There will be open borders in the future....it'll seem unthinkable that people were restricted where they live because of their nationality. A bit like stopping a Yorkshireman living in Lancashire...as much as I'd like that (joking). Brexit and Trump will appear just blips on the pathway.
Sorry for being a tad antagonistic last night. The EU migrants coming here to take our benefits is a line that hits a nerve when there is just so much economic evidence to suggest the contrary.
You are right to call it out, it's utter garbage.
We are not being beseiged by an army of Roma homeless, whatever SeanT says.
The vast, vast majority of EU migrants are here to work. On average, they have higher education levels, higher employment rates, and lower dependence on government services (with the possible exception of maternity) than the average Brit.
We profit massively from their being here.
We can also compare and contrast with low immigration countries like Japan who are now in demographically dictated long term decline.
I have sympathy with the argument that we need democratic control over migration. And governments of both stripes have failed to truly appreciate the scale of migration since 1997 and what it represents in terms of societal change. Too much change is dizzying.
But lets not hear about migrants stealing our jobs and milking our welfare systems. It ain't true.
And I'd like to see evidence of the @rcs1000 argument that our over-generous in-work benefit systems act as a significant magnet. My own theory is that London's clear dynamism, the strength of the pound, the opportunity to live in an English speaking country, existing ethnic communities, and a perception that we are much more tolerant of foreigners in general - the "British Dream" if you like - are more important factors.
Reforming our welfare toward a contributions system would I suspect create a lot of upheaval and have very little impact.
I can't give you evidence but there is plenty of anecdotes up north regarding Aldi and the elk advertising their 14 hour a week roles and them being filled with Eastern Europeans rather than the local people who also wanted them.
So Nissan have acted ruthlessly in their own self interest and demanded a Corporate Welfare Cheque to stay in Sunderland. Something they would have done without a Corporate Welfare Cheque if we were staying in the Single Market. As ever the sites most right wing posters will cheer the economics of Jeremy Corbyn if it involves scoring a point against the EU.
Well this economic liberal isn't cheering the market becoming less free, isn't cheering for facto state subsidy of winners the state picked, isn't cheering the opportunity costs of the state subsidy and can't the preference of big and Iconic producers being able to black mail us in a way smaller manufacturers won't be able to.
At least part of Margaret Thatcher will be turning in her grave. And now we've given our lunch money to Nissan who is next ?
You do not know the details of the deal but this is a daggar to the heart of the remoaners and will be followed by many more. Both politically and economically this is a big boost for Brexit - we are leaving and you need to move on
That's a pathetic analysis from anyone. From someone claiming to be a Conservative it's cult like.
You are struggling to accept we are leaving. We have a PM who will make a success of it. As a member of the conservative party I believe it is high time conservative remainers got in behind the government
I was critiquing the economics of the Nissan stunt. Offer a counter critique or I won't engage with. Your mixture of " Argument from ( self appointed ) authority " and mild Ad Hominem isn't worth engaging with on it's own.
Well, you seem to know the details of the "deal" with Nissan and we do not. So why don't you share your insider knowledge with us and then we can talk about the economics of it.
@rcs I could never understand why successive governments never got concessions with the EU over access to benefits. It would have cut out that argument at source.
I think post Brexit...something like the Auzzie visa system would work for the UK- one year open ended work visas for the EU which could be easily extended/ or made permanent once they have secured jobs. And work benefits to be achieved after 4 years.
There will be open borders in the future....it'll seem unthinkable that people were restricted where they live because of their nationality. A bit like stopping a Yorkshireman living in Lancashire...as much as I'd like that (joking). Brexit and Trump will appear just blips on the pathway.
Sorry for being a tad antagonistic last night. The EU migrants coming here to take our benefits is a line that hits a nerve when there is just so much economic evidence to suggest the contrary.
You are right to call it out, it's utter garbage.
We are not being beseiged by an army of Roma homeless, whatever SeanT says.
The vast, vast majority of EU migrants are here to work. On average, they have higher education levels, higher employment rates, and lower dependence on government services (with the possible exception of maternity) than the average Brit.
We profit massively from their being here.
We can also compare and contrast with low immigration countries like Japan who are now in demographically dictated long term decline.
I have sympathy with the argument that we need democratic control over migration. And governments of both stripes have failed to truly appreciate the scale of migration since 1997 and what it represents in terms of societal change. Too much change is dizzying.
But lets not hear about migrants stealing our jobs and milking our welfare systems. It ain't true.
And I'd like to see evidence of the @rcs1000 argument that our over-generous in-work benefit systems act as a significant magnet. My own theory is that London's clear dynamism, the strength of the pound, the opportunity to live in an English speaking country, existing ethnic communities, and a perception that we are much more tolerant of foreigners in general - the "British Dream" if you like - are more important factors.
Reforming our welfare toward a contributions system would I suspect create a lot of upheaval and have very little impact.
I can't give you evidence but there is plenty of anecdotes up north regarding Aldi and the elk advertising their 14 hour a week roles and them being filled with Eastern Europeans rather than the local people who also wanted them.
Can't argue with anecdote. I can only point to our very low unemployment rate (and very high employment rate) across all regions and ask whether these locals are really now sitting on the dole as a result.
As regrettable as this is, buried in the news is that overall figures were up 1pc, based on good growth from ROW.
I sense many Leave voters may not see a large increase in non EU foreign students as unalloyed good news.
Which would be pretty stupid of them. Overseas students effectively subsidise higher education for UK students, contribute significantly to the balance of payments, add to the intellectual talent pool, and spread British culture abroad.
Against that, there's the headline immigration figures, and....
Overseas students from outside the EU subsidise higher education for UK students. EU ones get the same loans we do and appear (based on the albeit limited information available) less likely to repay them.
There will be open borders in the future....it'll seem unthinkable that people were restricted where they live because of their nationality. A bit like stopping a Yorkshireman living in Lancashire...as much as I'd like that (joking). Brexit and Trump will appear just blips on the pathway.
Sorry for being a tad antagonistic last night. The EU migrants coming here to take our benefits is a line that hits a nerve when there is just so much economic evidence to suggest the contrary.
You are right to call it out, it's utter garbage.
We are not being beseiged by an army of Roma homeless, whatever SeanT says.
The vast, vast majority of EU migrants are here to work. On average, they have higher education levels, higher employment rates, and lower dependence on government services (with the possible exception of maternity) than the average Brit.
We profit massively from their being here.
We can also compare and contrast with low immigration countries like Japan who are now in demographically dictated long term decline.
I have sympathy with the argument that we need democratic control over migration. And governments of both stripes have failed to truly appreciate the scale of migration since 1997 and what it represents in terms of societal change. Too much change is dizzying.
But lets not hear about migrants stealing our jobs and milking our welfare systems. It ain't true.
And I'd like to see evidence of the @rcs1000 argument that our over-generous in-work benefit systems act as a significant magnet. My own theory is that London's clear dynamism, the strength of the pound, the opportunity to live in an English speaking country, existing ethnic communities, and a perception that we are much more tolerant of foreigners in general - the "British Dream" if you like - are more important factors.
Reforming our welfare toward a contributions system would I suspect create a lot of upheaval and have very little impact.
I can't give you evidence but there is plenty of anecdotes up north regarding Aldi and the elk advertising their 14 hour a week roles and them being filled with Eastern Europeans rather than the local people who also wanted them.
Can't argue with anecdote. I can only point to our very low unemployment rate (and very high employment rate) across all regions and ask whether these locals are really now sitting on the dole as a result.
We have a very high employment rate that masks an awful lot of under employment. you can hide 1.5 unemployed people by subsidising 2.5 people with tax credits and 14 hour a week jobs.
"... such as respect for the views and beliefs of others, gender equality, free speech, democracy, free press, a lack of corruption, etc."
That would rule out immigration from pretty much the whole of the Muslim World, the Indian subcontinent and great chunks of Eastern Europe., to say nothing of most of Africa. Actually your proposal would only allow free immigration to the Anglosphere and Western Europe. Maybe that is what you intend, but if I so I wouldn't count on someone not screaming "racist" at you.
Let them scream. Note that I'm not proposing a ban on immigration from any specific region, but I am supportive of choosing our friends with care.
Also note that I specifically said a "complete match" of values is not necessary. Personally, I'd allow free immigration from most of E.Europe (although I'm not convinced about Romania or Bulgaria) despite their issues with e.g. homophobia.
Another poor data dump from Florida for the Dems. Rep postal gap now widening a bit but even more remarkably Dems posting really poor in-person votes; in the last two days they've only had very slim leads.
Yes (I've found the URL now). It looks as though so far the Republicans have a lead of 2.8% in early postal voting, and the Democrats one of 4% in early in-person voting. Given that in the past there have been more postal votes, that suggests the Republicans may lead on early voting overall, which might indicate a narrow Trump victory in the state.
"... such as respect for the views and beliefs of others, gender equality, free speech, democracy, free press, a lack of corruption, etc."
That would rule out immigration from pretty much the whole of the Muslim World, the Indian subcontinent and great chunks of Eastern Europe., to say nothing of most of Africa. Actually your proposal would only allow free immigration to the Anglosphere and Western Europe. Maybe that is what you intend, but if I so I wouldn't count on someone not screaming "racist" at you.
Let them scream. Note that I'm not proposing a ban on immigration from any specific region, but I am supportive of choosing our friends with care.
We've spent 2500yrs building our culture - importing medieval views and those from places where these are a foreign concept is suicidal.
Import views incompatible with ours drags us backwards - it doesn't enlighten new arrivals who live in ghettos and brought all their baggage with them.
So Nissan have acted ruthlessly in their own self interest and demanded a Corporate Welfare Cheque to stay in Sunderland. Something they would have done without a Corporate Welfare Cheque if we were staying in the Single Market. As ever the sites most right wing posters will cheer the economics of Jeremy Corbyn if it involves scoring a point against the EU.
Well this economic liberal isn't cheering the market becoming less free, isn't cheering for facto state subsidy of winners the state picked, isn't cheering the opportunity costs of the state subsidy and can't the preference of big and Iconic producers being able to black mail us in a way smaller manufacturers won't be able to.
At least part of Margaret Thatcher will be turning in her grave. And now we've given our lunch money to Nissan who is next ?
Margaret Thatcher subsidised Nissan to come here back in 1984
And built a single market so that was pump priming. If we've promised to indemnify Nissan against the worst case scenario they ministers have issued a secret contingent liability. It may cost us nothng or it may cost us a fortune or something inbetween. But either way it's a contingent liability to get Nissan to do something they were going to do for free. It's not a sign of strength it's a sign of huge weakness. It's a shift of productive resources to a kind of Red 'Kipper/Blue Labourish economic Nationalism. It will end in tears. It always does.
The biggest contingent liability we have is on our banks and yet you seem quite ok with that.
I'm not OK with it at all. If only we could have proper capitalist Bank failures like the Cooperative. The owner took the hit as it should be. Railtrack was another model. We are up against the psychology of panic with Bank failures and shareholders know it. It's rather like Nissan's Brexit Pork. In my simplistic world the BoE would just flick a switch and cash machines would keep running. We could then then let shareholders be wiped out. But I'm sure there are good reasons why that scheme is nonsense. But if one industry has us over a barrel I'd rather not add Nissan.
I think those anecdotes are absolute bollox. Given two candidates of equal standing, I guarantee that 99% of English companies would always choose the Brit over the foreigner. Even if the Brit was a little bit less.....they would in all likelihood go for the Brit.
I recruited for years, and for years; I would have always chosen the Brit over the foreigner like for like...and I am at the extreme end of liberal, EU hugging Europhiles.
I don't deny that there is an argument to be had about EU migrants being prepared to work for less, but quite frankly my dear..... any idea that we were discriminating against Brits in favour of EU migrants like for like is crap.
We are not being beseiged by an army of Roma homeless, whatever SeanT says.
The vast, vast majority of EU migrants are here to work. On average, they have higher education levels, higher employment rates, and lower dependence on government services (with the possible exception of maternity) than the average Brit.
We profit massively from their being here.
We can also compare and contrast with low immigration countries like Japan who are now in demographically dictated long term decline.
I have sympathy with the argument that we need democratic control over migration. And governments of both stripes have failed to truly appreciate the scale of migration since 1997 and what it represents in terms of societal change. Too much change is dizzying.
But lets not hear about migrants stealing our jobs and milking our welfare systems. It ain't true.
And I'd like to see evidence of the @rcs1000 argument that our over-generous in-work benefit systems act as a significant magnet. My own theory is that London's clear dynamism, the strength of the pound, the opportunity to live in an English speaking country, existing ethnic communities, and a perception that we are much more tolerant of foreigners in general - the "British Dream" if you like - are more important factors.
Reforming our welfare toward a contributions system would I suspect create a lot of upheaval and have very little impact.
I can't give you evidence but there is plenty of anecdotes up north regarding Aldi and the elk advertising their 14 hour a week roles and them being filled with Eastern Europeans rather than the local people who also wanted them.
Can't argue with anecdote. I can only point to our very low unemployment rate (and very high employment rate) across all regions and ask whether these locals are really now sitting on the dole as a result.
We have a very high employment rate that masks an awful lot of under employment. you can hide 1.5 unemployed people by subsidising 2.5 people with tax credits and 14 hour a week jobs.
I'm afraid you'd need to persuade me that our reported figures are totally out of whack with our OECD peers.
No doubt there is disguised unemployment, and disguised underemployment, but I don't think the UK is unique in this respect.
So Nissan have acted ruthlessly in their own self interest and demanded a Corporate Welfare Cheque to stay in Sunderland. Something they would have done without a Corporate Welfare Cheque if we were staying in the Single Market. As ever the sites most right wing posters will cheer the economics of Jeremy Corbyn if it involves scoring a point against the EU.
Well this economic liberal isn't cheering the market becoming less free, isn't cheering for facto state subsidy of winners the state picked, isn't cheering the opportunity costs of the state subsidy and can't the preference of big and Iconic producers being able to black mail us in a way smaller manufacturers won't be able to.
At least part of Margaret Thatcher will be turning in her grave. And now we've given our lunch money to Nissan who is next ?
You do not know the details of the deal but this is a daggar to the heart of the remoaners and will be followed by many more. Both politically and economically this is a big boost for Brexit - we are leaving and you need to move on
That's a pathetic analysis from anyone. From someone claiming to be a Conservative it's cult like.
You are struggling to accept we are leaving. We have a PM who will make a success of it. As a member of the conservative party I believe it is high time conservative remainers got in behind the government
I was critiquing the economics of the Nissan stunt. Offer a counter critique or I won't engage with. Your mixture of " Argument from ( self appointed ) authority " and mild Ad Hominem isn't worth engaging with on it's own.
Well, you seem to know the details of the "deal" with Nissan and we do not. So why don't you share your insider knowledge with us and then we can talk about the economics of it.
No I don't know the details of the deal. And neither does parliament. Given what Nissan have said about it that's rather disturbing.
So Nissan have acted ruthlessly in their own self interest and demanded a Corporate Welfare Cheque to stay in Sunderland. Something they would have done without a Corporate Welfare Cheque if we were staying in the Single Market. As ever the sites most right wing posters will cheer the economics of Jeremy Corbyn if it involves scoring a point against the EU.
Well this economic liberal isn't cheering the market becoming less free, isn't cheering for facto state subsidy of winners the state picked, isn't cheering the opportunity costs of the state subsidy and can't the preference of big and Iconic producers being able to black mail us in a way smaller manufacturers won't be able to.
At least part of Margaret Thatcher will be turning in her grave. And now we've given our lunch money to Nissan who is next ?
Margaret Thatcher subsidised Nissan to come here back in 1984
And built a single market so that was pump priming. If we've promised to indemnify Nissan against the worst case scenario they ministers have issued a secret contingent liability. It may cost us nothng or it may cost us a fortune or something inbetween. But either way it's a contingent liability to get Nissan to do something they were going to do for free. It's not a sign of strength it's a sign of huge weakness. It's a shift of productive resources to a kind of Red 'Kipper/Blue Labourish economic Nationalism. It will end in tears. It always does.
The biggest contingent liability we have is on our banks and yet you seem quite ok with that.
I'm not OK with it at all. If only we could have proper capitalist Bank failures like the Cooperative. The owner took the hit as it should be. Railtrack was another model. We are up against the psychology of panic with Bank failures and shareholders know it. It's rather like Nissan's Brexit Pork. In my simplistic world the BoE would just flick a switch and cash machines would keep running. We could then then let shareholders be wiped out. But I'm sure there are good reasons why that scheme is nonsense. But if one industry has us over a barrel I'd rather not add Nissan.
and yet the organisation you fear leaving bribes vested interests up to the eyeballs, farmers, regions ( how much did Wallonia's change of mind cost ? ) and industry ( we paid Ford to close its Transit plant and move production to Turkey ).
Nevertheless, it is unhealthy to have a situation where even a few people move here to be "professionally homeless", to beg on the streets, and collect benefits.
It's funny. Everyone concentrates on borders, but borders are irrelevant to controlling illegal immigration. Switzerland voted in a referendum to join Schengen, so they have *no* control or record of people coming or going. Yet they have no pressure on low-end wages, and no problem with illegal immigration. Why?
Because (a) benefits are contributory, and (b) there is no 'informal' or illegal working in Switzerland. Solve those problems - and they are solved problems, as the Swiss have demonstrated - and you remove most of the negative effects of low-wage immigration.
I'd add the ability to remove people that you do not want. The debate about who comes in is irrelevant if the moment their feet touch British soil they have a realistic belief that they can never be removed.
I have worked and lived abroad and it was explicit what the terms were. In particular no leave to permanently remain, you provide your own health cover, no state benefits, if you break the law or lose your job then out you go (and any dependants with you). I expect Mr. Sandpit, gent of this parish, is living quite happily under such a regime today, as, probably, is Mr. Indigo.
Work permits based on those terms will solve the immigration problem once and for all, and leave room for genuine asylum seekers.
Oh, I'd add a levy on the employers of overseas workers to pay for the training of unemployed British Nationals. Welders are or at least were the last time I looked on the list of Tier 2 visa occupations. Welding is indeed a skilled trade but not one that cannot be taught to young Brits who are currently lolling around on benefits. Let us get some pressure on the companies that "import" skilled or semi-skilled labour to train some of those that are left behind.
Another poor data dump from Florida for the Dems. Rep postal gap now widening a bit but even more remarkably Dems posting really poor in-person votes; in the last two days they've only had very slim leads.
Yes (I've found the URL now). It looks as though so far the Republicans have a lead of 2.8% in early postal voting, and the Democrats one of 4% in early in-person voting. Given that in the past there have been more postal votes, that suggests the Republicans may lead on early voting overall, which might indicate a narrow Trump victory in the state.
we've just seen a reversion to 2012 voting patterns so far, that is to say, the dems shifted some of their votes giving the impression of a more substantial lead than they had.
Another poor data dump from Florida for the Dems. Rep postal gap now widening a bit but even more remarkably Dems posting really poor in-person votes; in the last two days they've only had very slim leads.
Yes (I've found the URL now). It looks as though so far the Republicans have a lead of 2.8% in early postal voting, and the Democrats one of 4% in early in-person voting. Given that in the past there have been more postal votes, that suggests the Republicans may lead on early voting overall, which might indicate a narrow Trump victory in the state.
2012 is a bit of an outlier as early in-person voting was shortened to 8 days. I would expect the split more even this year. But even so yes I would agree at this rate Dems may not take much of a lead going into Election Day.
Replying to eek: can't give you evidence but there is plenty of anecdotes up north regarding Aldi and the elk advertising their 14 hour a week roles and them being filled with Eastern Europeans rather than the local people who also wanted them.
Local people won't apply because single people don't get tax credits on 14 hours, even if they are lone parents or disabled (you need 16 hours, and for others it is 30). Couples with children only need 24 hours between them, but often wouldn't be interested as you would lose JSA (until the second partner finds a job). And even JSA claimants are not expected to apply for part time jobs
Another poor data dump from Florida for the Dems. Rep postal gap now widening a bit but even more remarkably Dems posting really poor in-person votes; in the last two days they've only had very slim leads.
Yes (I've found the URL now). It looks as though so far the Republicans have a lead of 2.8% in early postal voting, and the Democrats one of 4% in early in-person voting. Given that in the past there have been more postal votes, that suggests the Republicans may lead on early voting overall, which might indicate a narrow Trump victory in the state.
2012 is a bit of an outlier as early in-person voting was shortened to 8 days. I would expect the split more even this year. But even so yes I would agree at this rate Dems may not take much of a lead going into Election Day.
Maybe, though Republicans lead last year overall in early voting.
The gaps in the polls between Trump and Rubio's supports also indicates to me an amount of split ticket voting possibilties from Republicans.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
New Harris poll in the French primary race: 58% Juppe 42% Sarkozy. At the lower end of Juppe leads, but actually an improvement in Harris:
53% Juppé 47% Sarkozy (3-5 October - the only poll so far to show Juppé in any danger) 54% Juppé 46% Sarkozy (17-19 October) 58% Juppé 42% Sarkozy (24-26 October)
It may be that Harris are tweaking their methodology to bring themselves into line... or it could be a reversion to the mean if the mean is 60/40, which is the average.
Another poor data dump from Florida for the Dems. Rep postal gap now widening a bit but even more remarkably Dems posting really poor in-person votes; in the last two days they've only had very slim leads.
Yes (I've found the URL now). It looks as though so far the Republicans have a lead of 2.8% in early postal voting, and the Democrats one of 4% in early in-person voting. Given that in the past there have been more postal votes, that suggests the Republicans may lead on early voting overall, which might indicate a narrow Trump victory in the state.
2012 is a bit of an outlier as early in-person voting was shortened to 8 days. I would expect the split more even this year. But even so yes I would agree at this rate Dems may not take much of a lead going into Election Day.
Maybe, though Republicans lead last year overall in early voting.
The gaps in the polls between Trump and Rubio's supports also indicates to me an amount of split ticket voting possibilties from Republicans.
Indeed, usual caveat applies that these are just registrations and not who they are voting for.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1. (Though I would only ever go for obvious value, I'm not trading margins here and there.)
Nevertheless, it is unhealthy to have a situation where even a few people move here to be "professionally homeless", to beg on the streets, and collect benefits.
It's funny. Everyone concentrates on borders, but borders are irrelevant to controlling illegal immigration. Switzerland voted in a referendum to join Schengen, so they have *no* control or record of people coming or going. Yet they have no pressure on low-end wages, and no problem with illegal immigration. Why?
Because (a) benefits are contributory, and (b) there is no 'informal' or illegal working in Switzerland. Solve those problems - and they are solved problems, as the Swiss have demonstrated - and you remove most of the negative effects of low-wage immigration.
I'd add the ability to remove people that you do not want. The debate about who comes in is irrelevant if the moment their feet touch British soil they have a realistic belief that they can never be removed.
I have worked and lived abroad and it was explicit what the terms were. In particular no leave to permanently remain, you provide your own health cover, no state benefits, if you break the law or lose your job then out you go (and any dependants with you). I expect Mr. Sandpit, gent of this parish, is living quite happily under such a regime today, as, probably, is Mr. Indigo.
Work permits based on those terms will solve the immigration problem once and for all, and leave room for genuine asylum seekers.
Oh, I'd add a levy on the employers of overseas workers to pay for the training of unemployed British Nationals. Welders are or at least were the last time I looked on the list of Tier 2 visa occupations. Welding is indeed a skilled trade but not one that cannot be taught to young Brits who are currently lolling around on benefits. Let us get some pressure on the companies that "import" skilled or semi-skilled labour to train some of those that are left behind.
Wishful thinking.
Non EU migrants already have "no recourse to public funds" and yet there are as many of them as EU migrants, if not more.
And again, even if you accept companies may be importing cheap welders, the young Brits who might have missed out on apprenticeships are not in fact "lolling around on benefits". They are doing some other job.
The only potential economic argument I can see against European FOM is that it discourages UK firms to invest because labour is relatively more plentiful. And, given our productivity problems, we do need firms to invest, upskill and rise up the value chain.
But I haven't seen an economic study on it. So it's just a theory. The idea that migration has dampened wage growth though seems to have no evidence behind it.
For anyone who'd like to actually know what stuff his ground troops are talking about to their friends and neighbours
It's fair to say that the National Review has had a very dim view of Trump from the get-go. This is their take now.
"Enacting Trump’s ‘Contract with the American Voter’ would revive a nation in decline. If Donald J. Trump becomes president, he barely will have time to attend his own inaugural parade. The Republican nominee promised voters in Gettysburg, Pa., Saturday that he would stay spectacularly busy on his first day in office.
As part of his Contract with the American Voter, Trump pledged to take 18 major steps on January 20, 2017. Most of these give center-right voters excellent reasons to support Trump at the polls. Trump’s first six steps aim to “clean up the corruption and special-interest collusion in Washington, D.C.”
Did you read the whole thing? I honestly think it's pointless engaging with you on this topic - you've decided and that's fair enough. It also renders discussion moot as you aren't discussing anything. Hillary can call blacks *super predators* and her campaign refer to *needy Latinos* or talk about how Muslims. Roma and Blacks are professional failures - but that's okay apparently.
EDIT oh and call Blacks n*ggers whilst she was a WH resident.
The last one has no evidence of it.
You talk about stuff which the campaign said years ago and ignore the stuff Trump says himself in public which turn people off.
And yet the Democrats call up things Trump said in 1992 - do I detect a bit/ lot of Hypocrisy here? (The last one has the stated evidence of a person who was there at the time. Since you accept uncorroborated sexual inuendos against Trump, you have to accept the statement against Clinton).
there is corroborataion of Trump being a sexual assaulter: from himself admitting he does it.
Hey, if you genuinely think Clinton is as much of a racist as trump, that's up to you, but no one else is buying, certainly not the voters.
Oh, and 11 women have said Trump assaulted them. How many have accused Clinton of using the N word?
One is enough - since Clinton is specifically sucking up to the black vote.
For anyone who'd like to actually know what stuff his ground troops are talking about to their friends and neighbours
It's fair to say that the National Review has had a very dim view of Trump from the get-go. This is their take now.
"Enacting Trump’s ‘Contract with the American Voter’ would revive a nation in decline. If Donald J. Trump becomes president, he barely will have time to attend his own inaugural parade. The Republican nominee promised voters in Gettysburg, Pa., Saturday that he would stay spectacularly busy on his first day in office.
As part of his Contract with the American Voter, Trump pledged to take 18 major steps on January 20, 2017. Most of these give center-right voters excellent reasons to support Trump at the polls. Trump’s first six steps aim to “clean up the corruption and special-interest collusion in Washington, D.C.”
Did you read the whole thing? I honestly think it's pointless engaging with you on this topic - you've decided and that's fair enough. It also renders discussion moot as you aren't discussing anything. Hillary can call blacks *super predators* and her campaign refer to *needy Latinos* or talk about how Muslims. Roma and Blacks are professional failures - but that's okay apparently.
EDIT oh and call Blacks n*ggers whilst she was a WH resident.
The last one has no evidence of it.
You talk about stuff which the campaign said years ago and ignore the stuff Trump says himself in public which turn people off.
blockquote>
there is corroborataion of Trump being a sexual assaulter: from himself admitting he does it.
Hey, if you genuinely think Clinton is as much of a racist as trump, that's up to you, but no one else is buying, certainly not the voters.
Oh, and 11 women have said Trump assaulted them. How many have accused Clinton of using the N word?
One is enough - since Clinton is specifically sucking up to the black vote.
Well, it isn't. One complaint is never enough, espeically if not backed up by evidence.
the evidence of Trump racism is overwhleming in comparision, as is his vagina grabbing.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
Come the day, I expect Trump will hold Texas quite comfortably.
IBD has Clinton's lead moving up to 2%, ABC has it moving down to 6%, LA Times has a tie.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
Come the day, I expect Trump will hold Texas quite comfortably.
IBD has Clinton's lead moving up to 2%, ABC has it moving down to 6%, LA Times has a tie.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence from you, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
she has loads and loads of detailed policy ideas on her website you know.
And you know there are a lot more registered Dem voters compared to registered GOP ones. What would be a 'correct' sample to reflect this? It wouldnt be zero.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
You are the standard-bearer of the post-Truth era.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
Come the day, I expect Trump will hold Texas quite comfortably.
IBD has Clinton's lead moving up to 2%, ABC has it moving down to 6%, LA Times has a tie.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Some of us are staking real money on this election, you posting nonsense on this subject isn't good.
Guido Fawkes ✔ @GuidoFawkes Only economic shock was how shockingly bad the HM Treasury forecast was... View image on Twitter
BREXIT HASN'T HAPPENED YET
The sound of screeching and tortured metal as the goalposts are heaved and inched ever so slowly into a their new but no doubt yet another temporary position
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Some of us are staking real money on this election, you posting nonsense on this subject isn't good.
Aww - DYOR is the perennial, don't try to blame my personal opinion of Hillary appearances for it.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
You are the standard-bearer of the post-Truth era.
Worryingly they are growing in number. Thanx internet.
The EU migrants coming here to take our benefits is a line that hits a nerve when there is just so much economic evidence to suggest the contrary.
We are not being beseiged by an army of Roma homeless, whatever SeanT says.
The vast, vast majority of EU migrants are here to work. On average, they have higher education levels, higher employment rates, and lower dependence on government services (with the possible exception of maternity) than the average Brit.
We profit massively from their being here.
I have sympathy with the argument that we need democratic control over migration. And governments of both stripes have failed to truly appreciate the scale of migration since 1997 and what it represents in terms of societal change. Too much change is dizzying.
But lets not hear about migrants stealing our jobs and milking our welfare systems. It ain't true.
And I'd like to see evidence of the @rcs1000 argument that our over-generous in-work benefit systems act as a significant magnet. My own theory is that London's clear dynamism, the strength of the pound, the opportunity to live in an English speaking country, existing ethnic communities, and a perception that we are much more tolerant of foreigners in general - the "British Dream" if you like - are more important factors.
Reforming our welfare toward a contributions system would I suspect create a lot of upheaval and have very little impact.
I can't give you evidence but there is plenty of anecdotes up north regarding Aldi and the elk advertising their 14 hour a week roles and them being filled with Eastern Europeans rather than the local people who also wanted them.
What is this elk of which you speak? Does it pay well?
I think the truth lies somewhere between what I've been reading on PB in the last hour. For example, there are employers and recruiters who prefer foreign workers, for whatever reason.
And here in Birmingham/Sandwell there's a considerable number of Roma immigrants. I don't blame them for coming here, they're treated abominably in Eastern Europe, but they do represent quite a strain on local services. Having said that, most of them transition well to life here, and do work, which goes to show that their pattern of life back home is more a product of circumstances than an inherent fecklessness.
I'm told often enough that migrants are not scrounging off the system - they can't get houses or benefits and if they don't work, they go home - but that's an oversimplification and the kind of statement that people know is not always true and riles them when they hear the Richmond Park set (for whom immigration has no downside) spouting it.
New Harris poll in the French primary race: 58% Juppe 42% Sarkozy. At the lower end of Juppe leads, but actually an improvement in Harris:
53% Juppé 47% Sarkozy (3-5 October - the only poll so far to show Juppé in any danger) 54% Juppé 46% Sarkozy (17-19 October) 58% Juppé 42% Sarkozy (24-26 October)
It may be that Harris are tweaking their methodology to bring themselves into line... or it could be a reversion to the mean if the mean is 60/40, which is the average.
I still think the 1.8 available on juppe to be next French president is excellent value. If he's the LR nominee, he'll be president.
New Harris poll in the French primary race: 58% Juppe 42% Sarkozy. At the lower end of Juppe leads, but actually an improvement in Harris:
53% Juppé 47% Sarkozy (3-5 October - the only poll so far to show Juppé in any danger) 54% Juppé 46% Sarkozy (17-19 October) 58% Juppé 42% Sarkozy (24-26 October)
It may be that Harris are tweaking their methodology to bring themselves into line... or it could be a reversion to the mean if the mean is 60/40, which is the average.
I still think the 1.8 available on juppe to be next French president is excellent value. If he's the LR nominee, he'll be president.
I agree. And 1.8 to be nominee (ok, call it 1.7 to allow for events) is still excellent value for the primary.
It's pretty clear that Trump himself has given up on the race. He's spending time opening hotels and promoting golf courses rather than campaigning, he's stopped fundraising, and he obviously isn't flushing more of his own money down the drain either.
It's pretty clear that Trump himself has given up on the race. He's spending time opening hotels and promoting golf courses rather than campaigning, he's stopped fundraising, and he obviously isn't flushing more of his own money down the drain either.
He is often doing more events than Hillary and he opened the new hotel in Florida, a key swing state
The hotel opening was a deliberate advertorial - he's demonstrating a top quality venue with prestige label job creation. It's a direct evidence example of MAGA. It's Branson era stuff with knobs on when he was battling with BA.
If his hotels are doing so well, why are the latest ones not bearing his name?
Krebs for Congress Here are the 2017 #Obamacare premiums. A family of 4 will pay $1900-$2300/month. Not to mention the deductible. #DNC https://t.co/ELaNa3y5w0
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Some of us are staking real money on this election, you posting nonsense on this subject isn't good.
Aww - DYOR is the perennial, don't try to blame my personal opinion of Hillary appearances for it.
The election is a choice between two individuals, and various ways to throw your vote away.
Against practically any other GOP candidate from history, Hillary would lose. But she's not up against any of them; she's up against Trump. And for that reason, she'll win.
I think those anecdotes are absolute bollox. Given two candidates of equal standing, I guarantee that 99% of English companies would always choose the Brit over the foreigner. Even if the Brit was a little bit less.....they would in all likelihood go for the Brit.
I recruited for years, and for years; I would have always chosen the Brit over the foreigner like for like...and I am at the extreme end of liberal, EU hugging Europhiles.
I don't deny that there is an argument to be had about EU migrants being prepared to work for less, but quite frankly my dear..... any idea that we were discriminating against Brits in favour of EU migrants like for like is crap.
Odd employment approach.
I've always chosen who I consider to be the best candidate for the specific role irrespective of where they come from
'I don't deny that there is an argument to be had about EU migrants being prepared to work for less, but quite frankly my dear..... any idea that we were discriminating against Brits in favour of EU migrants like for like is crap.'
Even bus drivers, at least they didn't use the usual excuse of 'skills shortage'.
British bus driver 'is refused a job interview in Watford because he's ...www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Angry-British-bus-driver-refused-job-interview-Watford-s-not-... 12 Aug 2016 - British bus driver 'is refused a job interview for Arriva in Watford ... from the bus firm to tell him their recruitment drive was only for Romanians.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
Come the day, I expect Trump will hold Texas quite comfortably.
IBD has Clinton's lead moving up to 2%, ABC has it moving down to 6%, LA Times has a tie.
I tend to agree. On the other hand, if it is that close and, wouldn't you splash out on some serious advertising there if you were Hillary? If she could deliver Texas, even without any national swing, Trump's swing-state plus Rust-Belt goes out of the window.
New Harris poll in the French primary race: 58% Juppe 42% Sarkozy. At the lower end of Juppe leads, but actually an improvement in Harris:
53% Juppé 47% Sarkozy (3-5 October - the only poll so far to show Juppé in any danger) 54% Juppé 46% Sarkozy (17-19 October) 58% Juppé 42% Sarkozy (24-26 October)
It may be that Harris are tweaking their methodology to bring themselves into line... or it could be a reversion to the mean if the mean is 60/40, which is the average.
I still think the 1.8 available on juppe to be next French president is excellent value. If he's the LR nominee, he'll be president.
1. Mike Pence having been dispatched yesterday to shore up Utah is today off to Omaha to fend off Clinton in NE CD02.
2. Clinton campaign moving resources from Nevada to Arizona as it considers the former is moving comfortably into their column.
With another poll showing him only 3% ahead, Mike should forget Omaha and get down to Texas.
I expect Trump to hold Texas by 5+. That said a visit by a Clinton surrogate will raise an eyebrow.
Pence having to campaign in Utah and Omaha speaks volumes. You don't send your Veep pick and one of your few competent surrogates there unless there's trouble.
"The United States of America, more precisely, the future President of the United States of America, Hillary Clinton, will state an ultimatum. And that ultimatum will be to either change its stance on same-sex marriage or pack its bags and get out of America"
With all due respect, no one is interested in wading through hundreds of mainly inconsequential blocks of text (that apparently includes you, as you keep posting these links, and seldom if ever excerpt anything of interest from them). If you come across something truly devastating, please post it - I'll be as eager as anyone else to see it. Otherwise, I'd want a couple of hundred pounds an hour at least to stave of the mind crushing tedium I'm fairly sure awaits me at that link.
Until then, this is pretty well all you need to know about the election:
Ryan was leaning toward voting for Clinton. She wasn’t happy about it. A moderate, Ryan had wanted to find an excuse to vote for Trump. “I so much wanted Trump. I so much wanted a nonpolitician. But I don’t trust him, and I’ve become afraid of him,” she said. “I just don’t think he knows when to shut up. If he could just [say], ‘I’m a businessman, I’m not a politician, I’m gonna make American great again,’ and stop right there, then I would vote for him.” During Trump’s postconvention meltdown, though, she would watch as he “just went on and on, and his face [would get] all red.” The face reminded her of a “little boy,” like her five brothers growing up. “I remember that face. And that’s when I got scared. And so I started to listen to Clinton. I don’t love Clinton—I don’t trust her. But I think she’s the lesser of two evils.”…
…But the descriptors for Clinton weren’t any better: “robotic,” multiple “liar”s and one “liar liar pants on fire,” “maleficent,” “privileged,” “too poised,” “polished politician,” and “cool operator.” When Hart asked what they thought motivated her, “power” and “ambition” were the dominant responses…
The people who really like Clinton will vote for her; similarly Trump. The rest, and they are not few in number, will break for Clinton.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Some of us are staking real money on this election, you posting nonsense on this subject isn't good.
Aww - DYOR is the perennial, don't try to blame my personal opinion of Hillary appearances for it.
The election is a choice between two individuals, and various ways to throw your vote away.
Against practically any other GOP candidate from history, Hillary would lose. But she's not up against any of them; she's up against Trump. And for that reason, she'll win.
New Harris poll in the French primary race: 58% Juppe 42% Sarkozy. At the lower end of Juppe leads, but actually an improvement in Harris:
53% Juppé 47% Sarkozy (3-5 October - the only poll so far to show Juppé in any danger) 54% Juppé 46% Sarkozy (17-19 October) 58% Juppé 42% Sarkozy (24-26 October)
It may be that Harris are tweaking their methodology to bring themselves into line... or it could be a reversion to the mean if the mean is 60/40, which is the average.
I still think the 1.8 available on juppe to be next French president is excellent value. If he's the LR nominee, he'll be president.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Some of us are staking real money on this election, you posting nonsense on this subject isn't good.
Aww - DYOR is the perennial, don't try to blame my personal opinion of Hillary appearances for it.
The election is a choice between two individuals, and various ways to throw your vote away.
Against practically any other GOP candidate from history, Hillary would lose. But she's not up against any of them; she's up against Trump. And for that reason, she'll win.
Didn't you vote Remain? I've no idea who'll win. I just think it's a whole lot closer than many liberal PBers hope it is.
With all due respect, no one is interested in wading through hundreds of mainly inconsequential blocks of text (that apparently includes you, as you keep posting these links, and seldom if ever excerpt anything of interest from them). If you come across something truly devastating, please post it - I'll be as eager as anyone else to see it. Otherwise, I'd want a couple of hundred pounds an hour at least to stave of the mind crushing tedium I'm fairly sure awaits me at that link.
Until then, this is pretty well all you need to know about the election:
Ryan was leaning toward voting for Clinton. She wasn’t happy about it. A moderate, Ryan had wanted to find an excuse to vote for Trump. “I so much wanted Trump. I so much wanted a nonpolitician. But I don’t trust him, and I’ve become afraid of him,” she said. “I just don’t think he knows when to shut up. If he could just [say], ‘I’m a businessman, I’m not a politician, I’m gonna make American great again,’ and stop right there, then I would vote for him.” During Trump’s postconvention meltdown, though, she would watch as he “just went on and on, and his face [would get] all red.” The face reminded her of a “little boy,” like her five brothers growing up. “I remember that face. And that’s when I got scared. And so I started to listen to Clinton. I don’t loAndve Clinton—I don’t trust her. But I think she’s the lesser of two evils.”…
…But the descriptors for Clinton weren’t any better: “robotic,” multiple “liar”s and one “liar liar pants on fire,” “maleficent,” “privileged,” “too poised,” “polished politician,” and “cool operator.” When Hart asked what they thought motivated her, “power” and “ambition” were the dominant responses…
The people who really like Clinton will vote for her; similarly Trump. The rest, and they are not few in number, will break for Clinton.
And 'with all due respect' - there's thousands of people doing just that and tweeting their findings.
I do love handwaving. It's the most pointless exercise - only matched by 'despair trolling' where interweb puppets claim to be Trump supporters who've now given up all hope/it's all over.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Some of us are staking real money on this election, you posting nonsense on this subject isn't good.
Aww - DYOR is the perennial, don't try to blame my personal opinion of Hillary appearances for it.
The election is a choice between two individuals, and various ways to throw your vote away.
Against practically any other GOP candidate from history, Hillary would lose. But she's not up against any of them; she's up against Trump. And for that reason, she'll win.
Didn't you vote Remain? I've no idea who'll win. I just think it's a whole lot closer than many liberal PBers hope it is.
As in all elections, you're rooting for the racist. Admit it and set yourself free.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Some of us are staking real money on this election, you posting nonsense on this subject isn't good.
Aww - DYOR is the perennial, don't try to blame my personal opinion of Hillary appearances for it.
The election is a choice between two individuals, and various ways to throw your vote away.
Against practically any other GOP candidate from history, Hillary would lose. But she's not up against any of them; she's up against Trump. And for that reason, she'll win.
Wasn't your last thread to back him at 6-4 ?
It wasn't my last one. I did do a thread on it being the time to back Trump. Don't think I advocated backing him *at* 6/4, though might have said I thought he stood a 40% chance, which at the time he might well have done. To many missed opportunities since.
New Harris poll in the French primary race: 58% Juppe 42% Sarkozy. At the lower end of Juppe leads, but actually an improvement in Harris:
53% Juppé 47% Sarkozy (3-5 October - the only poll so far to show Juppé in any danger) 54% Juppé 46% Sarkozy (17-19 October) 58% Juppé 42% Sarkozy (24-26 October)
It may be that Harris are tweaking their methodology to bring themselves into line... or it could be a reversion to the mean if the mean is 60/40, which is the average.
I still think the 1.8 available on juppe to be next French president is excellent value. If he's the LR nominee, he'll be president.
Where is 1.8 available ?
Best price I can see him is 1.67 with Shadsy
It was evens, then it was 5/6 and now it's 4/6. Every time we talk about it on PB it gets shorter.
Despite being defeated nationally by Nixon, Hubert Humphrey carried Texas in 1968 . Why would a Clinton win be so astonishing? It also had a Democrat as Governor - Ann Richards - before Bush in the 1990s.
It's only 4/1 IIRC. No value IMO. I would have been tempted at 10/1.
My biggest problem with Hillary polling leads is the DNC + samples. She's supposedly doing better than Obama. It's just not credible. She's terrible rally turnout numbers, green screen fake voter stuff on TV and the rest. He was everywhere and mobbed.
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
Can you post a link to this green screen stuff?
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Some of us are staking real money on this election, you posting nonsense on this subject isn't good.
Aww - DYOR is the perennial, don't try to blame my personal opinion of Hillary appearances for it.
The election is a choice between two individuals, and various ways to throw your vote away.
Against practically any other GOP candidate from history, Hillary would lose. But she's not up against any of them; she's up against Trump. And for that reason, she'll win.
Didn't you vote Remain? I've no idea who'll win. I just think it's a whole lot closer than many liberal PBers hope it is.
Yes, I did. I also was consistent in thinking that the value in the odds always lay with Leave.
New Harris poll in the French primary race: 58% Juppe 42% Sarkozy. At the lower end of Juppe leads, but actually an improvement in Harris:
53% Juppé 47% Sarkozy (3-5 October - the only poll so far to show Juppé in any danger) 54% Juppé 46% Sarkozy (17-19 October) 58% Juppé 42% Sarkozy (24-26 October)
It may be that Harris are tweaking their methodology to bring themselves into line... or it could be a reversion to the mean if the mean is 60/40, which is the average.
I still think the 1.8 available on juppe to be next French president is excellent value. If he's the LR nominee, he'll be president.
Where is 1.8 available ?
Best price I can see him is 1.67 with Shadsy
It was evens, then it was 5/6 and now it's 4/6. Every time we talk about it on PB it gets shorter.
With all due respect, no one is interested in wading through hundreds of mainly inconsequential blocks of text (that apparently includes you, as you keep posting these links, and seldom if ever excerpt anything of interest from them). If you come across something truly devastating, please post it - I'll be as eager as anyone else to see it. Otherwise, I'd want a couple of hundred pounds an hour at least to stave of the mind crushing tedium I'm fairly sure awaits me at that link.
Until then, this is pretty well all you need to know about the election:
Ryan was leaning toward voting for Clinton. She wasn’t happy about it. A moderate, Ryan had wanted to find an excuse to vote for Trump. “I so much wanted Trump. I so much wanted a nonpolitician. But I don’t trust him, and I’ve become afraid of him,” she said. “I just don’t think he knows when to shut up. If he could just [say], ‘I’m a businessman, I’m not a politician, I’m gonna make American great again,’ and stop right there, then I would vote for him.” During Trump’s postconvention meltdown, though, she would watch as he “just went on and on, and his face [would get] all red.” The face reminded her of a “little boy,” like her five brothers growing up. “I remember that face. And that’s when I got scared. And so I started to listen to Clinton. I don’t loAndve Clinton—I don’t trust her. But I think she’s the lesser of two evils.”…
…But the descriptors for Clinton weren’t any better: “robotic,” multiple “liar”s and one “liar liar pants on fire,” “maleficent,” “privileged,” “too poised,” “polished politician,” and “cool operator.” When Hart asked what they thought motivated her, “power” and “ambition” were the dominant responses…
The people who really like Clinton will vote for her; similarly Trump. The rest, and they are not few in number, will break for Clinton.
And 'with all due respect' - there's thousands of people doing just that and tweeting their findings.
I do love handwaving. It's the most pointless exercise - only matched by 'despair trolling' where interweb puppets claim to be Trump supporters who've now given up all hope/it's all over.
Anyone with a spec of nous can spot them.
Ha, so Paul Ryan and the GOP leadership are 'despair trolling'???
New Harris poll in the French primary race: 58% Juppe 42% Sarkozy. At the lower end of Juppe leads, but actually an improvement in Harris:
53% Juppé 47% Sarkozy (3-5 October - the only poll so far to show Juppé in any danger) 54% Juppé 46% Sarkozy (17-19 October) 58% Juppé 42% Sarkozy (24-26 October)
It may be that Harris are tweaking their methodology to bring themselves into line... or it could be a reversion to the mean if the mean is 60/40, which is the average.
I still think the 1.8 available on juppe to be next French president is excellent value. If he's the LR nominee, he'll be president.
Where is 1.8 available ?
Best price I can see him is 1.67 with Shadsy
It was evens, then it was 5/6 and now it's 4/6. Every time we talk about it on PB it gets shorter.
Time to make the forum members only, and hidden.
Too many lurkers sniping.
I could simply make some polls up and ramp my own bets. If I throw in a couple of "DYOR"s I think I'd be fine.
It wasn't my last one. I did do a thread on it being the time to back Trump. Don't think I advocated backing him *at* 6/4, though might have said I thought he stood a 40% chance, which at the time he might well have done. To many missed opportunities since.
For sure,
It's never been 'Hillary, never in doubt' is my main point though
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Some of us are staking real money on this election, you posting nonsense on this subject isn't good.
Aww - DYOR is the perennial, don't try to blame my personal opinion of Hillary appearances for it.
The election is a choice between two individuals, and various ways to throw your vote away.
Against practically any other GOP candidate from history, Hillary would lose. But she's not up against any of them; she's up against Trump. And for that reason, she'll win.
Didn't you vote Remain? I've no idea who'll win. I just think it's a whole lot closer than many liberal PBers hope it is.
As in all elections, you're rooting for the racist. Admit it and set yourself free.
Aww - really? I'm a waycist? Shucks. I'm shamed and will now become a Liberal sheep.
Seriously? This has to be one of your daftest posts. Evah.
I'm sure Tyson will pile on along with his little HillBullies gang to cast me as some Untouchable.
New Harris poll in the French primary race: 58% Juppe 42% Sarkozy. At the lower end of Juppe leads, but actually an improvement in Harris:
53% Juppé 47% Sarkozy (3-5 October - the only poll so far to show Juppé in any danger) 54% Juppé 46% Sarkozy (17-19 October) 58% Juppé 42% Sarkozy (24-26 October)
It may be that Harris are tweaking their methodology to bring themselves into line... or it could be a reversion to the mean if the mean is 60/40, which is the average.
I still think the 1.8 available on juppe to be next French president is excellent value. If he's the LR nominee, he'll be president.
Where is 1.8 available ?
Best price I can see him is 1.67 with Shadsy
It was evens, then it was 5/6 and now it's 4/6. Every time we talk about it on PB it gets shorter.
Time to make the forum members only, and hidden.
Too many lurkers sniping.
I could simply make some polls up and ramp my own bets. If I throw in a couple of "DYOR"s I think I'd be fine.
The trick is to to do a thread header about your bets, say Richard Burgon 100/1 as next Labour leader, then trade out when he its 25/1
As regrettable as this is, buried in the news is that overall figures were up 1pc, based on good growth from ROW.
I sense many Leave voters may not see a large increase in non EU foreign students as unalloyed good news.
Which would be pretty stupid of them. Overseas students effectively subsidise higher education for UK students, contribute significantly to the balance of payments, add to the intellectual talent pool, and spread British culture abroad.
Against that, there's the headline immigration figures, and....
Overseas students from outside the EU subsidise higher education for UK students. EU ones get the same loans we do and appear (based on the albeit limited information available) less likely to repay them.
Yes very true that EU students get the same loans as UK ones and their debts will pile up.
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Some of us are staking real money on this election, you posting nonsense on this subject isn't good.
Aww - DYOR is the perennial, don't try to blame my personal opinion of Hillary appearances for it.
The election is a choice between two individuals, and various ways to throw your vote away.
Against practically any other GOP candidate from history, Hillary would lose. But she's not up against any of them; she's up against Trump. And for that reason, she'll win.
Didn't you vote Remain? I've no idea who'll win. I just think it's a whole lot closer than many liberal PBers hope it is.
As in all elections, you're rooting for the racist. Admit it and set yourself free.
Aww - really? I'm a waycist? Shucks. I'm shamed and will now become a Liberal sheep.
Seriously? This has to be one of your daftest posts. Evah.
I'm sure Tyson will pile on along with his little HillBullies gang to cast me as some Untouchable.
New Harris poll in the French primary race: 58% Juppe 42% Sarkozy. At the lower end of Juppe leads, but actually an improvement in Harris:
53% Juppé 47% Sarkozy (3-5 October - the only poll so far to show Juppé in any danger) 54% Juppé 46% Sarkozy (17-19 October) 58% Juppé 42% Sarkozy (24-26 October)
It may be that Harris are tweaking their methodology to bring themselves into line... or it could be a reversion to the mean if the mean is 60/40, which is the average.
I still think the 1.8 available on juppe to be next French president is excellent value. If he's the LR nominee, he'll be president.
Where is 1.8 available ?
Best price I can see him is 1.67 with Shadsy
It was evens, then it was 5/6 and now it's 4/6. Every time we talk about it on PB it gets shorter.
Time to make the forum members only, and hidden.
Too many lurkers sniping.
I could simply make some polls up and ramp my own bets. If I throw in a couple of "DYOR"s I think I'd be fine.
The trick is to to do a thread header about your bets, say Richard Burgon 100/1 as next Labour leader, then trade out when he its 25/1
The problem is you'd have to have quite a lot on to be able to make a decent profit doing that.
New Harris poll in the French primary race: 58% Juppe 42% Sarkozy. At the lower end of Juppe leads, but actually an improvement in Harris:
53% Juppé 47% Sarkozy (3-5 October - the only poll so far to show Juppé in any danger) 54% Juppé 46% Sarkozy (17-19 October) 58% Juppé 42% Sarkozy (24-26 October)
It may be that Harris are tweaking their methodology to bring themselves into line... or it could be a reversion to the mean if the mean is 60/40, which is the average.
I still think the 1.8 available on juppe to be next French president is excellent value. If he's the LR nominee, he'll be president.
Where is 1.8 available ?
Best price I can see him is 1.67 with Shadsy
It was evens, then it was 5/6 and now it's 4/6. Every time we talk about it on PB it gets shorter.
Time to make the forum members only, and hidden.
Too many lurkers sniping.
I could simply make some polls up and ramp my own bets. If I throw in a couple of "DYOR"s I think I'd be fine.
The trick is to to do a thread header about your bets, say Richard Burgon 100/1 as next Labour leader, then trade out when he its 25/1
New Harris poll in the French primary race: 58% Juppe 42% Sarkozy. At the lower end of Juppe leads, but actually an improvement in Harris:
53% Juppé 47% Sarkozy (3-5 October - the only poll so far to show Juppé in any danger) 54% Juppé 46% Sarkozy (17-19 October) 58% Juppé 42% Sarkozy (24-26 October)
It may be that Harris are tweaking their methodology to bring themselves into line... or it could be a reversion to the mean if the mean is 60/40, which is the average.
I still think the 1.8 available on juppe to be next French president is excellent value. If he's the LR nominee, he'll be president.
Where is 1.8 available ?
Best price I can see him is 1.67 with Shadsy
It was evens, then it was 5/6 and now it's 4/6. Every time we talk about it on PB it gets shorter.
Time to make the forum members only, and hidden.
Too many lurkers sniping.
I could simply make some polls up and ramp my own bets. If I throw in a couple of "DYOR"s I think I'd be fine.
The trick is to to do a thread header about your bets, say Richard Burgon 100/1 as next Labour leader, then trade out when he its 25/1
Some muppet has backed him at 11-1 on Betfair.
Sweet Jesus. (I've laid him at 40 for £15 there so far)
Trump's price at Betfair is now higher than at any time since 10 October, and his implied probability has risen from 14.1% to 18.0% in the past 46 hours.
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Some of us are staking real money on this election, you posting nonsense on this subject isn't good.
Aww - DYOR is the perennial, don't try to blame my personal opinion of Hillary appearances for it.
The election is a choice between two individuals, and various ways to throw your vote away.
Against practically any other GOP candidate from history, Hillary would lose. But she's not up against any of them; she's up against Trump. And for that reason, she'll win.
Didn't you vote Remain? I've no idea who'll win. I just think it's a whole lot closer than many liberal PBers hope it is.
As in all elections, you're rooting for the racist. Admit it and set yourself free.
Aww - really? I'm a waycist? Shucks. I'm shamed and will now become a Liberal sheep.
Seriously? This has to be one of your daftest posts. Evah.
I'm sure Tyson will pile on along with his little HillBullies gang to cast me as some Untouchable.
For a smart guy, you're being so dumb.
EDIT I'm happy to be with Eliot Ness
Given your consistent support for xenophobic, racist candidates and parties across the world, it's pretty clear they appeal to you. What puzzles me is why you can't admit it.
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Some of us are staking real money on this election, you posting nonsense on this subject isn't good.
snip
The election is a choice between two individuals, and various ways to throw your vote away.
Against practically any other GOP candidate from history, Hillary would lose. But she's not up against any of them; she's up against Trump. And for that reason, she'll win.
Didn't you vote Remain? I've no idea who'll win. I just think it's a whole lot closer than many liberal PBers hope it is.
As in all elections, you're rooting for the racist. Admit it and set yourself free.
Aww - really? I'm a waycist? Shucks. I'm shamed and will now become a Liberal sheep.
Seriously? This has to be one of your daftest posts. Evah.
I'm sure Tyson will pile on along with his little HillBullies gang to cast me as some Untouchable.
For a smart guy, you're being so dumb.
EDIT I'm happy to be with Eliot Ness
Given your consistent support for xenophobic, racist candidates and parties across the world, it's pretty clear they appeal to you. What puzzles me is why you can't admit it.
You're having a bad day. Really, just stop digging. It says a great deal more about you, than me.
I'm drinking a beer and scratching my head, whilst laughing.
And Snopes have been caught out too - I don't believe anyone claiming to fact-check anything from either side. It's become far too partisan. I've watched video with obvious green screening several times and no wide angle. It satisfied me.
So no evidence, The Times also said it was nonsense too, mind you believed the spam email that Clinton received was actually stuff she sent out, so there's no hope.
I used my lying eyes - as have others. Golly. Experts and Cameron chums were wrong. How will I ever cope?
Some of us are staking real money on this election, you posting nonsense on this subject isn't good.
snip
Th two individuals, and various ways to throw your vote away.
Agory, Hillary would lose. But she's not up against any of them; she's up against Trump. And for that reason, she'll win.
Didn't you vote Remain? I've no idea who'll win. I just think it's a whole lot closer than many liberal PBers hope it is.
As in all elections, you're rooting for the racist. Admit it and set yourself free.
Aww - really? I'm a waycist? Shucks. I'm shamed and will now become a Liberal sheep.
Seriously? This has to be one of your daftest posts. Evah.
I'm sure Tyson will pile on along with his little HillBullies gang to cast me as some Untouchable.
For a smart guy, you're being so dumb.
EDIT I'm happy to be with Eliot Ness
Given your consistent support for xenophobic, racist candidates and parties across the world, it's pretty clear they appeal to you. What puzzles me is why you can't admit it.
You're having a bad day. Really, just stop digging. It says a great deal more about you, than me.
I'm drinking a beer and scratching my head, whilst laughing.
Of course you are! All I'm doing is stating the obvious.
Comments
One for our Scottish and green friends:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/world-view/uk-tidal-powers-first-big-plunge/10012645.article?blocktitle=In-Depth-In-Full
Looks rather promising.
I could never understand why successive governments never got concessions with the EU over access to benefits. It would have cut out that argument at source.
I think post Brexit...something like the Auzzie visa system would work for the UK- one year open ended work visas for the EU which could be easily extended/ or made permanent once they have secured jobs. And work benefits to be achieved after 4 years.
I can only point to our very low unemployment rate (and very high employment rate) across all regions and ask whether these locals are really now sitting on the dole as a result.
I like the cut of your jib Garden. You have been one of the best additions to this site in a long time.
Also note that I specifically said a "complete match" of values is not necessary. Personally, I'd allow free immigration from most of E.Europe (although I'm not convinced about Romania or Bulgaria) despite their issues with e.g. homophobia.
Import views incompatible with ours drags us backwards - it doesn't enlighten new arrivals who live in ghettos and brought all their baggage with them.
I can't get over how naive and stupid it is.
I think those anecdotes are absolute bollox. Given two candidates of equal standing, I guarantee that 99% of English companies would always choose the Brit over the foreigner. Even if the Brit was a little bit less.....they would in all likelihood go for the Brit.
I recruited for years, and for years; I would have always chosen the Brit over the foreigner like for like...and I am at the extreme end of liberal, EU hugging Europhiles.
I don't deny that there is an argument to be had about EU migrants being prepared to work for less, but quite frankly my dear..... any idea that we were discriminating against Brits in favour of EU migrants like for like is crap.
No doubt there is disguised unemployment, and disguised underemployment, but I don't think the UK is unique in this respect.
There are more subsidies in the EU than the UK.
I'm a long time lurker but have had a lot of time on my hands recently, being between jobs.
Brexit happened at about the same time as I went on gardening leave and it enraged me enough to de-lurk.
I'm back in gainful employ soon though so might be a bit less active!
I have worked and lived abroad and it was explicit what the terms were. In particular no leave to permanently remain, you provide your own health cover, no state benefits, if you break the law or lose your job then out you go (and any dependants with you). I expect Mr. Sandpit, gent of this parish, is living quite happily under such a regime today, as, probably, is Mr. Indigo.
Work permits based on those terms will solve the immigration problem once and for all, and leave room for genuine asylum seekers.
Oh, I'd add a levy on the employers of overseas workers to pay for the training of unemployed British Nationals. Welders are or at least were the last time I looked on the list of Tier 2 visa occupations. Welding is indeed a skilled trade but not one that cannot be taught to young Brits who are currently lolling around on benefits. Let us get some pressure on the companies that "import" skilled or semi-skilled labour to train some of those that are left behind.
can't give you evidence but there is plenty of anecdotes up north regarding Aldi and the elk advertising their 14 hour a week roles and them being filled with Eastern Europeans rather than the local people who also wanted them.
The gaps in the polls between Trump and Rubio's supports also indicates to me an amount of split ticket voting possibilties from Republicans.
53% Juppé 47% Sarkozy (3-5 October - the only poll so far to show Juppé in any danger)
54% Juppé 46% Sarkozy (17-19 October)
58% Juppé 42% Sarkozy (24-26 October)
It may be that Harris are tweaking their methodology to bring themselves into line... or it could be a reversion to the mean if the mean is 60/40, which is the average.
She's so sincere. Is that why Donna Brazile got the job? She ticks two boxes!
Seriously, it's awful optics.
Non EU migrants already have "no recourse to public funds" and yet there are as many of them as EU migrants, if not more.
And again, even if you accept companies may be importing cheap welders, the young Brits who might have missed out on apprenticeships are not in fact "lolling around on benefits". They are doing some other job.
The only potential economic argument I can see against European FOM is that it discourages UK firms to invest because labour is relatively more plentiful. And, given our productivity problems, we do need firms to invest, upskill and rise up the value chain.
But I haven't seen an economic study on it. So it's just a theory. The idea that migration has dampened wage growth though seems to have no evidence behind it.
ha ha ha ha ha
Kaine rallies are akin to Owen Something - there's no passion here. My disbelief metre is red-lining.
Perhaps a Hillary fan can help me with her policy stance on anything. Trump has a boat load as I posted earlier.
IBD has Clinton's lead moving up to 2%, ABC has it moving down to 6%, LA Times has a tie.
Because it has been repudiated as nonsense in the past
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-used-green-screen-to-make-a-fake-crowd-in-nevada/
And you know there are a lot more registered Dem voters compared to registered GOP ones. What would be a 'correct' sample to reflect this? It wouldnt be zero.
https://youtu.be/droqK2or8Bs
I think the truth lies somewhere between what I've been reading on PB in the last hour. For example, there are employers and recruiters who prefer foreign workers, for whatever reason.
And here in Birmingham/Sandwell there's a considerable number of Roma immigrants. I don't blame them for coming here, they're treated abominably in Eastern Europe, but they do represent quite a strain on local services. Having said that, most of them transition well to life here, and do work, which goes to show that their pattern of life back home is more a product of circumstances than an inherent fecklessness.
I'm told often enough that migrants are not scrounging off the system - they can't get houses or benefits and if they don't work, they go home - but that's an oversimplification and the kind of statement that people know is not always true and riles them when they hear the Richmond Park set (for whom immigration has no downside) spouting it.
Wikileaks
RELEASE: The Podesta Emails Part 20 #PodestaEmails #PodestaEmails20 #HillaryClinton https://t.co/wzxeh70oUm https://t.co/V1OuCQN7of
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/north-carolina-early-vote-tracker.html?_r=0
His estimate is that Clinton will win by 6 points.
Here are the 2017 #Obamacare premiums. A family of 4 will pay $1900-$2300/month. Not to mention the deductible. #DNC https://t.co/ELaNa3y5w0
Against practically any other GOP candidate from history, Hillary would lose. But she's not up against any of them; she's up against Trump. And for that reason, she'll win.
Bruce Porter Jnr
Arab list came with special note to exclude Christians – they had to be Muslim. 26 Wikileaks
https://t.co/Ap86z9tspM https://t.co/q8SCO9T5CX
I've always chosen who I consider to be the best candidate for the specific role irrespective of where they come from
I'm not a racist though.
Trump has the support of an African American.
'I don't deny that there is an argument to be had about EU migrants being prepared to work for less, but quite frankly my dear..... any idea that we were discriminating against Brits in favour of EU migrants like for like is crap.'
Even bus drivers, at least they didn't use the usual excuse of 'skills shortage'.
British bus driver 'is refused a job interview in Watford because he's ...www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Angry-British-bus-driver-refused-job-interview-Watford-s-not-...
12 Aug 2016 - British bus driver 'is refused a job interview for Arriva in Watford ... from the bus firm to tell him their recruitment drive was only for Romanians.
If you come across something truly devastating, please post it - I'll be as eager as anyone else to see it. Otherwise, I'd want a couple of hundred pounds an hour at least to stave of the mind crushing tedium I'm fairly sure awaits me at that link.
Until then, this is pretty well all you need to know about the election:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/10/who_the_hell_is_an_undecided_voter.html
Ryan was leaning toward voting for Clinton. She wasn’t happy about it. A moderate, Ryan had wanted to find an excuse to vote for Trump. “I so much wanted Trump. I so much wanted a nonpolitician. But I don’t trust him, and I’ve become afraid of him,” she said. “I just don’t think he knows when to shut up. If he could just [say], ‘I’m a businessman, I’m not a politician, I’m gonna make American great again,’ and stop right there, then I would vote for him.” During Trump’s postconvention meltdown, though, she would watch as he “just went on and on, and his face [would get] all red.” The face reminded her of a “little boy,” like her five brothers growing up. “I remember that face. And that’s when I got scared. And so I started to listen to Clinton. I don’t love Clinton—I don’t trust her. But I think she’s the lesser of two evils.”…
…But the descriptors for Clinton weren’t any better: “robotic,” multiple “liar”s and one “liar liar pants on fire,” “maleficent,” “privileged,” “too poised,” “polished politician,” and “cool operator.” When Hart asked what they thought motivated her, “power” and “ambition” were the dominant responses…
The people who really like Clinton will vote for her; similarly Trump.
The rest, and they are not few in number, will break for Clinton.
I do love handwaving. It's the most pointless exercise - only matched by 'despair trolling' where interweb puppets claim to be Trump supporters who've now given up all hope/it's all over.
Anyone with a spec of nous can spot them.
Iowa, Ohio, Florida.
He'll lose North Carolina and fall short in Pennsylvania.
Wisconsin and Michigan will be close, but he'll fall short in both..
Hillary similiarly will fall just short in Arizona and around 4 points in Texas.
Too many lurkers sniping.
ha ha ha ha ha
It's never been 'Hillary, never in doubt' is my main point though
Seriously? This has to be one of your daftest posts. Evah.
I'm sure Tyson will pile on along with his little HillBullies gang to cast me as some Untouchable.
For a smart guy, you're being so dumb.
EDIT I'm happy to be with Eliot Ness
I've backed Clinton on the same premise. It's obvious she's going to win.
"The term waycist is a moron detector."
'As in all elections, you're rooting for the racist. Admit it and set yourself free.'
What a pathetic & childish comment,must be the Nissan news or the quarterly growth figures that has upset you.
If I'm not mistaken Plato voted Tory in 2010 & 15 but in your little lefty bubble I guess even Cameron is a racist.
Sweet Jesus. (I've laid him at 40 for £15 there so far)
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/791625798792974336
I support wealth redistribution, so why would I be upset by the government paying Nissan to stay in the UK?
I'm drinking a beer and scratching my head, whilst laughing.