Bill Mitchell Donald Trump Officially Wins Michigan; Voting Margin Less Than A Half Percent « CBS Detroit https://t.co/FXiODNhfPS
So my gut instinct about Michigan - as posted here - was right. I reckoned Michigan might be the story of the night. Not too far off....
This has been the most fascinating election - and it's really now just begun. There's a shed load of deliberate reporting implying Trump is going all wobbly on ObamaCare. He isn't. He's saying they'll keep the bits that make sense - he's said this again and again. But the media are trying to make him look like a flip-flopper.
The fight has just moved on from Trump Can't Win to Trump Won't Deliver You Dupes.
It really is Brexit Mk II.
There is a fair chance that Trump will be a decent CEO for America. He's used to delegating. He clearly put a canny team around him that managed to deliver the Electoral College on less votes than his opponent, which is pretty damned efficient. And he is used to hiring and firing, without worrying unduly whether that might be a bad move because it might upset this or that special interest group.
Or he might just go mad and spend four years blinging up the White House.
I've sincerely never understood those who thought he's a nitwit. Or Hitler. It's confirmation bias on steroids. Hillary made a good fist of framing him as a scary, unstable, blah blah blah - and so I'm unsurprised by the wailing of 20 somethings who don't know any better. And have grown-up or not in the current weird Safe Space Take Offence Cry Bully culture.
If he was a demagogue with Hitler tendencies - he wouldn't have waited until he was 70 before launching his political career. It's just stupid and childish - we're all irrational, but some irrationality leaves me thinking WTF?
He runs an empire of 500 businesses - a few of which he stuck in Chapter 11 to restructure the debts or that failed. I see that as a pretty good run. As an entrepreneur, he's made a load of money and expanded because he made sure the right mints were on the right pillows.
You must be enjoying the compilations of Miley Virus, Cher, Madonna etc. and the Social justice Warriors weeping and wailing over the election result.
Bill Mitchell Donald Trump Officially Wins Michigan; Voting Margin Less Than A Half Percent « CBS Detroit https://t.co/FXiODNhfPS
So my gut instinct about Michigan - as posted here - was right. I reckoned Michigan might be the story of the night. Not too far off....
This has been the most fascinating election - and it's really now just begun. There's a shed load of deliberate reporting implying Trump is going all wobbly on ObamaCare. He isn't. He's saying they'll keep the bits that make sense - he's said this again and again. But the media are trying to make him look like a flip-flopper.
The fight has just moved on from Trump Can't Win to Trump Won't Deliver You Dupes.
It really is Brexit Mk II.
There is a fair chance that Trump will be a decent CEO for America. He's used to delegating. He clearly put a canny team around him that managed to deliver the Electoral College on less votes than his opponent, which is pretty damned efficient. And he is used to hiring and firing, without worrying unduly whether that might be a bad move because it might upset this or that special interest group.
Or he might just go mad and spend four years blinging up the White House.
I've sincerely never understood those who thought he's a nitwit. Or Hitler. It's confirmation bias on steroids. Hillary made a good fist of framing him as a scary, unstable, blah blah blah - and so I'm unsurprised by the wailing of 20 somethings who don't know any better. And have grown-up or not in the current weird Safe Space Take Offence Cry Bully culture.
If he was a demagogue with Hitler tendencies - he wouldn't have waited until he was 70 before launching his political career. It's just stupid and childish - we're all irrational, but some irrationality leaves me thinking WTF?
He runs an empire of 500 businesses - a few of which he stuck in Chapter 11 to restructure the debts or that failed. I see that as a pretty good run. As an entrepreneur, he's made a load of money and expanded because he made sure the right mints were on the right pillows.
You must be enjoying the compilations of Miley Virus, Cher, Madonna etc. and the Social justice Warriors weeping and wailing over the election result.
Honestly - it's hilarious. And tragic. I see dozens of pathetic lip wobbling wails everyday - along with obviously fabricated tales of woe 'I tried to explain to my 8yrs old that Trump won and she cried herself to sleep - I don't know what to do tomorrow'
@Theuniondivvie All nationalism is regressive, anti intellectual and xenophobic. The lottery win you've just had is Scots choice is now between an internationalist mildly social democratic civic nationalism ( Independence ) or an mean spirited right wing ethno nationalism ( Brexitanna ). It's still poison but you can now frame it as an homeopathic dose. You drink too much. The English are injecting with dirty needles.
There is still time but if we do you indeed go over the cliff you at least won't have to persuade Scots to jump. You just need to debate whether it will be a soft landing or a splat.
I may be overcompensating for having been behind the curve update but I'm now mourning my Britishness preemptively as it seems more likely than not it will die in my lifetime.
I think 'Britishness' has been an unexamined concept for decades (except by people like Tom Nairn and Neil Ascherson), hence surprise that big N Nationalism is as much part of it as any other national identity; the insecure braggodocio and over compensating on here is evidence of that. I can see why people like yourselves who feel a genuine British identity recoil from the violently clumsy baby steps of English nationalism.
Paul Joseph Watson New York Times apologises for its bias coverage of Trump. Too little, too late. https://t.co/T4TOPGVgiq
Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. admitted the paper failed to appreciate Donald Trump’s appeal...
While insisting his staff had “reported on both candidates fairly,” he also vowed that the paper would “rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor.”
Ah, there’s the rub. Had the paper actually been fair to both candidates, it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting. And it wouldn’t have been totally blindsided by Trump’s victory. Instead, because it demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president.
Sulzberger’s letter alludes to this, promising that the paper will “striv[e] always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.”
But bad or sloppy journalism doesn’t fully capture the Times sins. Not after it announced that it was breaking it rules of coverage because Trump didn’t deserve fairness.
Even when I was a unionist like you pair I would never have accused Salmond of anglophobia - nor should you if you have a any semblance of decency or proportion. Indeed it was Salmond's ruthless and long term exercising any vestige of it from the Scottish independence movement which allowed me to support it. Consider the contrast between Brexit Britain with its 40 per cent rise in racist incidents post referendum in England with a 15 per cent fall in Scotland or USA in the aftermath of Trumpism. You pair may think it is smart to get a rise out of the few SNPers in this site by suggesting it but all you succeed in is cheapening the currency of your argument.
In terms of Salmond's achievements then in his first term as leader he took a rag bag collection of romantics and dreamers, made them, into an effective fighting force and extracted the concession of a Scottish Parliament from the Labour Party, the most important strategic goal and then he led the SNP into opposition in the new Parliament in 1999.
In terms of his second term as leader he took the SNP into Government in 2007, a stupendous achievement, and then in 2011 into majority Government in a PR system, an even more extraordinary success. He took the independence vote in the referendum from 20-30 points behind into a challanging position forcing the last ditch concession of "devo max" which Cameron had previously set his face against. Finally on MORI ratings he finished his term as First Minister on a satisfaction rating of plus 30! All of this was done against the entrenched hostility of the press and establishment in the UK and crucially in Scotland.
My conclusion is that if had been a British Labour leader they certainly would be in Government right now and the UK would be in the EU. If he had been an American Democrat they probably would be in the White House and the world would be spared whatever is to come.
And as we are discussing reputations, what will happen to Salmond’s ?
Before the insurgency movements of Brexit and Trump, it looked as though it would be very high.
Now, Sindy looks the aberration, the one insurgency that failed.
The conditions for revolutionary insurrection were there, the disillusion with contemporary politicians and parties, the economy that failed to work for many people.
Too early to judge Salmond as well as Cameron, of course, but I think it is true to say Salmond’s achievement already looks less impressive in the light of what has come after.
Though Salmond can at least take the moral high ground re. an insurgency based on racism and xenophobia.. If that's where we went wrong, I'll go wrong every time.
Salmond's pitch was strongly anglophobic. Get off your high horse.
It has not got more divided since the 1980s. I cannot see how you argue that without resorting to "But what about"
Secondly, trying to link it to the US - which *has* continued to increase in the 1990s and 2000s is a dishonest move, imho. Different countries, different trends.
And as we are discussing reputations, what will happen to Salmond’s ?
Before the insurgency movements of Brexit and Trump, it looked as though it would be very high.
Now, Sindy looks the aberration, the one insurgency that failed.
The conditions for revolutionary insurrection were there, the disillusion with contemporary politicians and parties, the economy that failed to work for many people.
Too early to judge Salmond as well as Cameron, of course, but I think it is true to say Salmond’s achievement already looks less impressive in the light of what has come after.
Though Salmond can at least take the moral high ground re. an insurgency based on racism and xenophobia.. If that's where we went wrong, I'll go wrong every time.
The Yes campaign was driven by racism and xenophobia against the English. Maybe you find that acceptable in your small corner of the world but in reality it's no different to any other insurgency. Driven by grief and anger against outsiders, in Scotland's case the nasty English who got their pound of flesh for bailing out the country, in Leave's case eastern Europeans who drive down wages, in Trump's case Mexicans and Chinese who are taking all the industrial jobs.
Dear Dear , hopefully you are not as stupid as you portray yourself on here. Your total ignorance of anything north of Watford is breathtaking.
@Theuniondivvie Yes. I think that's what it is. It's hidden in plain sight by two factors. #1 It's actually rEngland not England. England + Anglophone Wales - London. #2 The Brexit noun hides the rEnglsh nature of it.
I'm very odd indeed in that I'd say I was British first, a Northerner second and English third. I don't really want to be primarily English but it seems I'm going have too and need to take responsibility for what's unfolding.
Sorry to duck out of the health discussion yesterday. I dropped by early lunchtime but had a hectic afternoon. I have a much quieter day today.
What is it that has caused you such unease about the state of the NHS?
I'll help HL along. My sister who is in her early 60's has a leaky hole in the heart, it doesn't merit immediate surgery to correct.. you have to qualify by having two strokes (she has had a minor one) to get it done,,... THE NHS stinks. (and me ??? Make an appt to see your GP, of course in three weeks time.
@YellowSubmarine I'd also say that I see myself as British first.
I am Scottish first and last, and just for the ignorant and the nutters on here, it has nothing to do with hating the "English" in any way shape or form.
Even when I was a unionist like you pair I would never have accused Salmond of anglophobia - nor should you if you have a any semblance of decency or proportion. Indeed it was Salmond's ruthless and long term exercising any vestige of it from the Scottish independence movement which allowed me to support it. Consider the contrast between Brexit Britain with its 40 per cent rise in racist incidents post referendum in England with a 15 per cent fall in Scotland or USA in the aftermath of Trumpism. You pair may think it is smart to get a rise out of the few SNPers in this site by suggesting it but all you succeed in is cheapening the currency of your argument.
In terms of Salmond's achievements then in his first term as leader he took a rag bag collection of romantics and dreamers, made them, into an effective fighting force and extracted the concession of a Scottish Parliament from the Labour Party, the most important strategic goal and then he led the SNP into opposition in the new Parliament in 1999.
In terms of his second term as leader he took the SNP into Government in 2007, a stupendous achievement, and then in 2011 into majority Government in a PR system, an even more extraordinary success. He took the independence vote in the referendum from 20-30 points behind into a challanging position forcing the last ditch concession of "devo max" which Cameron had previously set his face against. Finally on MORI ratings he finished his term as First Minister on a satisfaction rating of plus 30! All of this was done against the entrenched hostility of the press and establishment in the UK and crucially in Scotland.
My conclusion is that if had been a British Labour leader they certainly would be in Government right now and the UK would be in the EU. If he had been an American Democrat they probably would be in the White House and the world would be spared whatever is to come.
It has not got more divided since the 1980s. I cannot see how you argue that without resorting to "But what about"
Secondly, trying to link it to the US - which *has* continued to increase in the 1990s and 2000s is a dishonest move, imho. Different countries, different trends.
Sean Fear asked if Britain is more divided than in the Seventies and Eighties, and the Gini coefficient confirms this.
The USA has continued to become more unequal, while in the UK it has plateaud since tbe fall of Mrs Thatcher, under both Parties. In America it has significantly worsened, in part because of their much more rudimentary welfare state. Being poor anywhere is no fun, but when there is little safety net it makes for much more anger.
@YellowSubmarine I'd also say that I see myself as British first.
The research shows we're a rapidly declining minority of Britons. So either Britishness becomes an elastic and inclusive identity you can wear as a layer amongst others or it will die. But in a matter of months europeaness has been excluded from Britishness then Britishness is being defined via support for Brexit. It'll be terminal for it. It'll take a bit longer than we think but it will be terminal.
Even when I was a unionist like you pair I would never have accused Salmond of anglophobia - nor should you if you have a any semblance of decency or proportion. Indeed it was Salmond's ruthless and long term exercising any vestige of it from the Scottish independence movement which allowed me to support it. Consider the contrast between Brexit Britain with its 40 per cent rise in racist incidents post referendum in England with a 15 per cent fall in Scotland or USA in the aftermath of Trumpism. You pair may think it is smart to get a rise out of the few SNPers in this site by suggesting it but all you succeed in is cheapening the currency of your argument.
In terms of Salmond's achievements then in his first term as leader he took a rag bag collection of romantics and dreamers, made them, into an effective fighting force and extracted the concession of a Scottish Parliament from the Labour Party, the most important strategic goal and then he led the SNP into opposition in the new Parliament in 1999.
In terms of his second term as leader he took the SNP into Government in 2007, a stupendous achievement, and then in 2011 into majority Government in a PR system, an even more extraordinary success. He took the independence vote in the referendum from 20-30 points behind into a challanging position forcing the last ditch concession of "devo max" which Cameron had previously set his face against. Finally on MORI ratings he finished his term as First Minister on a satisfaction rating of plus 30! All of this was done against the entrenched hostility of the press and establishment in the UK and crucially in Scotland.
My conclusion is that if had been a British Labour leader they certainly would be in Government right now and the UK would be in the EU. If he had been an American Democrat they probably would be in the White House and the world would be spared whatever is to come.
Like all the Scottish nationalists I've met, in real life and on this board, you lack utterly the ability to look at yourself and your cause in a a dispassionate fashion. Your 'romantics and dreamers' of days of SNP yore for example. You see your nationalism as warm and cuddly and somehow 'right' because you are in it. In reality it's as excluding, and accompanied by jealousy and small-mindedness as any other form of nationalism.
@YellowSubmarine I'd also say that I see myself as British first.
The research shows we're a rapidly declining minority of Britons. So either Britishness becomes an elastic and inclusive identity you can wear as a layer amongst others or it will die. But in a matter of months europeaness has been excluded from Britishness then Britishness is being defined via support for Brexit. It'll be terminal for it. It'll take a bit longer than we think but it will be terminal.
Oh get a grip. We've left a not very good customs union.
The judiciary are not our Gods. The government has no obligation to chastise the Press on their behalf.
Some sections of the legal profession have a ludicrously exaggerated opinion of their own righteousness.
Couldn't agree more. Good story about a senior QC in Scotland. Slightly late for a criminal appeal. The judge in the Chair says Mr X we are not amused. To which he replied, "I thought this appeal was going to be hard enough, I didn't realise I had to be entertaining as well. "
That said if the government are serious about winning this appeal they will have to box a whole lot cleverer than they did in the High Court. I would run arguments based on popular sovereignty (i.e. The decision was binding) and that Article 50 notice is not irrevocable, pretty much the exact opposite of what they did the last time.
It has not got more divided since the 1980s. I cannot see how you argue that without resorting to "But what about"
Secondly, trying to link it to the US - which *has* continued to increase in the 1990s and 2000s is a dishonest move, imho. Different countries, different trends.
Sean Fear asked if Britain is more divided than in the Seventies and Eighties, and the Gini coefficient confirms this.
The USA has continued to become more unequal, while in the UK it has plateaud since tbe fall of Mrs Thatcher, under both Parties. In America it has significantly worsened, in part because of their much more rudimentary welfare state. Being poor anywhere is no fun, but when there is little safety net it makes for much more anger.
I was thinking more in terms of political divisions.
I suspect that Trump is essentially a pragmatist - given to delivering overblown, extreme statements where the reality, in practice, may be somewhat tempered. The Obamacare declaration supports that. His political 'positions' have been rather fluid for decades.
He does, however, understand how to hit the headlines and enthuse his core. He's a TV star and public figure - he knows how publicity works and knew what he had to do to get people talking about his campaign.
That is not to say that I don't expect a significant rightwards shift in American politics and discourse. But I do wonder is President Trump will be somewhat less extreme to that forecasted by the liberal side of the media.
@YellowSubmarine I'd also say that I see myself as British first.
The research shows we're a rapidly declining minority of Britons. So either Britishness becomes an elastic and inclusive identity you can wear as a layer amongst others or it will die. But in a matter of months europeaness has been excluded from Britishness then Britishness is being defined via support for Brexit. It'll be terminal for it. It'll take a bit longer than we think but it will be terminal.
Oh get a grip. We've left a not very good customs union.
We haven't even begun to leave yet. The process has years to go. If you think the period from the referendum campaign through the Brexit process then beyond is a seminal cultural event as well as a political one ( for good or ill ) then I think it's you who needs to get a grip.
What's particularly amusing about those Leavers who think Cameron was a bad PM is that, by their own logic, the best PM of the post-war years must have been Ted Heath, who had a strong political aim and actually managed to implement it.
With hindsight, I think Cameron was better than average. I'm certainly not unhappy that he gave us the Referendum and Leave won.
The real feeling of betrayal comes from orange book liberals and Blairites, who expected Cameron to crush euroscepticism for good.
The country has never been more divided. His economic policy has been reversed as the Tories find the Brexit magic money tree. He set out to keep us in Europe and failed.
Apart from that, average.
Is the UK more divided now than in the 1970's and 80's, the 1930's, the 1900's? I doubt it.
There are real economic problems, but even so, growth at 2.5%, inflation at 2%, unemployment at 5% is not the worst that can happen.
The UK Gini coefficient has significantly gone up both here and in the USA.
Of course those at the top are less bothered.
"Levels of inequality changed dramatically over the course of the 20th century. Income inequality fell from a high point in the 1930s, remained fairly static until 1979, and then increased dramatically from 1979 to 1991. Since 1991 it has remained fairly stable, including during the recent financial crisis."
If we look at the history of the Gini coefficient then there was a substantial increase during the Thatcher years, but levels of inequality have remained essentially static since John Major entered office. There was a small increase at the bottom of the Great Recession, but inequality narrowed again under the Coalition.
This does not mean that everything is rosy in the garden - there is certainly a growing problem of inter-generational inequality, as pensioners are shielded by the triple lock and home ownership rates continue to decline, and the Gini coefficient does not appear to be capturing this problem - but clearly inequality is not rising according to the measure which you have highlighted, and has not done so, overall, for the last quarter of a century.
I suspect that Trump is essentially a pragmatist - given to delivering overblown, extreme statements where the reality, in practice, may be somewhat tempered. The Obamacare declaration supports that. His political 'positions' have been rather fluid for decades.
He does, however, understand how to hit the headlines and enthuse his core. He's a TV star and public figure - he knows how publicity works and knew what he had to do to get people talking about his campaign.
That is not to say that I don't expect a significant rightwards shift in American politics and discourse. But I do wonder is President Trump will be somewhat less extreme to that forecasted by the liberal side of the media.
This might be wishful thinking, I admit.
I think you are spot on. I reckon the liberal side of the media would have been far more appalled about what a President Ted Cruz would have done, in the name of ideology.
It has not got more divided since the 1980s. I cannot see how you argue that without resorting to "But what about"
Secondly, trying to link it to the US - which *has* continued to increase in the 1990s and 2000s is a dishonest move, imho. Different countries, different trends.
Sean Fear asked if Britain is more divided than in the Seventies and Eighties, and the Gini coefficient confirms this.
The USA has continued to become more unequal, while in the UK it has plateaud since tbe fall of Mrs Thatcher, under both Parties. In America it has significantly worsened, in part because of their much more rudimentary welfare state. Being poor anywhere is no fun, but when there is little safety net it makes for much more anger.
I was thinking more in terms of political divisions.
The degree of political division is a subjective one, but I do think that the Gini coefficient does match this fairly well.
Few would argue that Mrs Thatcher's government was a fundamental break with the postwar political consensus, though they may well argue whether this was a good or bad thing. That was when the coefficient started to rise, and the plateau started when she fell. This is the reason that she is so despised by the left, and why the right are slavering at the possibility of returning to those days.
The paradox is that British social conservatism is not the religion based phenomenon seen in the USA. Here religion is rightly seen by most as a private matter, and social conservatism is based much more on community and the sense of belonging that the NHS, social housing, and secure well paid jobs bring.
To a degree both Mrs May and UKIP realise this, hence an extra £350m per week for the NHS, but I do not think that they can deliver. This is the root of the conflict in both Tories and UKIP: social conservatism via a welfare state, or free market and free trade?
I suspect that Trump is essentially a pragmatist - given to delivering overblown, extreme statements where the reality, in practice, may be somewhat tempered. The Obamacare declaration supports that. His political 'positions' have been rather fluid for decades.
He does, however, understand how to hit the headlines and enthuse his core. He's a TV star and public figure - he knows how publicity works and knew what he had to do to get people talking about his campaign.
That is not to say that I don't expect a significant rightwards shift in American politics and discourse. But I do wonder is President Trump will be somewhat less extreme to that forecasted by the liberal side of the media.
This might be wishful thinking, I admit.
I think you are spot on. I reckon the liberal side of the media would have been far more appalled about what a President Ted Cruz would have done, in the name of ideology.
A rightward leaning Supreme Court has legalised gay marriage, declined to repeal Roe v Wade, and upheld some forms of affirmative action - admittedly, it has made other rulings that please conservatives. I doubt if there'll be a huge right wing reaction under Trump, more of a nudge to the right.
I still can't get over the new M & S Christmas advert. It's like a morality tale for political betting. Firstly who's have bet 12 months ago that M & S would stuff John Lewis in the Christmas Zeitgeist stakes ? Hegemony doesn't last for ever. Secondly the advert is about President Elect Clinton. Which European liberal advertising creative writing a concept this spring could have imagined Trump winning ? Events dear boy, Events.
It has not got more divided since the 1980s. I cannot see how you argue that without resorting to "But what about"
Secondly, trying to link it to the US - which *has* continued to increase in the 1990s and 2000s is a dishonest move, imho. Different countries, different trends.
Sean Fear asked if Britain is more divided than in the Seventies and Eighties, and the Gini coefficient confirms this.
The USA has continued to become more unequal, while in the UK it has plateaud since tbe fall of Mrs Thatcher, under both Parties. In America it has significantly worsened, in part because of their much more rudimentary welfare state. Being poor anywhere is no fun, but when there is little safety net it makes for much more anger.
I was thinking more in terms of political divisions.
The degree of political division is a subjective one, but I do think that the Gini coefficient does match this fairly well.
Few would argue that Mrs Thatcher's government was a fundamental break with the postwar political consensus, though they may well argue whether this was a good or bad thing. That was when the coefficient started to rise, and the plateau started when she fell. This is the reason that she is so despised by the left, and why the right are slavering at the possibility of returning to those days.
The paradox is that British social conservatism is not the religion based phenomenon seen in the USA. Here religion is rightly seen by most as a private matter, and social conservatism is based much more on community and the sense of belonging that the NHS, social housing, and secure well paid jobs bring.
To a degree both Mrs May and UKIP realise this, hence an extra £350m per week for the NHS, but I do not think that they can deliver. This is the root of the conflict in both Tories and UKIP: social conservatism via a welfare state, or free market and free trade?
I was responding to a comment that "Britain has never been more divided". To take one clear example, levels of political and industrial violence were far greater in the Seventies and Eighties than today.
I suspect that Trump is essentially a pragmatist - given to delivering overblown, extreme statements where the reality, in practice, may be somewhat tempered. The Obamacare declaration supports that. His political 'positions' have been rather fluid for decades.
He does, however, understand how to hit the headlines and enthuse his core. He's a TV star and public figure - he knows how publicity works and knew what he had to do to get people talking about his campaign.
That is not to say that I don't expect a significant rightwards shift in American politics and discourse. But I do wonder is President Trump will be somewhat less extreme to that forecasted by the liberal side of the media.
This might be wishful thinking, I admit.
Scott Adams correctly IMO identified his behaviour as pacing-and-leading.
He gets his audience comfortable with a position by being one-of-them, then moves towards his real position and takes his passengers with him - because they trust him and want him to be right. The convention audience spontaneously applauded a load of pro LGBT stuff - quite unthinkable in previous times.
There's a bunch of examples of this - it looks crazy or weird until you spot what he's doing.
I still can't get over the new M & S Christmas advert. It's like a morality tale for political betting. Firstly who's have bet 12 months ago that M & S would stuff John Lewis in the Christmas Zeitgeist stakes ? Hegemony doesn't last for ever. Secondly the advert is about President Elect Clinton. Which European liberal advertising creative writing a concept this spring could have imagined Trump winning ? Events dear boy, Events.
Probably the same fools who made the new Toblerone and revealed it days before Sterling rallied 5% against the Euro and will probably continue to do so next week as well.
@YellowSubmarine I'd also say that I see myself as British first.
The research shows we're a rapidly declining minority of Britons. So either Britishness becomes an elastic and inclusive identity you can wear as a layer amongst others or it will die. But in a matter of months europeaness has been excluded from Britishness then Britishness is being defined via support for Brexit. It'll be terminal for it. It'll take a bit longer than we think but it will be terminal.
Oh get a grip. We've left a not very good customs union.
Even when I was a unionist like you pair I would never have accused Salmond of anglophobia - nor should you if you have a any semblance of decency or proportion. Indeed it was Salmond's ruthless and long term exercising any vestige of it from the Scottish independence movement which allowed me to support it. Consider the contrast between Brexit Britain with its 40 per cent rise in racist incidents post referendum in England with a 15 per cent fall in Scotland or USA in the aftermath of Trumpism. You pair may think it is smart to get a rise out of the few SNPers in this site by suggesting it but all you succeed in is cheapening the currency of your argument.
In terms of Salmond's achievements then in his first term as leader he took a rag bag collection of romantics and dreamers, made them, into an effective fighting force and extracted the concession of a Scottish Parliament from the Labour Party, the most important strategic goal and then he led the SNP into opposition in the new Parliament in 1999.
In terms of his second term as leader he took the SNP into Government in 2007, a stupendous achievement, and then in 2011 into majority Government in a PR system, an even more extraordinary success. He took the independence vote in the referendum from 20-30 points behind into a challanging position forcing the last ditch concession of "devo max" which Cameron had previously set his face against. Finally on MORI ratings he finished his term as First Minister on a satisfaction rating of plus 30! All of this was done against the entrenched hostility of the press and establishment in the UK and crucially in Scotland.
My conclusion is that if had been a British Labour leader they certainly would be in Government right now and the UK would be in the EU. If he had been an American Democrat they probably would be in the White House and the world would be spared whatever is to come.
Like all the Scottish nationalists I've met, in real life and on this board, you lack utterly the ability to look at yourself and your cause in a a dispassionate fashion. Your 'romantics and dreamers' of days of SNP yore for example. You see your nationalism as warm and cuddly and somehow 'right' because you are in it. In reality it's as excluding, and accompanied by jealousy and small-mindedness as any other form of nationalism.
Utter garbage as is your wont , desperate to show up your absolute ignorance of all things Scottish.
I still can't get over the new M & S Christmas advert. It's like a morality tale for political betting. Firstly who's have bet 12 months ago that M & S would stuff John Lewis in the Christmas Zeitgeist stakes ? Hegemony doesn't last for ever. Secondly the advert is about President Elect Clinton. Which European liberal advertising creative writing a concept this spring could have imagined Trump winning ? Events dear boy, Events.
I liked the Aldi adverts - they take the piss out of John Lewis too. And seriously? A Hillary advert - get grip.
The convention audience spontaneously applauded a load of pro LGBT stuff - quite unthinkable in previous times.
Yes, despite the wailing, I expect that ultimately history will show that it was Trump who was instrumental in reconciling the 'bitter clingers' to some of the social changes held dear by the people who see him as a fascist.
Sorry to duck out of the health discussion yesterday. I dropped by early lunchtime but had a hectic afternoon. I have a much quieter day today.
What is it that has caused you such unease about the state of the NHS?
Doc, I am as you know a regular user of the Service, as are many of my friends (age and all that) and there have been a lot of seemingly small items over the past five years or so that have caused me some unease. However, talking to my new cardiologist friend has made me aware of factors that I simply didn't know about. Ther four that stand out most for me at present:
1. The number of GPs set to retire over the coming years 2. The appalling quality of non-medical senior management in the NHS 3. The state of nursing and in particular nurse training and employment conditions 4. The number and quality of physicians and surgeons being trained.
I am genuinely fearful that the NHS will be unable to supply a first world standard of healthcare for very much longer (i.e beyond the next five years, ten years max in some areas). The profession and the politicians need to start think some big thoughts now. More money is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.
The convention audience spontaneously applauded a load of pro LGBT stuff - quite unthinkable in previous times.
Yes, despite the wailing, I expect that ultimately history will show that it was Trump who was instrumental in reconciling the 'bitter clingers' to some of the social changes held dear by the people who see him as a fascist.
I watched an intv - can't recall who with who said - to paraphrase " Trump has hollowed out the GOP and is wearing it like a meat suit"
I suspect that Trump is essentially a pragmatist - given to delivering overblown, extreme statements where the reality, in practice, may be somewhat tempered. The Obamacare declaration supports that. His political 'positions' have been rather fluid for decades.
He does, however, understand how to hit the headlines and enthuse his core. He's a TV star and public figure - he knows how publicity works and knew what he had to do to get people talking about his campaign.
That is not to say that I don't expect a significant rightwards shift in American politics and discourse. But I do wonder is President Trump will be somewhat less extreme to that forecasted by the liberal side of the media.
This might be wishful thinking, I admit.
I think you are spot on. I reckon the liberal side of the media would have been far more appalled about what a President Ted Cruz would have done, in the name of ideology.
A rightward leaning Supreme Court has legalised gay marriage, declined to repeal Roe v Wade, and upheld some forms of affirmative action - admittedly, it has made other rulings that please conservatives. I doubt if there'll be a huge right wing reaction under Trump, more of a nudge to the right.
BBC Newsnight "I am sorry but if you are a white man you don't get to define what racism is" : Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie #newsnight https://t.co/J3qjk62aYr
Morning all, Trump +/- 47% is fiendishly hard to work out.
I think turnout will be slightly under 58% at the final count.
I can't see how Trump doesn't end with 306 ECVs
I'm expecting 306 too.
There's been some semantic nitpicking over how big his win is. How many recent POTUS have 306 or better?
I've never bothered to check this out.
It's a bigger margin than either of GWB's victories but by historical standards it's a very close result, especially when you consider the popular vote.
I had a discussion last week with my son who is working in California. I suggested Trump speaks 'metaphorically.' He suggested 'rhetorically,' (and he would be a reluctant Clintonite).
He's been unofficially counselling a couple of traumatised voters over there, I suggested being honest and saying "Get over yourself, you soft shites." But that might not translate well. Still, he reckons most are adjusting well.
We both agreed Trump's a man with trenchant views, but when it comes to the nitty gritty, he'll be pragmatic.
That doesn't suit the Guardian viewpoint as they don't do shades of grey. Yet using extreme language all the time devalues it.
The similarities with Brexit are spooky but because of the currency fluctuations, he may get an Irish passport. ("Look, Dad, if you end up the only Englishman, we might have to review your family privileges").
I had a discussion last week with my son who is working in California. I suggested Trump speaks 'metaphorically.' He suggested 'rhetorically,' (and he would be a reluctant Clintonite).
He's been unofficially counselling a couple of traumatised voters over there, I suggested being honest and saying "Get over yourself, you soft shites." But that might not translate well. Still, he reckons most are adjusting well.
We both agreed Trump's a man with trenchant views, but when it comes to the nitty gritty, he'll be pragmatic.
That doesn't suit the Guardian viewpoint as they don't do shades of grey. Yet using extreme language all the time devalues it.
The similarities with Brexit are spooky but because of the currency fluctuations, he may get an Irish passport. ("Look, Dad, if you end up the only Englishman, we might have to review your family privileges").
Trump also talks in NYC idioms. It's blunt and figurative. It's not meant to be literal. The SJW like to take the most literal interpretations to make it look awful. Lots of Trumpers just think WTH - have you no brains or commonsense?
It's like saying the action in video games is Literally Murder.
BBC Newsnight "I am sorry but if you are a white man you don't get to define what racism is" : Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie #newsnight https://t.co/J3qjk62aYr
I saw that last night. One bizarre interview. The only thing I got from it was that the US is divided.
Comments
There's been some semantic nitpicking over how big his win is. How many recent POTUS have 306 or better?
I've never bothered to check this out.
New York Times apologises for its bias coverage of Trump. Too little, too late. https://t.co/T4TOPGVgiq
Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. admitted the paper failed to appreciate Donald Trump’s appeal...
While insisting his staff had “reported on both candidates fairly,” he also vowed that the paper would “rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor.”
Ah, there’s the rub. Had the paper actually been fair to both candidates, it wouldn’t need to rededicate itself to honest reporting. And it wouldn’t have been totally blindsided by Trump’s victory. Instead, because it demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president.
Sulzberger’s letter alludes to this, promising that the paper will “striv[e] always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.”
But bad or sloppy journalism doesn’t fully capture the Times sins. Not after it announced that it was breaking it rules of coverage because Trump didn’t deserve fairness.
Even when I was a unionist like you pair I would never have accused Salmond of anglophobia - nor should you if you have a any semblance of decency or proportion. Indeed it was Salmond's ruthless and long term exercising any vestige of it from the Scottish independence movement which allowed me to support it. Consider the contrast between Brexit Britain with its 40 per cent rise in racist incidents post referendum in England with a 15 per cent fall in Scotland or USA in the aftermath of Trumpism. You pair may think it is smart to get a rise out of the few SNPers in this site by suggesting it but all you succeed in is cheapening the currency of your argument.
In terms of Salmond's achievements then in his first term as leader he took a rag bag collection of romantics and dreamers, made them, into an effective fighting force and extracted the concession of a Scottish Parliament from the Labour Party, the most important strategic goal and then he led the SNP into opposition in the new Parliament in 1999.
In terms of his second term as leader he took the SNP into Government in 2007, a stupendous achievement, and then in 2011 into majority Government in a PR system, an even more extraordinary success. He took the independence vote in the referendum from 20-30 points behind into a challanging position forcing the last ditch concession of "devo max" which Cameron had previously set his face against. Finally on MORI ratings he finished his term as First Minister on a satisfaction rating of plus 30! All of this was done against the entrenched hostility of the press and establishment in the UK and crucially in Scotland.
My conclusion is that if had been a British Labour leader they certainly would be in Government right now and the UK would be in the EU. If he had been an American Democrat they probably would be in the White House and the world would be spared whatever is to come.
Secondly, trying to link it to the US - which *has* continued to increase in the 1990s and 2000s is a dishonest move, imho. Different countries, different trends.
I'm very odd indeed in that I'd say I was British first, a Northerner second and English third. I don't really want to be primarily English but it seems I'm going have too and need to take responsibility for what's unfolding.
The USA has continued to become more unequal, while in the UK it has plateaud since tbe fall of Mrs Thatcher, under both Parties. In America it has significantly worsened, in part because of their much more rudimentary welfare state. Being poor anywhere is no fun, but when there is little safety net it makes for much more anger.
http://dilbert.com/strip/1990-02-14
That said if the government are serious about winning this appeal they will have to box a whole lot cleverer than they did in the High Court. I would run arguments based on popular sovereignty (i.e. The decision was binding) and that Article 50 notice is not irrevocable, pretty much the exact opposite of what they did the last time.
I suspect that Trump is essentially a pragmatist - given to delivering overblown, extreme statements where the reality, in practice, may be somewhat tempered. The Obamacare declaration supports that. His political 'positions' have been rather fluid for decades.
He does, however, understand how to hit the headlines and enthuse his core. He's a TV star and public figure - he knows how publicity works and knew what he had to do to get people talking about his campaign.
That is not to say that I don't expect a significant rightwards shift in American politics and discourse. But I do wonder is President Trump will be somewhat less extreme to that forecasted by the liberal side of the media.
This might be wishful thinking, I admit.
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/about-inequality/scale-and-trends?has_js=1&_ga=GA1.3.2074716180.1475142914&_gat=1
If we look at the history of the Gini coefficient then there was a substantial increase during the Thatcher years, but levels of inequality have remained essentially static since John Major entered office. There was a small increase at the bottom of the Great Recession, but inequality narrowed again under the Coalition.
This does not mean that everything is rosy in the garden - there is certainly a growing problem of inter-generational inequality, as pensioners are shielded by the triple lock and home ownership rates continue to decline, and the Gini coefficient does not appear to be capturing this problem - but clearly inequality is not rising according to the measure which you have highlighted, and has not done so, overall, for the last quarter of a century.
Few would argue that Mrs Thatcher's government was a fundamental break with the postwar political consensus, though they may well argue whether this was a good or bad thing. That was when the coefficient started to rise, and the plateau started when she fell. This is the reason that she is so despised by the left, and why the right are slavering at the possibility of returning to those days.
The paradox is that British social conservatism is not the religion based phenomenon seen in the USA. Here religion is rightly seen by most as a private matter, and social conservatism is based much more on community and the sense of belonging that the NHS, social housing, and secure well paid jobs bring.
To a degree both Mrs May and UKIP realise this, hence an extra £350m per week for the NHS, but I do not think that they can deliver. This is the root of the conflict in both Tories and UKIP: social conservatism via a welfare state, or free market and free trade?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKfwde2cOEk
He gets his audience comfortable with a position by being one-of-them, then moves towards his real position and takes his passengers with him - because they trust him and want him to be right. The convention audience spontaneously applauded a load of pro LGBT stuff - quite unthinkable in previous times.
There's a bunch of examples of this - it looks crazy or weird until you spot what he's doing.
LOL, up to your usual dunce's standard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPWBuC_QyHY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCZrWFrRgbQ
1. The number of GPs set to retire over the coming years
2. The appalling quality of non-medical senior management in the NHS
3. The state of nursing and in particular nurse training and employment conditions
4. The number and quality of physicians and surgeons being trained.
I am genuinely fearful that the NHS will be unable to supply a first world standard of healthcare for very much longer (i.e beyond the next five years, ten years max in some areas). The profession and the politicians need to start think some big thoughts now. More money is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.
ROFLMAO
I miss Phil...
It's so true.
"I am sorry but if you are a white man you don't get to define what racism is" : Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie #newsnight https://t.co/J3qjk62aYr
He's been unofficially counselling a couple of traumatised voters over there, I suggested being honest and saying "Get over yourself, you soft shites." But that might not translate well. Still, he reckons most are adjusting well.
We both agreed Trump's a man with trenchant views, but when it comes to the nitty gritty, he'll be pragmatic.
That doesn't suit the Guardian viewpoint as they don't do shades of grey. Yet using extreme language all the time devalues it.
The similarities with Brexit are spooky but because of the currency fluctuations, he may get an Irish passport. ("Look, Dad, if you end up the only Englishman, we might have to review your family privileges").
Jayed
This needs to go viral. Stop this madness https://t.co/uztXs0Wyzo
It's like saying the action in video games is Literally Murder.
Mr Meeks suggests that because the government was insufficiently vigorous in attacking the press,
Then judges may be more likely to rule against it.
There's nothing like the amour propre of the legal elite.