Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreignness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
He contends that anglophone former British colonies constitute an ethnos (right word? would "nation" be better?) and have a superior understanding of civil rights to the rest of the world, resulting in a more peaceful administration without violent uprising since the Bill of Rights. To make this work he has to ignore Nordic countries that pioneered democracy before Britain (not to mention Greece and Rome), and maintain that the USA's impulse towards democracy is a product of British influence (as opposed to despite it), which ignores the influence of France in the independence. Not to mention the Irish War of Independence and the Highland Clearances.
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story
You're suggesting that anyone who thinks Clinton's behaviour is worse than Trump's must be "biased"?
Obviously you're prejudiced.
No, I'm suggesting that any publication which suggests that the only black mark against Clinton is 'Poor email server management' is guilty of bias.
As for the 'smoking gun': Multinational corporation has periodic communication of some form with a major bank in Russia. So what?
I'm suggesting that anyone who suggests that's all it was is guilty of bias.
A multinational organisation which is engaged in multiple real estate projects will have communications with all kinds of banks for various reasons. Why pick on this one? Because it's a very tenuous way of implying some kind of conspiracy.
Well, really I was mostly pulling your pompous leg, but seriously, the suggestion in the article is obviously that the behaviour of this server was highly unusual - not just standard commercial communication.
Perhaps you're a computer expert - who knows? - and you've decided they've got it all wrong. But if so it would be more intelligent to say so rather than giving people the impression you haven't even read the article you're pontificating about.
While the guardian / bbc creamed themselves over NI phone "hacking" of which celebs were banging one another , the independent made far more serious claims in regards to proper hacking by businesses Including legal firms on other rival businesses.
One thing that occurred to me of one possible explanation not detailed by the nerds investigating this is that some Russians have hacked into trump & that is what they are seeing in the weird traffic profiles.
Yes that's plausible.
Anyway it looks like the NY Times is going with another tax story so this will be competing for attention in tomorrow's media.
You're suggesting that anyone who thinks Clinton's behaviour is worse than Trump's must be "biased"?
Obviously you're prejudiced.
No, I'm suggesting that any publication which suggests that the only black mark against Clinton is 'Poor email server management' is guilty of bias.
As for the 'smoking gun': Multinational corporation has periodic communication of some form with a major bank in Russia. So what?
I'm suggesting that anyone who suggests that's all it was is guilty of bias.
A multinational organisation which is engaged in multiple real estate projects will have communications with all kinds of banks for various reasons. Why pick on this one? Because it's a very tenuous way of implying some kind of conspiracy.
But the suggestion is that a) the server has never been used for trumps real estate business b) the fact is it very limited & abnormal internet traffic for the supposed marketing business it is connected to.
One thing that occurred to me of one possible explanation not detailed by the nerds investigating this is that some Russians have hacked into trump & that is what they are seeing in the weird traffic profiles.
The article says that what the nerds were trying to do in the first place was to determine whether hackers were interfering with the Trump campaign, but that they ruled that out as an explanation for the strange behaviour they saw.
One thing that occurred to me of one possible explanation not detailed by the nerds investigating this is that some Russians have hacked into trump & that is what they are seeing in the weird traffic profiles.
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.
Is that even with Maine's congressional district?
You have to consider Nebraska's congressional district too which might cancel that out and Hillary has been leading in all districts of Maine in the latest polling
Surely it's not going to be this tight? I'm not sure I could last the night...
I have put a bet on the winner of the presidency (most probably Hillary) losing the popular vote ...
One thing that occurred to me of one possible explanation not detailed by the nerds investigating this is that some Russians have hacked into trump & that is what they are seeing in the weird traffic profiles.
One thing that occurred to me of one possible explanation not detailed by the nerds investigating this is that some Russians have hacked into trump & that is what they are seeing in the weird traffic profiles.
Yes that's plausible.
You really didn't read the article, did you?
The article talks about they were searching for malware & automated bot attacks etc. They concluded it was "manual". As far as I could tell, they didn't consider / That doesn't exclude that somebody had an "in" which they manually activated at times when they knew Trump Organisation would be doing things on the server.
Like with phone hacking, they used to listen to voice mails at particular times of the day. From the outside looking in, the lookups of people's voicemails would.have had a very odd traffic shape with lots of special calls from some ex footballers office.
Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreignness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
He contends that anglophone former British colonies constitute an ethnos (right word? would "nation" be better?) and have a superior understanding of civil rights to the rest of the world, resulting in a more peaceful administration without violent uprising since the Bill of Rights. To make this work he has to ignore Nordic countries that pioneered democracy before Britain (not to mention Greece and Rome), and maintain that the USA's impulse towards democracy is a product of British influence (as opposed to despite it), which ignores the influence of France in the independence. Not to mention the Irish War of Independence and the Highland Clearances.
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.
Is that even with Maine's congressional district?
You have to consider Nebraska's congressional district too which might cancel that out and Hillary has been leading in all districts of Maine in the latest polling
Surely it's not going to be this tight? I'm not sure I could last the night...
I have put a bet on the winner of the presidency (most probably Hillary) losing the popular vote ...
Good to see Nate and I on the same wavelength for once, though he seems to think it would be Trump more likely to win the electoral college and lose the popular vote whereas RCP suggests it would be Hillary. Goodnight
There is one big thing that doesn't work for me in that article. If the Russians had a load of dirt.on Clinton & were feeding it to team trump, they don't seem to be using it. I would of thought if there was serious damaging dirt it would relate to solid evidence of pay for play via the Clinton foundation (which is what I presume certain people think are in all the missing emails). But to date, pay for play / Clinton foundation is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, Having been paid big bucks for speeches in some odd places.
So far this year, there have been six homicides in Croydon compared to only one in Hackney, the opposite of what one might have expected a few years ago. The total for the year so far for Greater London is 76, a very low number indeed.
So far this year, there have been six homicides in Croydon compared to only one in Hackney, the opposite of what one might have expected a few years ago. The total for the year so far for Greater London is 76, a very low number indeed.
Interesting to note that the two homicides this year in Redbridge have both been stabbings at birthday parties.
Given the figures are so small, easily be statistical "noise", but have you been to Croydon recently? Isnt a surprise to me if that becomes the norm there.
Donald Trump has never shied away from reports that he has routinely refused to pay contractors, lawyers, and other people who have done work for him over the years. “Let’s say that they do a job that’s not good, or a job that they didn’t finish, or a job that was way late. I’ll deduct from their contract, absolutely,” Trump bragged this summer when confronted with a USA Today report documenting dozens of lawsuits against him. So it should come as little surprise that Trump, now the Republican nominee for president, is reportedly refusing to pay his own pollster. The results of Trump’s internal polls, after all, do not look good for the candidate.
Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, a veteran polling strategist, claims that the Trump campaign currently owes his firm $766,756.67 dollars for his work, as well as an additional $55,300 in debt...
Donald Trump has never shied away from reports that he has routinely refused to pay contractors, lawyers, and other people who have done work for him over the years. “Let’s say that they do a job that’s not good, or a job that they didn’t finish, or a job that was way late. I’ll deduct from their contract, absolutely,” Trump bragged this summer when confronted with a USA Today report documenting dozens of lawsuits against him. So it should come as little surprise that Trump, now the Republican nominee for president, is reportedly refusing to pay his own pollster. The results of Trump’s internal polls, after all, do not look good for the candidate.
Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, a veteran polling strategist, claims that the Trump campaign currently owes his firm $766,756.67 dollars for his work, as well as an additional $55,300 in debt...
So far this year, there have been six homicides in Croydon compared to only one in Hackney, the opposite of what one might have expected a few years ago. The total for the year so far for Greater London is 76, a very low number indeed.
Interesting to note that the two homicides this year in Redbridge have both been stabbings at birthday parties.
Given the figures are so small, easily be statistical "noise", but have you been to Croydon recently? Isnt a surprise to me if that becomes the norm there.
I was there a couple of years ago. The shopping centre in the middle of the town was a bit menacing after dark. (The figure for Croydon should be seven not six because the website I referred to has accidentally put one Croydon case in the Barnet section).
Both Tony Fabrizio's "Trump owes me money" story and the "Trump Tower has a private server communicating with a Russian bank" story seem to have had little effect on Trump's odds in the betting market. The damaging effect on Clinton of James Comey's letter to Congress, which one would have to be naive to believe wasn't its purpose, is not so far being reversed. There must surely be a feeling in the Trump camp of "if this is the best you've got, it's pathetic". A big blow against Trump now seems unlikely. A further big blow against Clinton could win this for Trump.
Both Tony Fabrizio's "Trump owes me money" story and the "Trump Tower has a private server communicating with a Russian bank" story seem to have had little effect on Trump's odds in the betting market. The damaging effect on Clinton of James Comey's letter to Congress, which one would have to be naive to believe wasn't its purpose, is not so far being reversed. There must surely be a feeling in the Trump camp of "if this is the best you've got, it's pathetic". A big blow against Trump now seems unlikely. A further big blow against Clinton could win this for Trump.
It's also worth noting that the story about the Trump Foundation collecting money in New York state as a charity but without being registered as a charity seems to have fizzled out. The New York attorney general demanded that the Trump Foundation produce documents by 15 October, but there has been no reporting of whether the Foundation managed to comply. Did the AG back down? Or perhaps the issue has snowballed and is about to come hurtling at Trump and the Fabrizio and Alfa Bank stories are tasters? Which I seriously doubt, because pulling punches and waiting while landing a few jabs doesn't seem like a sensible strategy now for the Clinton campaign.
There is one big thing that doesn't work for me in that article. If the Russians had a load of dirt.on Clinton & were feeding it to team trump, they don't seem to be using it. I would of thought if there was serious damaging dirt it would relate to solid evidence of pay for play via the Clinton foundation (which is what I presume certain people think are in all the missing emails). But to date, pay for play / Clinton foundation is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, Having been paid big bucks for speeches in some odd places.
Both Tony Fabrizio's "Trump owes me money" story and the "Trump Tower has a private server communicating with a Russian bank" story seem to have had little effect on Trump's odds in the betting market. The damaging effect on Clinton of James Comey's letter to Congress, which one would have to be naive to believe wasn't its purpose, is not so far being reversed. There must surely be a feeling in the Trump camp of "if this is the best you've got, it's pathetic". A big blow against Trump now seems unlikely. A further big blow against Clinton could win this for Trump.
It's also worth noting that the story about the Trump Foundation collecting money in New York state as a charity but without being registered as a charity seems to have fizzled out. The New York attorney general demanded that the Trump Foundation produce documents by 15 October, but there has been no reporting of whether the Foundation managed to comply. Did the AG back down? .
No - he gave the Foundation more time to comply:
Monday was supposed to be the deadline for Donald Trump's charitable foundation - which had been soliciting donations without the official registration required by New York state - to comply with state law.
But, early Monday afternoon, a spokesman for the New York attorney general said that Trump's foundation had asked for, and been granted, extra time.
"They've requested more time, and we've agreed to provide the Trump Foundation with more time," said Eric Soufer, a spokesman for Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, D. Soufer declined to say how much longer the attorney general's office had agreed to wait.
There is one big thing that doesn't work for me in that article. If the Russians had a load of dirt.on Clinton & were feeding it to team trump, they don't seem to be using it. I would of thought if there was serious damaging dirt it would relate to solid evidence of pay for play via the Clinton foundation (which is what I presume certain people think are in all the missing emails). But to date, pay for play / Clinton foundation is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, Having been paid big bucks for speeches in some odd places.
Both Tony Fabrizio's "Trump owes me money" story and the "Trump Tower has a private server communicating with a Russian bank" story seem to have had little effect on Trump's odds in the betting market. The damaging effect on Clinton of James Comey's letter to Congress, which one would have to be naive to believe wasn't its purpose, is not so far being reversed. There must surely be a feeling in the Trump camp of "if this is the best you've got, it's pathetic". A big blow against Trump now seems unlikely. A further big blow against Clinton could win this for Trump.
It's also worth noting that the story about the Trump Foundation collecting money in New York state as a charity but without being registered as a charity seems to have fizzled out. The New York attorney general demanded that the Trump Foundation produce documents by 15 October, but there has been no reporting of whether the Foundation managed to comply. Did the AG back down? .
No - he gave the Foundation more time to comply:
Monday was supposed to be the deadline for Donald Trump's charitable foundation - which had been soliciting donations without the official registration required by New York state - to comply with state law.
But, early Monday afternoon, a spokesman for the New York attorney general said that Trump's foundation had asked for, and been granted, extra time.
"They've requested more time, and we've agreed to provide the Trump Foundation with more time," said Eric Soufer, a spokesman for Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, D. Soufer declined to say how much longer the attorney general's office had agreed to wait.
"Mrs May presented the lifetime achievement award to Prof Stephen Hawking, telling the audience: 'There is nothing theoretical about his genius.'
Receiving the award, Prof Hawkins said: 'Thank you Prime Minster for those very kind words. I deal with very difficult mathematical questions every day but please don't ask me to help with Brexit.'
Quite right. If, in ten or twenty years time, we have a full-on Trump eruption here and the political establishment tries to appeal to reason, voters will be perfectly entitled to say "look what you did" and tell them to fuck right off.
If you create a culture with no shame, then you forfeit not merely the right but the ability to call out shameless behaviour.
Their internal polling must be really worrying to do that. And it has to be high risk. If I'm a floating voter, I might just take away that hidden in the Weiner e-mail stash is something showing Hillary's conduct to have been even more egregious than Russia meddling in their election.....
Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreignness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
He contends that anglophone former British colonies constitute an ethnos (right word? would "nation" be better?) and have a superior understanding of civil rights to the rest of the world, resulting in a more peaceful administration without violent uprising since the Bill of Rights. To make this work he has to ignore Nordic countries that pioneered democracy before Britain (not to mention Greece and Rome), and maintain that the USA's impulse towards democracy is a product of British influence (as opposed to despite it), which ignores the influence of France in the independence. Not to mention the Irish War of Independence and the Highland Clearances.
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned
Their internal polling must be really worrying to do that. And it has to be high risk. If I'm a floating voter, I might just take away that hidden in the Weiner e-mail stash is something showing Hillary's conduct to have been even more egregious than Russia meddling in their election.....
It's a dangerous development. You now have the supposedly moderate and sensible candidate and many of her supporters suggesting none-too-subtly that the head of federal law enforcement is meddling in politics. It would be as if Theresa May were to suggest that the Met Commissioner were dredging up unhelpful allegations at the behest of the Labour Party a week before a General Election. All very banana republic.
Several of my friends are badge wearing Clinton fanbois and are getting Very Angry that Emails Which Aren't Important are seemingly important when everyone should focus on that disgusting Sexual Predator Donald Trump who is a world away from their hero Bill Clinton the Chaiste.
"To state the obvious, this is not a normal election. Democrats have nominated the first woman to head a major-party ticket, a controversial figure with vast experience who has been on the national stage for three decades. Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster.
That has to be the bottom line: Who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office, making the life-or-death decisions that come with being the most powerful individual on earth? Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
Taking a few steps back this really has to be right and this is surely the choice America will make. Clinton is a deeply tainted individual but she is fit for purpose. TINA.
"To state the obvious, this is not a normal election. Democrats have nominated the first woman to head a major-party ticket, a controversial figure with vast experience who has been on the national stage for three decades. Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster.
That has to be the bottom line: Who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office, making the life-or-death decisions that come with being the most powerful individual on earth? Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
Taking a few steps back this really has to be right and this is surely the choice America will make. Clinton is a deeply tainted individual but she is fit for purpose. TINA.
On paper thats obvious to most people. Then step back and appreciate that the American economy is broken for tens of millions and that another 4 years of continuity Reagan isn't sustainable, that the alarming sabre rattling against Russia threatens not Cold War 2 but World War 3 and ask the question again about fit for purpose.
A president who has shagged his way to the top and treats women as objects to use and discard. It's Disgusting and Outrageous say fans of Bill Clinton. There are Mexican Walls of hypocrisy at play here. Anyway, it's America. Their president is a figurehead...
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
"To state the obvious, this is not a normal election. Democrats have nominated the first woman to head a major-party ticket, a controversial figure with vast experience who has been on the national stage for three decades. Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster.
That has to be the bottom line: Who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office, making the life-or-death decisions that come with being the most powerful individual on earth? Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
Taking a few steps back this really has to be right and this is surely the choice America will make. Clinton is a deeply tainted individual but she is fit for purpose. TINA.
Typical pompous puffery from Eugene Robinson's pen. Zero credibility.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.
"To state the obvious, this is not a normal election. Democrats have nominated the first woman to head a major-party ticket, a controversial figure with vast experience who has been on the national stage for three decades. Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster.
That has to be the bottom line: Who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office, making the life-or-death decisions that come with being the most powerful individual on earth? Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
Taking a few steps back this really has to be right and this is surely the choice America will make. Clinton is a deeply tainted individual but she is fit for purpose. TINA.
Typical pompous puffery from Eugene Robinson's pen. Zero credibility.
No, this is spot on: "Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster."
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.
Representative democracy is finished across the pond. I expect us to follow fairly soon.
"To state the obvious, this is not a normal election. Democrats have nominated the first woman to head a major-party ticket, a controversial figure with vast experience who has been on the national stage for three decades. Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster.
That has to be the bottom line: Who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office, making the life-or-death decisions that come with being the most powerful individual on earth? Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
Taking a few steps back this really has to be right and this is surely the choice America will make. Clinton is a deeply tainted individual but she is fit for purpose. TINA.
Typical pompous puffery from Eugene Robinson's pen. Zero credibility.
No, this is spot on: "Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster."
Its spot on about Trump. It may prove optimistic about HRC.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? .
There is literally a website where you can see what Clinton has done over the years compared to Trump. ( https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tools/way-back-when/ ) She went on and on about her achievements in the debate to the extent she was mocked for repeatedly bringing up her achievements.
You seem to have confused not paying attention to Clinton not saying.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? .
There is literally a website where you can see what Clinton has done over the years compared to Trump. ( https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tools/way-back-when/ ) She went on and on about her achievements in the debate to the extent she was mocked for repeatedly bringing up her achievements.
You seem to have confused not paying attention to Clinton not saying.
I opened it up, and the first one was:
During an address on energy diplomacy, Hillary says we need to address “the very real threat of climate change.”
Trump tweets that climate change “was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,”—and later calls it a hoax.
How is that doing something/having achieved something?
Both Tony Fabrizio's "Trump owes me money" story and the "Trump Tower has a private server communicating with a Russian bank" story seem to have had little effect on Trump's odds in the betting market. The damaging effect on Clinton of James Comey's letter to Congress, which one would have to be naive to believe wasn't its purpose, is not so far being reversed. There must surely be a feeling in the Trump camp of "if this is the best you've got, it's pathetic". A big blow against Trump now seems unlikely. A further big blow against Clinton could win this for Trump.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.
Representative democracy is finished across the pond. I expect us to follow fairly soon.
I thought the consensus was that democracy ended here on June 23rd. I am sure I saw a lot of posts to that effect.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.
In terms of monetisation, what has Clinton done that other politicians haven't? Look over here - from Thatcher through to Blair and beyond politicians have made money for themselves and their families on the back of their service.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.
Representative democracy is finished across the pond. I expect us to follow fairly soon.
I thought the consensus was that democracy ended here on June 23rd. I am sure I saw a lot of posts to that effect.
After the biggest democratic decision we've ever made?
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.
In terms of monetisation, what has Clinton done that other politicians haven't? Look over here - from Thatcher through to Blair and beyond politicians have made money for themselves and their families on the back of their service.
Even Blair has not touched $200m. But it is the money extorted by the Clinton Foundation and what happened to that money, that is going to dog her Presidency. I will be surprised if a Special Investigator, Starr style, is not in office before she is.
"To state the obvious, this is not a normal election. Democrats have nominated the first woman to head a major-party ticket, a controversial figure with vast experience who has been on the national stage for three decades. Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster.
That has to be the bottom line: Who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office, making the life-or-death decisions that come with being the most powerful individual on earth? Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
Taking a few steps back this really has to be right and this is surely the choice America will make. Clinton is a deeply tainted individual but she is fit for purpose. TINA.
Typical pompous puffery from Eugene Robinson's pen. Zero credibility.
No, this is spot on: "Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster."
I disagree. Robinson's boilerplate crap is worthless.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? .
There is literally a website where you can see what Clinton has done over the years compared to Trump. ( https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tools/way-back-when/ ) She went on and on about her achievements in the debate to the extent she was mocked for repeatedly bringing up her achievements.
You seem to have confused not paying attention to Clinton not saying.
I can find one concrete achievement - the student bill. The rest is talk and verbiage, mostly on the back of her being Bill's wife. That's not achieving anything except in the strange parallel universe inhabited by Blair. She should have been disqualified from further office (answering @DavidL) after the healthcare reform fiasco which she screwed up because she (a) couldn't draft legislation, taking years and hundreds of pages to draft something that should have been fairly short and simple and (b) refused to make a couple of compromises that would have radically increased healthcare coverage on the grounds that they would not have allowed immediate universal coverage - while an admirable principle, incremental reform would have been far better than no reform.
I understand she is likely to win. Indeed, I'm rather hoping she does, although I'm also desperately hoping for a moderate Republican congress, if such a thing even exists, to keep a brake on her incompetence. But I am neither starry-eyed nor stupid. She is a very weak candidate and will be a very poor president. The only way she could possibly shine is up against someone like Trump, and to be honest she's not even shining against him.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.
Representative democracy is finished across the pond. I expect us to follow fairly soon.
I thought the consensus was that democracy ended here on June 23rd. I am sure I saw a lot of posts to that effect.
After the biggest democratic decision we've ever made?
Yep. It proved that people are not smart enough to vote or be trusted with complex issues or too easily fooled by lying politicians (smart tip, check if their mouths are moving) or just plain racist or bigoted or something. The details vary from day to day.
There is one big thing that doesn't work for me in that article. If the Russians had a load of dirt.on Clinton & were feeding it to team trump, they don't seem to be using it. I would of thought if there was serious damaging dirt it would relate to solid evidence of pay for play via the Clinton foundation (which is what I presume certain people think are in all the missing emails). But to date, pay for play / Clinton foundation is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, Having been paid big bucks for speeches in some odd places.
Maybe there's no dirt, because she's clean.
Brains explode.......
Maybe they can't find any WMD because Saddam has no WMD.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.
In terms of monetisation, what has Clinton done that other politicians haven't? Look over here - from Thatcher through to Blair and beyond politicians have made money for themselves and their families on the back of their service.
The Clintons are already an order of magnitude worse. God only knows the scale of corruption awaiting the US should Bill and Hillary return to the White House.
What was the saying about Caesar's wife being above suspicion? Looking at the e-mail farrago, it's a disaster.
It may all be innocent, but no one in America trusts HRC. Even her supporters resort to What-about-ery. Deleting loads of official e-mails hiding loads of others when she had the chance. Now the cover-up, or forgetfulness, or whatever, is coming back to haunt her.
Having a go at the FBI for bringing it up? Why not give them all the information in the first place?
No-one's suggesting the Pussy-gate women should keep quiet because it might affect the Election.
She's brought it on herself.
Watergate wasn't that big an issue - typical dirty tricks for America. It was the lack of honesty that did for Nixon (plus the fact that the media do like to preen when they get the chance).
Trump is bonkers, but he's still in the race because Hillary has given him the chance because ... well, she is dishonest. And US voters have a basic distrust of their politicians anyway.
There is one big thing that doesn't work for me in that article. If the Russians had a load of dirt.on Clinton & were feeding it to team trump, they don't seem to be using it. I would of thought if there was serious damaging dirt it would relate to solid evidence of pay for play via the Clinton foundation (which is what I presume certain people think are in all the missing emails). But to date, pay for play / Clinton foundation is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, Having been paid big bucks for speeches in some odd places.
Maybe there's no dirt, because she's clean.
Brains explode.......
Maybe they can't find any WMD because Saddam has no WMD.
Ridiculous idea I know.
.. but a whole illegal war was fought on the fact that "WE " knew Saddam had WMD. I mean our intelligence service is the best in the world...
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Being investigated is no particular evidence of wrongdoing in this context. Running a private email server was unwise but it something several of her peers and predecessors did, but only she was investigated. Let's also remember that she was found not to have a prosecutable case. She is more able to formulate detailed policy than most presidents and vastly more so than George W Bush or Ronald Reagan for example. She is unable to communicate it, accepted.
She is extremely hardworking. Maybe too much, do she had written herself out. On her record competent too. Arrogant? Not more than most in her position. Unpleasant? Maybe. It's an opinion. Sleaze-ball? A bit. It depends on your standards. In a political culture that is built on hundreds of millions of dollars sloshing through the system, there are plenty of others.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.
In terms of monetisation, what has Clinton done that other politicians haven't? Look over here - from Thatcher through to Blair and beyond politicians have made money for themselves and their families on the back of their service.
They did it after leaving office, when conflicts of interest are no longer as important.
She has done it before going for the highest office in the world. The potential for trouble seems to me to be greater.
However, she is materially helped by the fact Trump is equally implicated in highly dubious monetary dealings, as we have been seeing.
The central premise of the threadstarter is spot on. UKIP need to patch themselves together then actually make progress under FPTP.
For all their dysfunction in Wales, they've actually got a fair amount of support and seats there (I think). I wonder if Nutall will go for a northern strategy. That could be good for UKIP and bad for Labour.
The central premise of the threadstarter is spot on. UKIP need to patch themselves together then actually make progress under FPTP.
For all their dysfunction in Wales, they've actually got a fair amount of support and seats there (I think). I wonder if Nutall will go for a northern strategy. That could be good for UKIP and bad for Labour.
Wonder if current Tories would be happy for their party to morph into the defacto centre and centre left party.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.
Representative democracy is finished across the pond. I expect us to follow fairly soon.
Have you considered taking something for your delusions?
I don't understand how people think Hillary has a leg to stand on when it comes to the Trump misogyny issue. The only reason she rose as high as she did was because she rode on the coat tails of her husband a noted womaniser. So yes Trump is a pig when it comes to women. But alkso yes, so was Bill Clinton. And Hillary Clinton chose to ignore it judging that she can use him to climb the ladder and that presumably was more important that her husband shagging anything that walks.
Hillary Clinton will be a disaster of a President based on her record and her character. Trump will almost certainly be a disaster of a President based on his character. Both are likely to spend a large proportion of their time under investigation for their various crimes and misdemeanours. So what does it matter which one wins? South Park have it right - a choice between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. But which is which?
Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreignness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
He contends that anglophone former British colonies constitute an ethnos (right word? would "nation" be better?) and have a superior understanding of civil rights to the rest of the world, resulting in a more peaceful administration without violent uprising since the Bill of Rights. To make this work he has to ignore Nordic countries that pioneered democracy before Britain (not to mention Greece and Rome), and maintain that the USA's impulse towards democracy is a product of British influence (as opposed to despite it), which ignores the influence of France in the independence. Not to mention the Irish War of Independence and the Highland Clearances.
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned
That's certainly a more comprehensive analysis of Hannan's worldview than he ever manages. As has been pointed out, he has a tendency to block people when challenged, or reverts to a sickly sweet Anglosycophancy as a substitute for persuasion.
Who could have predicted Peruvian-born Hannan would be such a fan of the Anglosphere?
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story
But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!
Seth Stevenson of the "Slate" re-interviews a panel of 13 GOP voters, who had concerns about Trump becoming their nominee, to see who they will be voting for :
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story
But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!
The FBI wouldn't be investigating if it were so trivial.
Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreignness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
He contends that anglophone former British colonies constitute an ethnos (right word? would "nation" be better?) and have a superior understanding of civil rights to the rest of the world, resulting in a more peaceful administration without violent uprising since the Bill of Rights. To make this work he has to ignore Nordic countries that pioneered democracy before Britain (not to mention Greece and Rome), and maintain that the USA's impulse towards democracy is a product of British influence (as opposed to despite it), which ignores the influence of France in the independence. Not to mention the Irish War of Independence and the Highland Clearances.
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned
That's certainly a more comprehensive analysis of Hannan's worldview than he ever manages. As has been pointed out, he has a tendency to block people when challenged, or reverts to a sickly sweet Anglosycophancy as a substitute for persuasion.
Who could have predicted Peruvian-born Hannan would be such a fan of the Anglosphere?
I read his Anglophone exceptionalism stuff posted on here last night and he went seriously down in my estimations. That is not to say that Canadians' sacrifice in the war was not courageous and heart-rending. Yet many nations made huge sacrifices - not least the Soviet Union which, as all good PB historians know, lost more men in WWII than all the other belligerents combined. Speaking English was not and is not a prerequisite for bravery.
Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreignness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
He contends that anglophone former British colonies constitute an ethnos (right word? would "nation" be better?) and have a superior understanding of civil rights to the rest of the world, resulting in a more peaceful administration without violent uprising since the Bill of Rights. To make this work he has to ignore Nordic countries that pioneered democracy before Britain (not to mention Greece and Rome), and maintain that the USA's impulse towards democracy is a product of British influence (as opposed to despite it), which ignores the influence of France in the independence. Not to mention the Irish War of Independence and the Highland Clearances.
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned
That's certainly a more comprehensive analysis of Hannan's worldview than he ever manages. As has been pointed out, he has a tendency to block people when challenged, or reverts to a sickly sweet Anglosycophancy as a substitute for persuasion.
Who could have predicted Peruvian-born Hannan would be such a fan of the Anglosphere?
Hannan is one of those chaps that presents a good front. He uses language well and makes his points aggressively.
Yet for all that, there doesn't seem to be much depth. When he himself is challenged he is very brittle. Immediately post Brexit he almost went into meltdown.
I wonder which safe seat he is gunning for. Tick took.
There is one big thing that doesn't work for me in that article. If the Russians had a load of dirt.on Clinton & were feeding it to team trump, they don't seem to be using it. I would of thought if there was serious damaging dirt it would relate to solid evidence of pay for play via the Clinton foundation (which is what I presume certain people think are in all the missing emails). But to date, pay for play / Clinton foundation is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, Having been paid big bucks for speeches in some odd places.
Maybe there's no dirt, because she's clean.
Brains explode.......
Maybe they can't find any WMD because Saddam has no WMD.
Ridiculous idea I know.
.. but a whole illegal war was fought on the fact that "WE " knew Saddam had WMD. I mean our intelligence service is the best in the world...
Without wanting to reopen *very* old arguments ...
To be fair, it was much more complex than that. If you read various sources, including TimT's book, published before the 2002/3 disaster, it is clear there was zero trust between the weapons inspectors and intelligence services on one hand (including the Russians), and the Iraqis on the other.
If the Iraqis had no WMDs, and were not attempting to make any, then they were saying and doing exactly the wrong things to convince us of that.
Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
Being investigated is no particular evidence of wrongdoing in this context. Running a private email server was unwise but it something several of her peers and predecessors did, but only she was investigated. Let's also remember that she was found not to have a prosecutable case. She is more able to formulate detailed policy than most presidents and vastly more so than George W Bush or Ronald Reagan for example. She is unable to communicate it, accepted.
She is extremely hardworking. Maybe too much, do she had written herself out. On her record competent too. Arrogant? Not more than most in her position. Unpleasant? Maybe. It's an opinion. Sleaze-ball? A bit. It depends on your standards. In a political culture that is built on hundreds of millions of dollars sloshing through the system, there are plenty of others.
People on this site keep saying Clinton has failed to articulate any policies. This campaign has been about Trump. That has been her job for months - keep the focus on whether Trump is fit to be president. No point in muddying the waters with policy.
"But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!"
I think you'll find it's a little more complicated than that.
I had a brief visit to the USA earlier this year (although to be honest, it wasn't the USA, it was California). Some of the women there will vote for HRC because she has ovaries, but there seemed little else behind their convictions. Still, that's democracy.
I'm not sure that nepotism is a good look for the USA, be it Jeb Bush, or Chelsea in a few years time. But it's up to them, and I admit I'm not an expert on Septic politicians.
The central premise of the threadstarter is spot on. UKIP need to patch themselves together then actually make progress under FPTP.
For all their dysfunction in Wales, they've actually got a fair amount of support and seats there (I think). I wonder if Nutall will go for a northern strategy. That could be good for UKIP and bad for Labour.
I think that UKIP's seats in Wales were not won on FPTP.
Seth Stevenson of the "Slate" re-interviews a panel of 13 GOP voters, who had concerns about Trump becoming their nominee, to see who they will be voting for :
Lifelong GOP supporter (now voting for Hillary): "Clinton basically trotted out the socialist manifesto. But the released WikiLeaks transcripts of her paid speeches were very comforting to me."
I believe the tired and traditional PB cliche for moments like this is "heart of stone not to laugh etc"..
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points: http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story
But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!
The FBI wouldn't be investigating if it were so trivial.
Er, you know they haven't read the emails right? You have zero evidence for your statement. None.
Comments
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6008.html
Perhaps you're a computer expert - who knows? - and you've decided they've got it all wrong. But if so it would be more intelligent to say so rather than giving people the impression you haven't even read the article you're pontificating about.
While the guardian / bbc creamed themselves over NI phone "hacking" of which celebs were banging one another , the independent made far more serious claims in regards to proper hacking by businesses Including legal firms on other rival businesses.
Anyway it looks like the NY Times is going with another tax story so this will be competing for attention in tomorrow's media.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-odds-of-an-electoral-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/?ex_cid=2016-forecast
Here's the same thing being pushed a month ago:
https://gdd53.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/first-blog-post/
Like with phone hacking, they used to listen to voice mails at particular times of the day. From the outside looking in, the lookups of people's voicemails would.have had a very odd traffic shape with lots of special calls from some ex footballers office.
There is one big thing that doesn't work for me in that article. If the Russians had a load of dirt.on Clinton & were feeding it to team trump, they don't seem to be using it. I would of thought if there was serious damaging dirt it would relate to solid evidence of pay for play via the Clinton foundation (which is what I presume certain people think are in all the missing emails). But to date, pay for play / Clinton foundation is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, Having been paid big bucks for speeches in some odd places.
So far this year, there have been six homicides in Croydon compared to only one in Hackney, the opposite of what one might have expected a few years ago. The total for the year so far for Greater London is 76, a very low number indeed.
http://www.murdermap.co.uk/investigate.asp
Interesting to note that the two homicides this year in Redbridge have both been stabbings at birthday parties.
Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, a veteran polling strategist, claims that the Trump campaign currently owes his firm $766,756.67 dollars for his work, as well as an additional $55,300 in debt...
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/donald-trump-pollster-unpaid
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/793253029197836292
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3891738/Theresa-Maynia-Selfies-autographs-red-carpet-PM-works-crowd-like-true-lister-Pride-Britain-awards.html
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/theresa-may-asserts-control-in-a-revamped-cabinet-committee-system/
Monday was supposed to be the deadline for Donald Trump's charitable foundation - which had been soliciting donations without the official registration required by New York state - to comply with state law.
But, early Monday afternoon, a spokesman for the New York attorney general said that Trump's foundation had asked for, and been granted, extra time.
"They've requested more time, and we've agreed to provide the Trump Foundation with more time," said Eric Soufer, a spokesman for Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, D. Soufer declined to say how much longer the attorney general's office had agreed to wait.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-foundation-20161017-story.html
Receiving the award, Prof Hawkins said: 'Thank you Prime Minster for those very kind words. I deal with very difficult mathematical questions every day but please don't ask me to help with Brexit.'
Arf!
https://twitter.com/montie/status/793208647853699072
Quite right. If, in ten or twenty years time, we have a full-on Trump eruption here and the political establishment tries to appeal to reason, voters will be perfectly entitled to say "look what you did" and tell them to fuck right off.
If you create a culture with no shame, then you forfeit not merely the right but the ability to call out shameless behaviour.
Election ends tentatively at 269-269. Florida goes to recount. Recount goes to Supreme Court. Court deadlocks 4-4.
8:27 pm - 31 Oct 2016
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37830521
Their internal polling must be really worrying to do that. And it has to be high risk. If I'm a floating voter, I might just take away that hidden in the Weiner e-mail stash is something showing Hillary's conduct to have been even more egregious than Russia meddling in their election.....
"To state the obvious, this is not a normal election. Democrats have nominated the first woman to head a major-party ticket, a controversial figure with vast experience who has been on the national stage for three decades. Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster.
That has to be the bottom line: Who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office, making the life-or-death decisions that come with being the most powerful individual on earth? Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/01/breathe_deeply_then_go_vote_132213.html
Taking a few steps back this really has to be right and this is surely the choice America will make. Clinton is a deeply tainted individual but she is fit for purpose. TINA.
A president who has shagged his way to the top and treats women as objects to use and discard. It's Disgusting and Outrageous say fans of Bill Clinton. There are Mexican Walls of hypocrisy at play here. Anyway, it's America. Their president is a figurehead...
On the plus side, it shows how well-regarded a fridge salesman can be in his party. No sniffiness you'd get from the Tories about being "in trade".
Even if it is rough....
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpJkACHCHeQ
http://nypost.com/2016/10/31/hillary-planning-election-night-fireworks-show-on-hudson-river/
"Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster."
You seem to have confused not paying attention to Clinton not saying.
During an address on energy diplomacy, Hillary says we need to address “the very real threat of climate change.”
Trump tweets that climate change “was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,”—and later calls it a hoax.
How is that doing something/having achieved something?
I understand she is likely to win. Indeed, I'm rather hoping she does, although I'm also desperately hoping for a moderate Republican congress, if such a thing even exists, to keep a brake on her incompetence. But I am neither starry-eyed nor stupid. She is a very weak candidate and will be a very poor president. The only way she could possibly shine is up against someone like Trump, and to be honest she's not even shining against him.
Ridiculous idea I know.
https://twitter.com/DaveStroup/status/793243759379030016
What was the saying about Caesar's wife being above suspicion? Looking at the e-mail farrago, it's a disaster.
It may all be innocent, but no one in America trusts HRC. Even her supporters resort to What-about-ery. Deleting loads of official e-mails hiding loads of others when she had the chance. Now the cover-up, or forgetfulness, or whatever, is coming back to haunt her.
Having a go at the FBI for bringing it up? Why not give them all the information in the first place?
No-one's suggesting the Pussy-gate women should keep quiet because it might affect the Election.
She's brought it on herself.
Watergate wasn't that big an issue - typical dirty tricks for America. It was the lack of honesty that did for Nixon (plus the fact that the media do like to preen when they get the chance).
Trump is bonkers, but he's still in the race because Hillary has given him the chance because ... well, she is dishonest. And US voters have a basic distrust of their politicians anyway.
She is extremely hardworking. Maybe too much, do she had written herself out. On her record competent too. Arrogant? Not more than most in her position. Unpleasant? Maybe. It's an opinion. Sleaze-ball? A bit. It depends on your standards. In a political culture that is built on hundreds of millions of dollars sloshing through the system, there are plenty of others.
She has done it before going for the highest office in the world. The potential for trouble seems to me to be greater.
However, she is materially helped by the fact Trump is equally implicated in highly dubious monetary dealings, as we have been seeing.
The central premise of the threadstarter is spot on. UKIP need to patch themselves together then actually make progress under FPTP.
For all their dysfunction in Wales, they've actually got a fair amount of support and seats there (I think). I wonder if Nutall will go for a northern strategy. That could be good for UKIP and bad for Labour.
Clinton 49 .. Trump 38
http://www.fandm.edu/uploads/files/913809798323927231-f-m-poll-release-october-2016.pdf
Clinton 46 .. Trump 39
https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/gsp2016_fall_nhelec103116.pdf
http://order-order.com/2016/11/01/tory-whips-saved-vaz/#more-248352
But the rumour is Ross Brawn has signed a deal to replace Ecclestone by the end of the year [heard via Twitter].
I am not 100% convinced John Redwood would be, though.
Hillary Clinton will be a disaster of a President based on her record and her character. Trump will almost certainly be a disaster of a President based on his character. Both are likely to spend a large proportion of their time under investigation for their various crimes and misdemeanours. So what does it matter which one wins? South Park have it right - a choice between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. But which is which?
Who could have predicted Peruvian-born Hannan would be such a fan of the Anglosphere?
During the Ferrari Schumacher years, Brawn's the only one of the main figures - including Todt - who emerged with their reputations unscathed.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/10/gop_voters_who_don_t_like_trump_reveal_their_votes.html
Yet for all that, there doesn't seem to be much depth. When he himself is challenged he is very brittle. Immediately post Brexit he almost went into meltdown.
I wonder which safe seat he is gunning for. Tick took.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai8JE0lyyJU
To be fair, it was much more complex than that. If you read various sources, including TimT's book, published before the 2002/3 disaster, it is clear there was zero trust between the weapons inspectors and intelligence services on one hand (including the Russians), and the Iraqis on the other.
If the Iraqis had no WMDs, and were not attempting to make any, then they were saying and doing exactly the wrong things to convince us of that.
"But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!"
I think you'll find it's a little more complicated than that.
I had a brief visit to the USA earlier this year (although to be honest, it wasn't the USA, it was California). Some of the women there will vote for HRC because she has ovaries, but there seemed little else behind their convictions. Still, that's democracy.
I'm not sure that nepotism is a good look for the USA, be it Jeb Bush, or Chelsea in a few years time. But it's up to them, and I admit I'm not an expert on Septic politicians.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303709-voting-early-rubio-implies-he-cast-ballot-for-trump
But Kasich voted for McCain by write-in :
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303693-kasich-votes-for-mccain-instead-of-trump
I believe the tired and traditional PB cliche for moments like this is "heart of stone not to laugh etc"..
Mr. Song, yes, but it's still a source of strength for UKIP.