I agree that the phenomena of Brexit and Trump have created an atmosphere in which someone like Corbyn could thrive. Yes, he's trailing in the polls now, but then so was Leave by big margins a few years ago. It would be a telling irony if the populist, illiberal fervour that the British hard-Right are glorying in at present resulted in a Trotskyist government here. But that's what happens when you play games with dark forces.
Takeaway Corbyn's belief in open door immigration, his support for the IRA and other anti-British terrorist groups, his backing for winding-up NATO, his opposition to Trident and his opposition to the monarchy and that may well be the case.
And yet he has tapped something and is doing better than other left wing politicians. We'd be better off trying to understand it than to dismiss it.
The left in Spain has over 40% of the vote. Our FPTP system means Labour is the only game in town in England. As I say, Corbyn has tapped into a relatively small, relatively well off demographic and that supports him enthusiastically. Beyond this, though, every single indication is that he is utterly toxic.
And yet in a better position than other left wing politicians - which have acquired a new form of toxicity that trumps the traditional factors you cite. We need to understand it.
It seems better to be a Maverick than part of the Elite.
Which other left wing politicians? The ones that operate within a PR voting system where it is possible for the centre left and the hard left to exist in different parties? He is as far from power as Hollande is from re-election.
I am not saying that Corbyn does not have weaknesses. We bang about them all the time. The point is that he also has strengths. His outsider status, like Trump, allows him to overcome some of the problems that in normal days would have made him beyond the pale.
We need to understand that. It is possible IMO to develop a centre left approach that is compatible with being an outsider. After all, that is what left wing politics has been for most of the C20.
If the driving focus of anger is economic policy then yes, it's possible. If it's cultural factors then absolutely not.
After saying for nearly a year that Trump would win, and never having won a bet backing Clinton, I wibbled at about 1am this morning and moved my entire position over to Clinton at 1.15. After being on Trump at 8s. I cashed out a painful spread on Florida too. Idiot.
Luckily I managed to get out and then back on to Trump at 5, and had been suspended out of some spreads which came in (e.g. PA). I'd also forgotten to flip bets on Trump taking MI and PA.
Overall, ending up about £180-240 up on the night. Not hugely impressed with my performance.
Argh.
What you needed to do was not back Clinton @ 1.15 at 1am - and then not cashout your painful Florida spread. Also, you should have remembered to flip the bets on Trump taking MI & PA.
Hope that helps.
Actually not flipping the bets (and lumping on Trump when it became a little obvious, c.2.30) saved me from just scraping even.....
Sky Europe commentator saying that the European Leaders are grealy concerned as the win by Trump has been widely welcomed by all the rightist movements in Europe and there is a real chance that this anti EU sentiment will seriously damage the EU.
The EU are going to pay the price of not listening to little people and this is all good for Brexit
Not really, May's goal in Brexit is to be a global champion of free trade. That is not going to end well with everyone going protectionist and isolationist.
May's goal in Brexit is to ensure whatever she gets is enough for her party to be happy with, so that they are united come any fight with Labour.
Spot on - May always puts her career, and therefore her party, above the needs of the country.
Sky Europe commentator saying that the European Leaders are grealy concerned as the win by Trump has been widely welcomed by all the rightist movements in Europe and there is a real chance that this anti EU sentiment will seriously damage the EU.
The EU are going to pay the price of not listening to little people and this is all good for Brexit
Not really, May's goal in Brexit is to be a global champion of free trade. That is not going to end well with everyone going protectionist and isolationist.
May's goal in Brexit is to ensure whatever she gets is enough for her party to be happy with, so that they are united come any fight with Labour.
Spot on - May always puts her career, and therefore her party, above the needs of the country.
Well, the two could well align, and I hope they do, but in general given that May was officially of the position Remain was better than any conceivable form of Brexit, it is not exactly controversial to suggest that while she will go for the best deal she think she can get, from the EU and in the view of those whose support she needs the most, Her private view of what is best hardly matters, since her private view was Remain was best, and that's off the table.
After saying for nearly a year that Trump would win, and never having won a bet backing Clinton, I wibbled at about 1am this morning and moved my entire position over to Clinton at 1.15. After being on Trump at 8s. I cashed out a painful spread on Florida too. Idiot.
Luckily I managed to get out and then back on to Trump at 5, and had been suspended out of some spreads which came in (e.g. PA). I'd also forgotten to flip bets on Trump taking MI and PA.
Overall, ending up about £180-240 up on the night. Not hugely impressed with my performance.
up is up. There's another day.
Thanks Mr Borough - sorry to hear about your woes.
Sky Europe commentator saying that the European Leaders are grealy concerned as the win by Trump has been widely welcomed by all the rightist movements in Europe and there is a real chance that this anti EU sentiment will seriously damage the EU.
The EU are going to pay the price of not listening to little people and this is all good for Brexit
Not really, May's goal in Brexit is to be a global champion of free trade. That is not going to end well with everyone going protectionist and isolationist.
We have overnight become a much sought after partner especially in defence capabilities which will concentrate minds in the Baltic Nations and throughout the EU. Big bargaining tool
Except the EU will have no confidence in us having the political will to actually defend the Baltics and E Europeans from Russia if a hot war breaks out given the way the UK public has voted to leave the EU.
After saying for nearly a year that Trump would win, and never having won a bet backing Clinton, I wibbled at about 1am this morning and moved my entire position over to Clinton at 1.15. After being on Trump at 8s. I cashed out a painful spread on Florida too. Idiot.
Luckily I managed to get out and then back on to Trump at 5, and had been suspended out of some spreads which came in (e.g. PA). I'd also forgotten to flip bets on Trump taking MI and PA.
Overall, ending up about £180-240 up on the night. Not hugely impressed with my performance.
Argh.
What you needed to do was not back Clinton @ 1.15 at 1am - and then not cashout your painful Florida spread. Also, you should have remembered to flip the bets on Trump taking MI & PA.
Hope that helps.
What I needed to do was type in a bigger number into the lay box when Hills was 1.13
I was however massively exposed to Trump at that point, so at least I DID the deed !
I agree that the phenomena of Brexit and Trump have created an atmosphere in which someone like Corbyn could thrive. Yes, he's trailing in the polls now, but then so was Leave by big margins a few years ago. It would be a telling irony if the populist, illiberal fervour that the British hard-Right are glorying in at present resulted in a Trotskyist government here. But that's what happens when you play games with dark forces.
Takeaway Corbyn's belief in open door immigration, his support for the IRA and other anti-British terrorist groups, his backing for winding-up NATO, his opposition to Trident and his opposition to the monarchy and that may well be the case.
And yet he has tapped something and is doing better than other left wing politicians. We'd be better off trying to understand it than to dismiss it.
The left in Spain has over 40% of the vote. Our FPTP system means Labour is the only game in town in England. As I say, Corbyn has tapped into a relatively small, relatively well off demographic and that supports him enthusiastically. Beyond this, though, every single indication is that he is utterly toxic.
And yet in a better position than other left wing politicians - which have acquired a new form of toxicity that trumps the traditional factors you cite. We need to understand it.
It seems better to be a Maverick than part of the Elite.
Which other left wing politicians? The ones that operate within a PR voting system where it is possible for the centre left and the hard left to exist in different parties? He is as far from power as Hollande is from re-election.
I am not saying that Corbyn does not have weaknesses. We bang about them all the time. The point is that he also has strengths. His outsider status, like Trump, allows him to overcome some of the problems that in normal days would have made him beyond the pale.
We need to understand that. It is possible IMO to develop a centre left approach that is compatible with being an outsider. After all, that is what left wing politics has been for most of the C20.
It is entirely credible that we might this morning have been looking at President Sanders
Sky Europe commentator saying that the European Leaders are grealy concerned as the win by Trump has been widely welcomed by all the rightist movements in Europe and there is a real chance that this anti EU sentiment will seriously damage the EU.
The EU are going to pay the price of not listening to little people and this is all good for Brexit
Sorry, but I'm irritated by this endless talk or 'WCC' and 'little people' blah, blah, blah. It's increasingly becoming the ideal cloak with which the unscrupulous can hide their divisive, intolerant and quasi-fascist leanings.
Please withdraw those uncalled for accussation in your last paragraph.
Except the EU will have no confidence in us having the political will to actually defend the Baltics and E Europeans from Russia if a hot war breaks out given the way the UK public has vo ted to leave the EU.
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
Sky Europe commentator saying that the European Leaders are grealy concerned as the win by Trump has been widely welcomed by all the rightist movements in Europe and there is a real chance that this anti EU sentiment will seriously damage the EU.
The EU are going to pay the price of not listening to little people and this is all good for Brexit
Not really, May's goal in Brexit is to be a global champion of free trade. That is not going to end well with everyone going protectionist and isolationist.
The chaos in the EU will create the conditions for dramatic changes including recognising the UK as an independent Nation freely trading within and without the EU.
We have overnight become a much sought after partner especially in defence capabilities which will concentrate minds in the Baltic Nations and throughout the EU. Big bargaining tool
The UK's defence capabilities are pitiful. They may be better than most EU nations, but that really isn't saying much. Europe has essentially disarmed and does not have the political will to fight in any case.
From what I understand Trump's beef with NATO is that the USA pays for about 75% of it and nearly all European partners do not even pretend to spend the 2% of GDP on defence that they agreed to do. I think he has a point.
I agree that the phenomena of Brexit and Trump have created an atmosphere in which someone like Corbyn could thrive. Yes, he's trailing in the polls now, but then so was Leave by big margins a few years ago. It would be a telling irony if the populist, illiberal fervour that the British hard-Right are glorying in at present resulted in a Trotskyist government here. But that's what happens when you play games with dark forces.
Takeaway Corbyn's belief in open door immigration, his support for the IRA and other anti-British terrorist groups, his backing for winding-up NATO, his opposition to Trident and his opposition to the monarchy and that may well be the case.
And yet he has tapped something and is doing better than other left wing politicians. We'd be better off trying to understand it than to dismiss it.
The left in Spain has over 40% of the vote. Our FPTP system means Labour is the only game in town in England. As I say, Corbyn has tapped into a relatively small, relatively well off demographic and that supports him enthusiastically. Beyond this, though, every single indication is that he is utterly toxic.
And yet in a better position than other left wing politicians - which have acquired a new form of toxicity that trumps the traditional factors you cite. We need to understand it.
It seems better to be a Maverick than part of the Elite.
Which other left wing politicians? The ones that operate within a PR voting system where it is possible for the centre left and the hard left to exist in different parties? He is as far from power as Hollande is from re-election.
I am not saying that Corbyn does not have weaknesses. We bang about them all the time. The point is that he also has strengths. His outsider status, like Trump, allows him to overcome some of the problems that in normal days would have made him beyond the pale.
We need to understand that. It is possible IMO to develop a centre left approach that is compatible with being an outsider. After all, that is what left wing politics has been for most of the C20.
It is entirely credible that we might this morning have been looking at President Sanders
Bernie Sanders is a patriotic American, just like Clinton and Trump. Corbyn is not a patriotic Briton.
Well I am ditching a whole batch of shares; I cannot believe the markets are going to stay up at these levels over the coming weeks
I'm very glad that the ARM sale went through *before* this. Not that I wanted it to be sold, but it it had to be sold then at least I made a nice sum out of it.
I agree that the phenomena of Brexit and Trump have created an atmosphere in which someone like Corbyn could thrive. Yes, he's trailing in the polls now, but then so was Leave by big margins a few years ago. It would be a telling irony if the populist, illiberal fervour that the British hard-Right are glorying in at present resulted in a Trotskyist government here. But that's what happens when you play games with dark forces.
Takeaway Corbyn's belief in open door immigration, his support for the IRA and other anti-British terrorist groups, his backing for winding-up NATO, his opposition to Trident and his opposition to the monarchy and that may well be the case.
And yet he has tapped something and is doing better than other left wing politicians. We'd be better off trying to understand it than to dismiss it.
The left in Spain has over 40% of the vote. Our FPTP system means Labour is the only game in town in England. As I say, Corbyn has tapped into a relatively small, relatively well off demographic and that supports him enthusiastically. Beyond this, though, every single indication is that he is utterly toxic.
And yet in a better position than other left wing politicians - which have acquired a new form of toxicity that trumps the traditional factors you cite. We need to understand it.
It seems better to be a Maverick than part of the Elite.
Which other left wing politicians? The ones that operate within a PR voting system where it is possible for the centre left and the hard left to exist in different parties? He is as far from power as Hollande is from re-election.
I am not saying that Corbyn does not have weaknesses. We bang about them all the time. The point is that he also has strengths. His outsider status, like Trump, allows him to overcome some of the problems that in normal days would have made him beyond the pale.
We need to understand that. It is possible IMO to develop a centre left approach that is compatible with being an outsider. After all, that is what left wing politics has been for most of the C20.
If the driving focus of anger is economic policy then yes, it's possible. If it's cultural factors then absolutely not.
Before people will listen to your economic case they have to believe that you share their core values. That is Corbyn's problem. He quite clearly has very little in common on a cultural level with most voters in this country.
It looks fairly awful. One carriage looks as though it's partially on the rails; the other is on its side, either before or after a sharp bend / junction.
RAIB's going to be busy.
Looks like its at the junction where the lines to new Addington and Beckenham diverge. Runs down a ramp into a cutting where the old Addiscombe branch used to run, with sharp 90 degree turns onto the old formation. Looks like the Tram has come off the track on the points at the junction.
Thanks - I'm not familiar with Tramlink. As well as working out what happened (split points or overspeed?), RAIB will be looking very carefully at how the fatalities happened and what can be done to prevent them in future.
From memory, this is the first such crash on a 'modern' tram system. There have been plenty of collisions with pedestrians and cars, but this may well be the first self-inflicted tram crash of this sort.
I'd guess overspeed, probably the tram couldn't brake enough because of the conditions (torrential rain in London this morning).
Except the EU will have no confidence in us having the political will to actually defend the Baltics and E Europeans from Russia if a hot war breaks out given the way the UK public has vo ted to leave the EU.
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
Of course they should but if the EU ups its defence budget we will then have no negotiating leverage with the EU and we will be out of favour with both the EU and an isolationist USA.
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
Sky Europe commentator saying that the European Leaders are grealy concerned as the win by Trump has been widely welcomed by all the rightist movements in Europe and there is a real chance that this anti EU sentiment will seriously damage the EU.
The EU are going to pay the price of not listening to little people and this is all good for Brexit
Not really, May's goal in Brexit is to be a global champion of free trade. That is not going to end well with everyone going protectionist and isolationist.
The chaos in the EU will create the conditions for dramatic changes including recognising the UK as an independent Nation freely trading within and without the EU.
We have overnight become a much sought after partner especially in defence capabilities which will concentrate minds in the Baltic Nations and throughout the EU. Big bargaining tool
The UK's defence capabilities are pitiful. They may be better than most EU nations, but that really isn't saying much. Europe has essentially disarmed and does not have the political will to fight in any case.
From what I understand Trump's beef with NATO is that the USA pays for about 75% of it and nearly all European partners do not even pretend to spend the 2% of GDP on defence that they agreed to do. I think he has a point.
Absolutely he has a point. Europe can afford to fund its own defence.
Sky Europe commentator saying that the European Leaders are grealy concerned as the win by Trump has been widely welcomed by all the rightist movements in Europe and there is a real chance that this anti EU sentiment will seriously damage the EU.
The EU are going to pay the price of not listening to little people and this is all good for Brexit
Not really, May's goal in Brexit is to be a global champion of free trade. That is not going to end well with everyone going protectionist and isolationist.
The chaos in the EU will create the conditions for dramatic changes including recognising the UK as an independent Nation freely trading within and without the EU.
We have overnight become a much sought after partner especially in defence capabilities which will concentrate minds in the Baltic Nations and throughout the EU. Big bargaining tool
The UK's defence capabilities are pitiful. They may be better than most EU nations, but that really isn't saying much. Europe has essentially disarmed and does not have the political will to fight in any case.
From what I understand Trump's beef with NATO is that the USA pays for about 75% of it and nearly all European partners do not even pretend to spend the 2% of GDP on defence that they agreed to do. I think he has a point.
Our capabilities may be pitiful (I don't agree IMO, but you come from a knowledgeable position), but so are those of the people we might have to fight.
The real game changer is asymmetrical warfare. The only way to beat that is to do what the Russians have done in Chechnya and are doing in Syria.
Presently Clinton has taken a 0.1% ppopular vote lead when final polls had her ahead by 3. 2% on average so I really don't think pollsters can take much comfort there especially given their generally abysmal state polling with a few honourable exceptions. In terms of the popular vote it should also be remembered that the third place candidate at the moment is Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate and a former Republican governor who will undoubtedly have taken some Republican votes which would otherwise have gone to Trump. With Stein, the Green candidate in fourth it is thus a different scenario from 2000 when it was Nader, the Green candidate, who was third
Takeaway Corbyn's belief in open door immigration, his support for the IRA and other anti-British terrorist groups, his backing for winding-up NATO, his opposition to Trident and his opposition to the monarchy and that may well be the case.
And yet he has tapped something and is doing better than other left wing politicians. We'd be better off trying to understand it than to dismiss it.
The left in Spain has over 40% of the vote. Our FPTP system means Labour is the only game in town in England. As I say, Corbyn has tapped into a relatively small, relatively well off demographic and that supports him enthusiastically. Beyond this, though, every single indication is that he is utterly toxic.
And yet in a better position than other left wing politicians - which have acquired a new form of toxicity that trumps the traditional factors you cite. We need to understand it.
It seems better to be a Maverick than part of the Elite.
Which other left wing politicians? The ones that operate within a PR voting system where it is possible for the centre left and the hard left to exist in different parties? He is as far from power as Hollande is from re-election.
I am not saying that Corbyn does not have weaknesses. We bang about them all the time. The point is that he also has strengths. His outsider status, like Trump, allows him to overcome some of the problems that in normal days would have made him beyond the pale.
We need to understand that. It is possible IMO to develop a centre left approach that is compatible with being an outsider. After all, that is what left wing politics has been for most of the C20.
If the driving focus of anger is economic policy then yes, it's possible. If it's cultural factors then absolutely not.
It's both.
People assume that opposition to globalisation is an issue of the former, not the latter.
In fact, it's stagnation of wages *and* continuing high-levels of immigration/cultural change that have mixed together to make this brew.
That's net +4410 for Obama, or 44.5% to 55.5%. Trump needs over 49.6% of the vote in the remaining towns to win, a swing of 5.1% relative to 2012.
The biparty vote share in 2012 was 47.2% to 52.8%, and Trump is now 47.5% to 47.4%, so his swing so far is only 2.8%.
It's not impossible for Trump to win New Hampshire, but the odds are not good.
That looks to depend pretty much entirely on Keene, which sounds like the high-percentage-white, post-manufacturing town where Trump has done very well. I'd be cautious.
It has two colleges and is something of an exurb of Boston ...
"That looks to depend pretty much entirely on Keene, which sounds like the high-percentage-white, post-manufacturing town where Trump has done very well. I'd be cautious."
Keene is close to Massachusetts and Vermont and it appears to be full of students.
The swing isn't impossible, but it's maybe a 1 in 5 chance.
Sky Europe commentator saying that the European Leaders are grealy concerned as the win by Trump has been widely welcomed by all the rightist movements in Europe and there is a real chance that this anti EU sentiment will seriously damage the EU.
The EU are going to pay the price of not listening to little people and this is all good for Brexit
Sorry, but I'm irritated by this endless talk or 'WCC' and 'little people' blah, blah, blah. It's increasingly becoming the ideal cloak with which the unscrupulous can hide their divisive, intolerant and quasi-fascist leanings.
Please withdraw those uncalled for accussation in your last paragraph.
Well, I've no reason to believe it applies to you personally - I'm happy to clarify that. But are elements using supposed working-class grievances to advance a dark agenda? Absolutely!
Sky Europe commentator saying that the European Leaders are grealy concerned as the win by Trump has been widely welcomed by all the rightist movements in Europe and there is a real chance that this anti EU sentiment will seriously damage the EU.
The EU are going to pay the price of not listening to little people and this is all good for Brexit
Not really, May's goal in Brexit is to be a global champion of free trade. That is not going to end well with everyone going protectionist and isolationist.
The chaos in the EU will create the conditions for dramatic changes including recognising the UK as an independent Nation freely trading within and without the EU.
We have overnight become a much sought after partner especially in defence capabilities which will concentrate minds in the Baltic Nations and throughout the EU. Big bargaining tool
The UK's defence capabilities are pitiful. They may be better than most EU nations, but that really isn't saying much. Europe has essentially disarmed and does not have the political will to fight in any case.
From what I understand Trump's beef with NATO is that the USA pays for about 75% of it and nearly all European partners do not even pretend to spend the 2% of GDP on defence that they agreed to do. I think he has a point.
The rest of Europe may not but we do. If I was in a former Soviet Republic faced with a Revanchist Russia that's already invaded one neighbour and now has a friend of Putin in the White house ... I'd be wanting every military ally I could get of which we are one worth having.
"That looks to depend pretty much entirely on Keene, which sounds like the high-percentage-white, post-manufacturing town where Trump has done very well. I'd be cautious."
Keene is close to Massachusetts and Vermont and it appears to be full of students.
The swing isn't impossible, but it's maybe a 1 in 5 chance.
I thought only we (brazilians) were capable of electing such idiots to government.
It seems, I was wrong. I feel depressed. We had the worst local elections ever, an impeached president, and now this...
Chin up - things are rarely as bad (or good) in practice as we fear(hope) they will be.
In Rio we elected a evangelical pastor, whose church is accused of stealing faithful's money. He hates gays, the catholic churc, etc etc. So you do imagine that I thought: ok, this is it, nothing can be worse than this.
Where does this leave billion dollar ad spends, 24/7 media attacks on one candidate and campaigns based around claiming your opppnent is every -ist under the sun.
Trump claimed Hillary was a criminalist and a sexual abuser enablerist. It's not like he wasn't engaged in negative campaigning.
Not the big loser is the (pseudo?) science of microtargetting - the thing that supposedly won the Tories and Obama their last respective elections. Might it just have been that they had the better candidate?
Trump pioneered a much faster cycle than traditional focus groups where he'd say random things and if the crowd seemed to like them he'd ad-lib the rest of the program around them.
My God, a politician responding to what people like. Whatever next ?
Yes, but the argument was these big rally crowds meant nothing. They were weird people. Real people are at home getting ready to vote Clinton. Maybe Corbyn is right about his rallies?
The idea that Corbyn can take any comfort from the polling failures of the past year is risible given that in each case the left (or in the case of Brexit the side supported by most of the left) has underperformed.
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
You mean - establish an EU Army?
(runs for cover)
An armed forces needs to believe in what they are defending to be effective. That works well for the nation state recruiting citizen volunteers. Machiavelli doubted it would work when the State relied on mercenaries. I doubt it will work when established by a supranational entity that only a plurality of 'citizens' identify with.
Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland clearly need to step up to the plate.
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
You mean - establish an EU Army?
(runs for cover)
Nothing wrong with the existing national armies, if they were funded properly. Five NATO countries pay the recommended 2% minimum towards defence, of which two are the US and the UK. Either NATO is about mutual defence, or it's nothing.
It looks fairly awful. One carriage looks as though it's partially on the rails; the other is on its side, either before or after a sharp bend / junction.
RAIB's going to be busy.
Looks like its at the junction where the lines to new Addington and Beckenham diverge. Runs down a ramp into a cutting where the old Addiscombe branch used to run, with sharp 90 degree turns onto the old formation. Looks like the Tram has come off the track on the points at the junction.
Thanks - I'm not familiar with Tramlink. As well as working out what happened (split points or overspeed?), RAIB will be looking very carefully at how the fatalities happened and what can be done to prevent them in future.
From memory, this is the first such crash on a 'modern' tram system. There have been plenty of collisions with pedestrians and cars, but this may well be the first self-inflicted tram crash of this sort.
I'd guess overspeed, probably the tram couldn't brake enough because of the conditions (torrential rain in London this morning).
Both cars on their side past the points. Which suggests the piccies of a tram car on the rails near a station might be uninvolved: perhaps in use to get rescuers to the site and injured passengers away?
Whilst I prefer NATO I'm not completely anti-EU providing they actually are going to put some money behind it.
Trump will probably not be able to cease NATO but I bet the US is wanting to reduce its share of the cost. Which will put the defence ball firmly back with the EU countries.
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
You mean - establish an EU Army?
(runs for cover)
I have said here before that I have no objection to a European form of NATO, or a more heavily beefed up European contribution to NATO.
Over my dead body will I cooperate and put those forces under the auspices of the EU, Juncker, the High Rep, and Tusk.
Why?
One is a mutual defence alliance between sovereign nations, the latter is giving a political union more trappings of statehood, together with some muscle and teeth.
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
You mean - establish an EU Army?
(runs for cover)
Nothing wrong with the existing national armies, if they were funded properly. Five NATO countries pay the recommended 2% minimum towards defence, of which two are the US and the UK. Either NATO is about mutual defence, or it's nothing.
That's net +4410 for Obama, or 44.5% to 55.5%. Trump needs over 49.6% of the vote in the remaining towns to win, a swing of 5.1% relative to 2012.
The biparty vote share in 2012 was 47.2% to 52.8%, and Trump is now 47.5% to 47.4%, so his swing so far is only 2.8%.
It's not impossible for Trump to win New Hampshire, but the odds are not good.
That looks to depend pretty much entirely on Keene, which sounds like the high-percentage-white, post-manufacturing town where Trump has done very well. I'd be cautious.
It has two colleges and is something of an exurb of Boston ...
OK - fair enough. I only had a cursory internet check.
I agree that the phenomena of Brexit and Trump have created an atmosphere in which someone like Corbyn could thrive. Yes, he's trailing in the polls now, but then so was Leave by big margins a few years ago. It would be a telling irony if the populist, illiberal fervour that the British hard-Right are glorying in at present resulted in a Trotskyist government here. But that's what happens when you play games with dark forces.
Takeaway Corbyn's belief in open door immigration, his support for the IRA and other anti-British terrorist groups, his backing for winding-up NATO, his opposition to Trident and his opposition to the monarchy and that may well be the case.
And yet he has tapped something and is doing better than other left wing politicians. We'd be better off trying to understand it than to dismiss it.
The left in Spain has over 40% of the vote. Our FPTP system means Labour is the only game in town in England. As I say, Corbyn has tapped into a relatively small, relatively well off demographic and that supports him enthusiastically. Beyond this, though, every single indication is that he is utterly toxic.
And yet in a better position than other left wing politicians - which have acquired a new form of toxicity that trumps the traditional factors you cite. We need to understand it.
It seems better to be a Maverick than part of the Elite.
Which other left wing politicians? The ones that operate within a PR voting system where it is possible for the centre left and the hard left to exist in different parties? He is as far from power as Hollande is from re-election.
I am not saying that Corbyn does not have weaknesses. We bang about them all the time. The point is that he also has strengths. His outsider status, like Trump, allows him to overcome some of the problems that in normal days would have made him beyond the pale.
We need to understand that. It is possible IMO to develop a centre left approach that is compatible with being an outsider. After all, that is what left wing politics has been for most of the C20.
It is entirely credible that we might this morning have been looking at President Sanders
Bernie Sanders is a patriotic American, just like Clinton and Trump. Corbyn is not a patriotic Briton.
I doubt Corbyn would even describe himself as British. He'd probably find that unpalatable.
Dismissed by Remainers but apparently for Brexit As if by magic..... Acceptable in us election
Jesus H fucking Christ
The difference is lots of polling for Brexit pointed to a Leave vote, it just wasn't taken seriously. Other than the LA Times I can't think of much polling that pointed to a Trump win - especially on a key States basis.
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
You mean - establish an EU Army?
(runs for cover)
Nothing wrong with the existing national armies, if they were funded properly. Five NATO countries pay the recommended 2% minimum towards defence, of which two are the US and the UK. Either NATO is about mutual defence, or it's nothing.
The UK only makes the 2% by an accounting trick. Spending on matters like pensions and intelligence agencies which have traditionally not been regarded as defence expenditure were declared as such by Osborne and lo we made the 2%, just.
Sky Europe commentator saying that the European Leaders are grealy concerned as the win by Trump has been widely welcomed by all the rightist movements in Europe and there is a real chance that this anti EU sentiment will seriously damage the EU.
The EU are going to pay the price of not listening to little people and this is all good for Brexit
Not really, May's goal in Brexit is to be a global champion of free trade. That is not going to end well with everyone going protectionist and isolationist.
The chaos in the EU will create the conditions for dramatic changes including recognising the UK as an independent Nation freely trading within and without the EU.
We have overnight become a much sought after partner especially in defence capabilities which will concentrate minds in the Baltic Nations and throughout the EU. Big bargaining tool
The UK's defence capabilities are pitiful. They may be better than most EU nations, but that really isn't saying much. Europe has essentially disarmed and does not have the political will to fight in any case.
From what I understand Trump's beef with NATO is that the USA pays for about 75% of it and nearly all European partners do not even pretend to spend the 2% of GDP on defence that they agreed to do. I think he has a point.
The rest of Europe may not but we do. If I was in a former Soviet Republic faced with a Revanchist Russia that's already invaded one neighbour and now has a friend of Putin in the White house ... I'd be wanting every military ally I could get of which we are one worth having.
So why is Merkel being so hostile to Trump? Just plain stupid.
Dismissed by Remainers but apparently for Brexit As if by magic..... Acceptable in us election
Jesus H fucking Christ
The difference is lots of polling for Brexit pointed to a Leave vote, it just wasn't taken seriously. Other than the LA Times I can't think of much polling that pointed to a Trump win - especially on a key States basis.
Yeah right ok
Where's that twat 969 or IOS or whatever? A troll obviously
Whilst I prefer NATO I'm not completely anti-EU providing they actually are going to put some money behind it.
Trump will probably not be able to cease NATO but I bet the US is wanting to reduce its share of the cost. Which will put the defence ball firmly back with the EU countries.
I'm expecting a more fundamental realignment than that.
In March 2000, in his first interview with a foreign reporter -- the BBC's David Frost -- Putin shocked critics and fans alike, saying, "We believe we can talk about more profound integration with NATO, but only if Russia is regarded as an equal partner." Asked outright if Russia could join NATO, Putin shot back: "I do not see why not." He also added a dark warning: Any NATO attempt to exclude Russia from the debate over the alliance's eastward expansion would only provoke "opposition."
The thing about Hillary is that she stood by the appalling behaviour of Bill against all those women. No sisterly support there if she was a feminist.
Alleged behaviour in both Trump and Bill's case. But in Trump's case, the language he has himself used give some credence to the complaints against him. But like information security, this election is not going to lead to better behaviour towards women (and men in some cases as well).
Possibly right about better attitudes towards females not going to happen, although it would be nice for PB to show the way! On the allegations, yes you can term it that but the stuff is piled up on the record. For example coercing a BJ out of an intern!
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
You mean - establish an EU Army?
(runs for cover)
Nothing wrong with the existing national armies, if they were funded properly. Five NATO countries pay the recommended 2% minimum towards defence, of which two are the US and the UK. Either NATO is about mutual defence, or it's nothing.
It's got jack-all to do with an EU army, although it's a convenient straw-man for the federalists to create one (who then won't follow through with the proper funding)
This is about EU nations pumping up their defence spending to 2% of GDP, and taking their responsibilities seriously.
This isn't hard. France/Italy/Spain/Germany/Poland all chipping in as well as the UK could field a very sophisticated and competent battlegroup, consisting of 5-6 corps, alongside the US, and have a standing 150-200k soldiers in the field, and doubling it in case of an emergency.
Dismissed by Remainers but apparently for Brexit As if by magic..... Acceptable in us election
Jesus H fucking Christ
The difference is lots of polling for Brexit pointed to a Leave vote, it just wasn't taken seriously. Other than the LA Times I can't think of much polling that pointed to a Trump win - especially on a key States basis.
RCP called FL, NC, GA, OH, AZ, IA, CO and VA right, but got NH and NV wrong (for Trump) and PA and WI wrong (for Hillary). Given how close NH is, and how NV, MI, WI and PA all are going whatever way they go because of completely different electorates than in the past, I would say RCP did ok by Trump.
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
You mean - establish an EU Army?
(runs for cover)
Nothing wrong with the existing national armies, if they were funded properly. Five NATO countries pay the recommended 2% minimum towards defence, of which two are the US and the UK. Either NATO is about mutual defence, or it's nothing.
The UK only makes the 2% by an accounting trick. Spending on matters like pensions and intelligence agencies which have traditionally not be regarded as defence expenditure were declared as such by Osborne and lo we made the 2%, just.
All of which is perfectly compliant with NATO accounting rules, and makes our expenditure more comparable with our allies- who are doing exactly the same supposed 'accounting tricks', but are not reaching the target.
This isn't hard. France/Italy/Spain/Germany/Poland all chipping in as well as the UK could field a very sophisticated and competent battlegroup, consisting of 5-6 corps, alongside the US, and have a standing 150-200k soldiers in the field, and doubling it in case of an emergency.
Does make a mockery of the Electoral College somewhat imho – could it be dumped for something else, or is it set in aspic by the US constitution?
It's set in aspic by Article II of the Constitution.
To change it, you'd need a majority of 2/3rd in both the House & the Senate, and then ratification by 3/4ths of all States.
Thanks for the reply Mr vik – I suspected as much.
While the electoral college system is constitutional, it's up to the states how to apportion their electors (hence Nebraska and Maine doing it differently to the rest).
So what if some states make a deal that, once enough states have signed up to dominate the electoral college, they will send electors to ensure the national popular vote is upheld, rather than based on their own in-state results?
I'm not convinced Bernie would have beaten Trump now because it was not just about trade it was about immigration as well and you can't Trump the Donald on that issue.
I feel scared for the world now, recession within the year now I think.
"They would not listen, they're not listening still. Perhaps they never will."
No doubt a legal challenge is on the way. At least it will keep them off street corners or Islington dinner parties.
Trump will tone down the rhetoric. He never had any intention of building a Mexican wall. If the thick white men in America understand that, why don't the media "elite"?
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
You mean - establish an EU Army?
(runs for cover)
Nothing wrong with the existing national armies, if they were funded properly. Five NATO countries pay the recommended 2% minimum towards defence, of which two are the US and the UK. Either NATO is about mutual defence, or it's nothing.
The UK only makes the 2% by an accounting trick. Spending on matters like pensions and intelligence agencies which have traditionally not been regarded as defence expenditure were declared as such by Osborne and lo we made the 2%, just.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
Sky Europe commentator saying that the European Leaders are grealy concerned as the win by Trump has been widely welcomed by all the rightist movements in Europe and there is a real chance that this anti EU sentiment will seriously damage the EU.
The EU are going to pay the price of not listening to little people and this is all good for Brexit
Not really, May's goal in Brexit is to be a global champion of free trade. That is not going to end well with everyone going protectionist and isolationist.
The chaos in the EU will create the conditions for dramatic changes including recognising the UK as an independent Nation freely trading within and without the EU.
We have overnight become a much sought after partner especially in defence capabilities which will concentrate minds in the Baltic Nations and throughout the EU. Big bargaining tool
The UK's defence capabilities are pitiful. They may be better than most EU nations, but that really isn't saying much. Europe has essentially disarmed and does not have the political will to fight in any case.
From what I understand Trump's beef with NATO is that the USA pays for about 75% of it and nearly all European partners do not even pretend to spend the 2% of GDP on defence that they agreed to do. I think he has a point.
The rest of Europe may not but we do. If I was in a former Soviet Republic faced with a Revanchist Russia that's already invaded one neighbour and now has a friend of Putin in the White house ... I'd be wanting every military ally I could get of which we are one worth having.
So why is Merkel being so hostile to Trump? Just plain stupid.
Merkel has been in office so long she is blind to it.
Her politics are still anchored in the mid-naughties.
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
You mean - establish an EU Army?
(runs for cover)
Nothing wrong with the existing national armies, if they were funded properly. Five NATO countries pay the recommended 2% minimum towards defence, of which two are the US and the UK. Either NATO is about mutual defence, or it's nothing.
The UK only makes the 2% by an accounting trick. Spending on matters like pensions and intelligence agencies which have traditionally not been regarded as defence expenditure were declared as such by Osborne and lo we made the 2%, just.
I would argue our military is still underfunded. Navy needs additional frigates and crew. Subs are about right. We should really have 2 x extra destroyers.
RAF just about ok, but could use a couple of extra squadrons of eurofighters.
Dismissed by Remainers but apparently for Brexit As if by magic..... Acceptable in us election
Jesus H fucking Christ
The difference is lots of polling for Brexit pointed to a Leave vote, it just wasn't taken seriously. Other than the LA Times I can't think of much polling that pointed to a Trump win - especially on a key States basis.
RCP called FL, NC, GA, OH, AZ, IA, CO and VA right, but got NH and NV wrong (for Trump) and PA and WI wrong (for Hillary). Given how close NH is, and how NV, MI, WI and PA all are going whatever way they go because of completely different electorates than in the past, I would say RCP did ok by Trump.
In fact, based on RCP, the only true shock is that the Rust Belt strategy worked.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, although I've not been to States for about 15 years, I gather the state of roads, bridges, airports, rail stations is shocking by European standards.
Interesting that a majority of white women voted for Trump, as well as men. Clinton assumed that women would sweep her into the WH. She allowed her own liberal propaganda, and her solid belief in identity politics to lull her into a false sense of security. Corbyn is right in one sense about this being a wake-up call right across the world. Yes - for liberal, metropolitan elites who see white majorities as a nasty inconvenience. People like YOU, Corbyn.
Given that Hillary fell short in exactly those places where she most needed to do well, it is tempting to wonder whether her advertising blitz and sophisticated GOTV operation got out the vote for Trump.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, although I've not been to States for about 15 years, I gather the state of roads, bridges, airports, rail stations is shocking by European standards.
Outside of places where the city spends money on infrastructure that is basically true.
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
You mean - establish an EU Army?
(runs for cover)
Nothing wrong with the existing national armies, if they were funded properly. Five NATO countries pay the recommended 2% minimum towards defence, of which two are the US and the UK. Either NATO is about mutual defence, or it's nothing.
It's got jack-all to do with an EU army, although it's a convenient straw-man for the federalists to create one (who then won't follow through with the proper funding)
This is about EU nations pumping up their defence spending to 2% of GDP, and taking their responsibilities seriously.
This isn't hard. France/Italy/Spain/Germany/Poland all chipping in as well as the UK could field a very sophisticated and competent battlegroup, consisting of 5-6 corps, alongside the US, and have a standing 150-200k soldiers in the field, and doubling it in case of an emergency.
That would deter Russia.
We could always do what the Italians did from the 1950s-70s, and create a new army corps with a general and a small admin team to do all the paperwork, manage the records for all the soldiers and arrange the deployments etc. - except that the Italians just hired the general and the small admin team, avoiding the cost of all the soldiers by making up details for up to 300,000 of them, and then just let some of the paperwork to leak now and again to the Russians?
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, he has a point. Much of the US's infrastructure is in a terrible state: just remember the Mississippi River bridge (in Minnesota?) that collapsed ten or so years ago. They've also had a tragic spate of heavy rail crashes.
I should say that of the europeans I know, there is an absolute belief that Mrs Merkel will lay down the law and the USA will have to like it. And the UK will have to do as its told.
Given that Hillary fell short in exactly those places where she most needed to do well, it is tempting to wonder whether her advertising blitz and sophisticated GOTV operation got out the vote for Trump.
Yes, for a while her Twitter feed was indistinguishable from pro-Trump propaganda. She just assumed the message was unpalatable but obviously a lot of registered Democrats in the rust-belt liked what they heard.
dr. Miro Cerar @MiroCerar 32m32 minutes ago PM @MiroCerar congratulates @realDonaldTrump, also expressing satisfaction that the First Lady comes from #sLOVEnia:
So I think I'm right in saying that the Democrat has got the most votes in 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections?
If this had been an AV election rather than FPTP I think Trump may have won the national popular vote through Johnson's preferences. Not to mention the GOP have now won more EC votes than any presidential election since 1988
Does make a mockery of the Electoral College somewhat imho – could it be dumped for something else, or is it set in aspic by the US constitution?
It's set in aspic by Article II of the Constitution.
To change it, you'd need a majority of 2/3rd in both the House & the Senate, and then ratification by 3/4ths of all States.
Thanks for the reply Mr vik – I suspected as much.
While the electoral college system is constitutional, it's up to the states how to apportion their electors (hence Nebraska and Maine doing it differently to the rest).
So what if some states make a deal that, once enough states have signed up to dominate the electoral college, they will send electors to ensure the national popular vote is upheld, rather than based on their own in-state results?
I do wonder if there'll be some more momentum for this now.
The problem with that is that, assuming that swing states don't sign up for it (as they would lose influence relatively speaking) it requires solid GOP states to go for it as well as solid Dem states. I don't see why they would when the Electoral College systemically favours the GOP (given that small population states are heavily weighted to the GOP).
Just to point out the bleeding obvious but maybe EU nations should have taken defence more seriously rather than relying on the Americans for decades upon end?
You mean - establish an EU Army?
(runs for cover)
Nothing wrong with the existing national armies, if they were funded properly. Five NATO countries pay the recommended 2% minimum towards defence, of which two are the US and the UK. Either NATO is about mutual defence, or it's nothing.
It's got jack-all to do with an EU army, although it's a convenient straw-man for the federalists to create one (who then won't follow through with the proper funding)
This is about EU nations pumping up their defence spending to 2% of GDP, and taking their responsibilities seriously.
This isn't hard. France/Italy/Spain/Germany/Poland all chipping in as well as the UK could field a very sophisticated and competent battlegroup, consisting of 5-6 corps, alongside the US, and have a standing 150-200k soldiers in the field, and doubling it in case of an emergency.
That would deter Russia.
We could always do what the Italians did from the 1950s-70s, and create a new army corps with a general and a small admin team to do all the paperwork, manage the records for all the soldiers and arrange the deployments etc. - except that the Italians just hired the general and the small admin team, avoiding the cost of all the soldiers by making up details for up to 300,000 of them, and then just let some of the paperwork to leak now and again to the Russians?
I should say that of the europeans I know, there is an absolute belief that Mrs Merkel will lay down the law and the USA will have to like it. And the UK will have to do as its told.
4h (((Harry Enten))) @ForecasterEnten Trump won/is winning Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by 1.5 points or less. Tight squeeze, but it worked.
This is white older America saying we still matter. The Democrats have a demographic problem in the short term. Everyone was saying the Republicans a are dead because " demographics are destiny" that has been proven wrong.
dr. Miro Cerar @MiroCerar 32m32 minutes ago PM @MiroCerar congratulates @realDonaldTrump, also expressing satisfaction that the First Lady comes from #sLOVEnia:
It must be a very proud moment for naturalised US citizens that they are not excluded.
Does make a mockery of the Electoral College somewhat imho – could it be dumped for something else, or is it set in aspic by the US constitution?
It's set in aspic by Article II of the Constitution.
To change it, you'd need a majority of 2/3rd in both the House & the Senate, and then ratification by 3/4ths of all States.
Thanks for the reply Mr vik – I suspected as much.
While the electoral college system is constitutional, it's up to the states how to apportion their electors (hence Nebraska and Maine doing it differently to the rest).
So what if some states make a deal that, once enough states have signed up to dominate the electoral college, they will send electors to ensure the national popular vote is upheld, rather than based on their own in-state results?
I do wonder if there'll be some more momentum for this now.
The problem with that is that, assuming that swing states don't sign up for it (as they would lose influence relatively speaking) it requires solid GOP states to go for it as well as solid Dem states. I don't see why they would when the Electoral College systemically favours the GOP (given that small population states are heavily weighted to the GOP).
Spot on.
Just wanted to point out that the "it's set in aspic by Article II of the Constitution" might be bypassable, even if politically infeasible. (Having said that there is some lawyerly argument over whether the Interstate Compact would be legal.)
4h (((Harry Enten))) @ForecasterEnten Trump won/is winning Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by 1.5 points or less. Tight squeeze, but it worked.
This is white older America saying we still matter. The Democrats have a demographic problem in the short term. Everyone was saying the Republicans a are dead because " demographics are destiny" that has been proven wrong.
Trump did a Lynton Crosby whilst having virtually none of the skill of Lynton Crosby.
What will the note that Obama leaves on the desk say to Trump?
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
I'm sorry there's no money left.
LOL. That's not going to stop Donald. He builds hotels using debt.
If I heard him right he promised roads, bridges, schools, and some other things I can't remember as well. And not just ordinary roads and bridges but great, wonderful ones.
To be fair, although I've not been to States for about 15 years, I gather the state of roads, bridges, airports, rail stations is shocking by European standards.
Outside of places where the city spends money on infrastructure that is basically true.
Although a lot of that is state funding, and ballot propositions have basically banned tax rises in a number of states.
Looks all in all as if Trump's 72 hour blitz was crucial in getting him over the line while Clinton did fewer events he built momentum in the key states
Comments
Actually not flipping the bets (and lumping on Trump when it became a little obvious, c.2.30) saved me from just scraping even.....
I was however massively exposed to Trump at that point, so at least I DID the deed !
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/uspresidents/f/pres_unpopular.htm
From what I understand Trump's beef with NATO is that the USA pays for about 75% of it and nearly all European partners do not even pretend to spend the 2% of GDP on defence that they agreed to do. I think he has a point.
(runs for cover)
The real game changer is asymmetrical warfare. The only way to beat that is to do what the Russians have done in Chechnya and are doing in Syria.
I'm unsure that's a model we wish to follow.
People assume that opposition to globalisation is an issue of the former, not the latter.
In fact, it's stagnation of wages *and* continuing high-levels of immigration/cultural change that have mixed together to make this brew.
Keene is close to Massachusetts and Vermont and it appears to be full of students.
The swing isn't impossible, but it's maybe a 1 in 5 chance.
Dismissed by Remainers but apparently for Brexit As if by magic..... Acceptable in us election
Jesus H fucking Christ
An armed forces needs to believe in what they are defending to be effective. That works well for the nation state recruiting citizen volunteers. Machiavelli doubted it would work when the State relied on mercenaries. I doubt it will work when established by a supranational entity that only a plurality of 'citizens' identify with.
Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Poland clearly need to step up to the plate.
He went through it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/09/croydon-tram-derailment-five-trapped-and-40-people-injured/
Both cars on their side past the points. Which suggests the piccies of a tram car on the rails near a station might be uninvolved: perhaps in use to get rescuers to the site and injured passengers away?
Some reports say six dead.
Didn't Obama have a line about 'don't do crazy shit' at one point?
Over my dead body will I cooperate and put those forces under the auspices of the EU, Juncker, the High Rep, and Tusk.
Why?
One is a mutual defence alliance between sovereign nations, the latter is giving a political union more trappings of statehood, together with some muscle and teeth.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/
But in Trump's case, the language he has himself used give some credence to the complaints against him.
But like information security, this election is not going to lead to better behaviour towards women (and men in some cases as well).
p.s. magic number
Where's that twat 969 or IOS or whatever?
A troll obviously
http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-meier20-2008aug20-story.html
In March 2000, in his first interview with a foreign reporter -- the BBC's David Frost -- Putin shocked critics and fans alike, saying, "We believe we can talk about more profound integration with NATO, but only if Russia is regarded as an equal partner." Asked outright if Russia could join NATO, Putin shot back: "I do not see why not." He also added a dark warning: Any NATO attempt to exclude Russia from the debate over the alliance's eastward expansion would only provoke "opposition."
On the allegations, yes you can term it that but the stuff is piled up on the record. For example coercing a BJ out of an intern!
This is about EU nations pumping up their defence spending to 2% of GDP, and taking their responsibilities seriously.
This isn't hard. France/Italy/Spain/Germany/Poland all chipping in as well as the UK could field a very sophisticated and competent battlegroup, consisting of 5-6 corps, alongside the US, and have a standing 150-200k soldiers in the field, and doubling it in case of an emergency.
That would deter Russia.
So what if some states make a deal that, once enough states have signed up to dominate the electoral college, they will send electors to ensure the national popular vote is upheld, rather than based on their own in-state results?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
I do wonder if there'll be some more momentum for this now.
I feel scared for the world now, recession within the year now I think.
It reminds me of the Don McLean song ...
"They would not listen, they're not listening still.
Perhaps they never will."
No doubt a legal challenge is on the way. At least it will keep them off street corners or Islington dinner parties.
Trump will tone down the rhetoric. He never had any intention of building a Mexican wall. If the thick white men in America understand that, why don't the media "elite"?
Her politics are still anchored in the mid-naughties.
RAF just about ok, but could use a couple of extra squadrons of eurofighters.
The army is now just a national militia.
https://electionresults.ewashtenaw.org/electionreporting/nov2016/canvassreport530.html
Clinton wins by 77,690 votes. That's ~6500 votes off Trump's reported 15,000+ vote lead here: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan
That leaves here finding 9,000 votes MINIMUM from Wayne and Genesee, given the rest of the counties are all solid GOP.
So GOP should be backed for Michigan into around 1.02, 1.45 here is insane.
dr. Miro Cerar @MiroCerar 32m32 minutes ago
PM @MiroCerar congratulates @realDonaldTrump, also expressing satisfaction that the First Lady comes from #sLOVEnia:
If this had been an AV election rather than FPTP I think Trump may have won the national popular vote through Johnson's preferences. Not to mention the GOP have now won more EC votes than any presidential election since 1988
4h
(((Harry Enten))) @ForecasterEnten
Trump won/is winning Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin by 1.5 points or less. Tight squeeze, but it worked.
This is white older America saying we still matter. The Democrats have a demographic problem in the short term. Everyone was saying the Republicans a are dead because " demographics are destiny" that has been proven wrong.
Just wanted to point out that the "it's set in aspic by Article II of the Constitution" might be bypassable, even if politically infeasible. (Having said that there is some lawyerly argument over whether the Interstate Compact would be legal.)
Or does he..?