enemy - much like the EU, in fact - and neither are particularly popular with the British public, no matter what economic advantages they may bring.
Marriage isn't about children, infertile couples can get married and unmarried people can have kids. Approximately half of all children are born out of wedlock. The proportion of children who will reach 18 with both their parents still married to them is even smaller. Your fantasies of what family should be are not an excuse to deny people the right to get married.
If there was any legitimate fact that children did better raised in different sex couples, then surely that would be an issue for child adoption by same sex couples, as marriage doesn't actually legally force you to have children?
Basically you think the law as it has existed for a few years is just right, right? You'd still deny marriage rights to siblings, polygamists and threesomes? It's ridiculous to change marriage from its long-time meaning just because some within a tiny minority of abnormal people want to imitate normal people.
No, you probably don't
Renegotiations are pretty much always a scam. It was a scam when Tsipras pretended he was going to get the Germans to pay for Greek pensions, it was a scam when Obama pretended he was going to renegotiate NAFTA, it was a scam when Cameron pretended he was going to persuade the EU to turn it into something else.
http://midnightsunak.com/2016/10/16/midnight-sun-exclusive-new-poll-shows-trump-clinton-tied-alaska/
Top trolling TSE!
You're a public schoolboy Osbornite who thinks the grammar school vicars daughter is not up to the job.
Much as other public schoolboys thought the grammar school grocers daughter wasn't up to the job forty years ago....
They were wrong then.......
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-14/elite-have-no-idea-society-near-breaking-point
there are plenty of societies around the world near breaking point. maybe this tit should broaden his horizons and go and visit some
Donald Trump Wants To Legalize Marijuana https://t.co/pwncmnLEFb
How does a 'mediocre' Home Secretary get left in position for so long?
From that Tory fanzine - the BBC:
Home secretaries don't usually last longer than a couple of years: Mrs May was the sixth holder of the post in six years.
Yet this vicar's daughter with a penchant for stylish footwear confounded my expectations, and those of many others, by remaining in post for longer than any other home secretary in modern times.
Mrs May's single-mindedness helped drive through the most far-reaching changes to policing in a generation, with the replacement of police authorities by 41 police and crime commissioners: the way forces are governed will never be the same again.
Organisations that she distrusted - the National Policing Improvement Agency, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation - have either been scrapped or neutered. Those which are independent of the police - HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Independent Police Complaints Commission - have seen their budgets and influence increase.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36767844
http://harpers.org/archive/2016/11/swat-team-2/?single=1
"After reading through some two hundred Post editorials and op-eds about Sanders, I found a very basic disparity. Of the Post stories that could be said to take an obvious stand, the negative outnumbered the positive roughly five to one.2 (Opinion pieces about Hillary Clinton, by comparison, came much closer to a fifty-fifty split.)
Dead man's keys
Wikileaks
pre-commitment 1: John Kerry 4bb96075acadc3d80b5ac872874c3037a386f4f595fe99e687439aabd0219809