SouthamObserver said: » show previous quotes I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
Ahh the good old PV meme again.
It's odd that if the voting system was so unfair you would have thought the democrats would have changed it in the last 8 years of Obama or even during the Clinton years. Of course they would have lost the mass of electoral college votes California always guarantees them.
It's a system they were all more than happy with when they were winning. Just like Labour during their GE wins, Remainers while they thought they would win and democrats while they thought they were shoo ins.
Hypocrites all of them.
Not really. Changing the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Ammendment passed by 2/3 of States, and both houses of Congress with a 2/3 majority.
Not possible.
Or 270 EC votes worth of states passing the national popular vote interstate compact. Of which over 100 EC votes worth of states have done so.
2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him
I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".
Yes but that will not be on offer
Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.
Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access
Actually that is not strictly true. Liechtenstein has very severe controls but is still part of the single market.
I am not saying this in support of restrictions nor do I believe the Liechtenstein solution would work for us. But the idea that this is a rule set in stone is not true. The EU is quite happy to bend rules when it wants to to further its own aims.
SouthamObserver said: » show previous quotes I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
Ahh the good old PV meme again.
It's odd that if the voting system was so unfair you would have thought the democrats would have changed it in the last 8 years of Obama or even during the Clinton years. Of course they would have lost the mass of electoral college votes California always guarantees them.
It's a system they were all more than happy with when they were winning. Just like Labour during their GE wins, Remainers while they thought they would win and democrats while they thought they were shoo ins.
Hypocrites all of them.
Not really. Changing the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Ammendment passed by 2/3 of States, and both houses of Congress with a 2/3 majority.
Not possible.
Or 270 EC votes worth of states passing the national popular vote interstate compact. Of which over 100 EC votes worth of states have done so.
Passed by these Democrats who are supposed to be so hypocritical when in power. Including Cali.
SouthamObserver said: » show previous quotes I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
Ahh the good old PV meme again.
It's odd that if the voting system was so unfair you would have thought the democrats would have changed it in the last 8 years of Obama or even during the Clinton years. Of course they would have lost the mass of electoral college votes California always guarantees them.
It's a system they were all more than happy with when they were winning. Just like Labour during their GE wins, Remainers while they thought they would win and democrats while they thought they were shoo ins.
Hypocrites all of them.
Not really. Changing the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Ammendment passed by 2/3 of States, and both houses of Congress with a 2/3 majority.
Not possible.
Actually, as was pointed out on here the other day, effectively it just needs enough states (270 ECVs worth) to decide to give their votes based on the popular vote.
SouthamObserver said: » show previous quotes I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
Ahh the good old PV meme again.
It's odd that if the voting system was so unfair you would have thought the democrats would have changed it in the last 8 years of Obama or even during the Clinton years. Of course they would have lost the mass of electoral college votes California always guarantees them.
It's a system they were all more than happy with when they were winning. Just like Labour during their GE wins, Remainers while they thought they would win and democrats while they thought they were shoo ins.
Hypocrites all of them.
Not really. Changing the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Ammendment passed by 2/3 of States, and both houses of Congress with a 2/3 majority.
Not possible.
Or 270 EC votes worth of states passing the national popular vote interstate compact. Of which over 100 EC votes worth of states have done so.
But it is never going to happen that way. Swing states won't do it because of the fear of losing power and influence whilst Republican states won't do it because it tends to favour the Democrats.
I am not saying it is right but pragmatically the number of states currently enforcing it is probably about as far as you are likely to go.
If that's true, it would take Trump down to 274, would it not?
Unfortunately not. What a shame really......
it would have been superb to see all the Clinton supporters on here start shouting there was only a few per cent in it ( normally referenced as 50/50 on here) the voters didn't know what they were voting for and there should be a rerun of the election to ensure the head bangers, xenophobic etc etc don't get their way.
They could then take legal action to ensure the electoral college votes for HRC instead of Trump thus handing the presidency to the loser. ( actually the electoral college could I believe actually do that but have never done so previously except for one delegate*)
Either way they were both crap and as someone aptly pointed out on here the voters had a choice between what style of shit sandwich they actually wanted. They then got a shit sandwich.
SouthamObserver said: » show previous quotes I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
Ahh the good old PV meme again.
It's odd that if the voting system was so unfair you would have thought the democrats would have changed it in the last 8 years of Obama or even during the Clinton years. Of course they would have lost the mass of electoral college votes California always guarantees them.
It's a system they were all more than happy with when they were winning. Just like Labour during their GE wins, Remainers while they thought they would win and democrats while they thought they were shoo ins.
Hypocrites all of them.
Someone else who doesn't know how constitutional changes in America work
Oh please spare us the arrogance while you avoid the PV point.
Let's wait and see what Hammond actually announces - I suspect he'll be a fair bit more cautious than some people are expecting (and hoping).
The deficit for 2016-17 is going to come in at around £65-£70 billion and debt is now an eyewatering 83% of GDP and this under a Conservative Government which is meant to be the model of fiscal rectitude.
Yes, the deficit figures have come down from the awful numbers inherited by the Coalition in 2010 and there are some encouraging signs on the tax take from the City and elsewhere but overall the public finances are still in a mess and Hammond really has no room for giveaways or the like (even if that were his preference).
Some may think there's a pot of gold at the end of the Brexit rainbow - I take the view we haven't got a pot to pass in (or something like that).
If we have an expansionary autumn statement with money for health, housing and infrastructure from bean counter Hammond the surely that means a spring election.?
Opinium last Sunday had a Tory lead of 8% implying a majority of 24. Would May really risk an election for the possibility of little gain?
Oh dear - stop. Just stop. This level of silly cherry-picking is embarrassing on a site like this.
But who is doing the cherry-picking? I did not see this poll mentioned anywhere last weekend. I suspect it is the most recent poll we have with fieldwork dates Nov 1st - 4th.
SouthamObserver said: » show previous quotes I know. But it is a matter of fact that most American voters did not get the president they voted for.
Ahh the good old PV meme again.
It's odd that if the voting system was so unfair you would have thought the democrats would have changed it in the last 8 years of Obama or even during the Clinton years. Of course they would have lost the mass of electoral college votes California always guarantees them.
It's a system they were all more than happy with when they were winning. Just like Labour during their GE wins, Remainers while they thought they would win and democrats while they thought they were shoo ins.
Hypocrites all of them.
Not really. Changing the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Ammendment passed by 2/3 of States, and both houses of Congress with a 2/3 majority.
Not possible.
Quite .....so why are people bitching about it then?
Judging by the number of Lab retweets I'm getting, it's probably the first thing they've felt good about since Tony Blair appeared in a photo with Noel Gallagher.
I might join Labour if Ed Balls becomes leader.
Just imagine him threatening Mrs May with a dance-off at PMQs
He has gone up massively in my estimation, and In Public profile too.
2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him
I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".
Yes but that will not be on offer
Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.
Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access
So, if we offered one trillion dollars a year, they would not accept?
From what I can tell re Michigan from the State website , Trump leads by 13,107 with around 87,000 votes still to be included . No reason why these should be heavily in Clinton's favour ,
From what I can tell re Michigan from the State website , Trump leads by 13,107 with around 87,000 votes still to be included . No reason why these should be heavily in Clinton's favour ,
Might it get close enough to trigger a recount there?
2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him
I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".
Yes but that will not be on offer
Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.
Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access
So, if we offered one trillion dollars a year, they would not accept?
Or allow a variation of the Austrian State Treaty when it is needed?
From what I can tell re Michigan from the State website , Trump leads by 13,107 with around 87,000 votes still to be included . No reason why these should be heavily in Clinton's favour ,
Might it get close enough to trigger a recount there?
The margin is currently less than 0.5% but I believe state rules do not cater for an automatic recount which is only done if someone petitions for it .
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him
I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".
Yes but that will not be on offer
Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.
Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access
So, if we offered one trillion dollars a year, they would not accept?
Obviously the UK public would never accept that either and Junker and co are so stubborn I doubt it would make much difference anyway
Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.
The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.
Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.
“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.
The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.
2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him
I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".
Yes but that will not be on offer
Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.
Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access
Actually that is not strictly true. Liechtenstein has very severe controls but is still part of the single market.
I am not saying this in support of restrictions nor do I believe the Liechtenstein solution would work for us. But the idea that this is a rule set in stone is not true. The EU is quite happy to bend rules when it wants to to further its own aims.
Liechtenstein has about the population of Canterbury and has never been in the EU It is also part of the Schengen area.. The EU elite and Merkel are clear they won't budge on free movement
Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.
The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.
Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.
“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.
The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.
Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.
The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.
Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.
“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.
The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
It was the defining event of the last fortnight. She is probably right.
No it was anti immigration and anti globalisation feeling which cost her the election as well as her failure to campaign enough in the battleground states. It was Hillary herself who failed to secure her emails properly anyway and of course Trump lost support through gropegate too
Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.
The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.
Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.
“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.
The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.
Liberal - "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas"
Democrat - "an advocate or supporter of democracy"
Huh.
It is you who is the idiot and undemocratic . You believe that the 52% who voted Brexit deserve the votes of every single MP and the 48% who voted Remain should not have their views represented .
From what I can tell re Michigan from the State website , Trump leads by 13,107 with around 87,000 votes still to be included . No reason why these should be heavily in Clinton's favour ,
Might it get close enough to trigger a recount there?
The margin is currently less than 0.5% but I believe state rules do not cater for an automatic recount which is only done if someone petitions for it .
Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.
The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.
Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.
“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.
The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.
2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him
I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".
Yes but that will not be on offer
Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.
Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access
Actually that is not strictly true. Liechtenstein has very severe controls but is still part of the single market.
I am not saying this in support of restrictions nor do I believe the Liechtenstein solution would work for us. But the idea that this is a rule set in stone is not true. The EU is quite happy to bend rules when it wants to to further its own aims.
Liechtenstein has about the population of Canterbury and has never been in the EU It is also part of the Schengen area.. The EU elite and Merkel are clear they won't budge on free movement
All of which ignores the basic point I made. When it suits them the EU finds ways around even such basic principles as freedom of movement.
It was the defining event of the last fortnight. She is probably right.
No it was anti immigration and anti globalisation feeling which cis the her the election as well as her failure to campaign enough in the battleground states. It was Hillary herself who failed to secure her emails properly anyway and of course Tru,p lost support through gropegate too
If it hadn't been close it wouldn't have mattered, but it was, so it did.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.
The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.
Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.
“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.
The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
If Hilary Clinton had simply obeyed the rules like the little people there would have been nothing to investigate. It is a mess of her making.
Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.
The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.
Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.
“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.
The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.
Liberal - "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas"
Democrat - "an advocate or supporter of democracy"
Huh.
It is you who is the idiot and undemocratic . You believe that the 52% who voted Brexit deserve the votes of every single MP and the 48% who voted Remain should not have their views represented .
We already have the votes of the MPs. They voted for a referendum to allow the public to decide. The public decided and advised the government to begin Brexit - which can only be started by activating A50. Now some un-liberal un-democratic MPs want to stop that.
You may not like what the public decided, but the decision is made.
I would prefer a soft Bexit. But if that is not available, then it will have to be a hard Brexit. Democracy means accepting the will of the people whether you like it or not.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
From what I can tell re Michigan from the State website , Trump leads by 13,107 with around 87,000 votes still to be included . No reason why these should be heavily in Clinton's favour ,
Might it get close enough to trigger a recount there?
The margin is currently less than 0.5% but I believe state rules do not cater for an automatic recount which is only done if someone petitions for it .
The rules vary from state to state . From what I have read of the Michigan State rules , a margin of less than 0.5% is necessary for petition for a recount to be accepted and a deposit of a certain amount depending on number of precincts .
2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him
I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".
Yes but that will not be on offer
Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.
Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access
Actually that is not strictly true. Liechtenstein has very severe controls but is still part of the single market.
I am not saying this in support of restrictions nor do I believe the Liechtenstein solution would work for us. But the idea that this is a rule set in stone is not true. The EU is quite happy to bend rules when it wants to to further its own aims.
Liechtenstein has about the population of Canterbury and has never been in the EU It is also part of the Schengen area.. The EU elite and Merkel are clear they won't budge on free movement
All of which ignores the basic point I made. When it suits them the EU finds ways around even such basic principles as freedom of movement.
Even if they gave us the same controls as Liechtenstein we would still have to join the Schengen area as Liechtenstein has. Not that they will anyway of course
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Interesting approach to a smear.
I can imagine Corbyn annoucing plans to ritually sacrifice every Tory in the land. It doesn't mean he's going to do it.
Do you have any basis in fact to suggest that Republicans plan to strip African Americans of citizenship?
Wow you're touchy...
You've also misunderstood. I wasn't referring to African Americans... instead I was thinking of children of immigrants (particularly Hispanic immigrants).
As to whether I have any basis in fact... well a bunch of them have previously supported it including one Donald J. Trump who has called for ending birthright citizenship.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.
The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.
Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.
“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.
The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.
Liberal - "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas"
Democrat - "an advocate or supporter of democracy"
Huh.
It is you who is the idiot and undemocratic . You believe that the 52% who voted Brexit deserve the votes of every single MP and the 48% who voted Remain should not have their views represented .
We already have the votes of the MPs. They voted for a referendum to allow the public to decide. The public decided and advised the government to begin Brexit - which can only be started by activating A50. Now some un-liberal un-democratic MPs want to stop that.
You may not like what the public decided, but the decision is made.
I would prefer a soft Bexit. But if that is not available, then it will have to be a hard Brexit. Democracy means accepting the will of the people whether you like it or not.
The key words you used are " advised the government " . It was not instructed or mandated .
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Interesting approach to a smear.
I can imagine Corbyn annoucing plans to ritually sacrifice every Tory in the land. It doesn't mean he's going to do it.
Do you have any basis in fact to suggest that Republicans plan to strip African Americans of citizenship?
Wow you're touchy...
You've also misunderstood. I wasn't referring to African Americans... instead I was thinking of children of immigrants (particularly Hispanic immigrants).
As to whether I have any basis in fact... well a bunch of them have previously supported it including one Donald J. Trump who has called for ending birthright citizenship.
It was the defining event of the last fortnight. She is probably right.
No it was anti immigration and anti globalisation feeling which cis the her the election as well as her failure to campaign enough in the battleground states. It was Hillary herself who failed to secure her emails properly anyway and of course Tru,p lost support through gropegate too
If it hadn't been close it wouldn't have mattered, but it was, so it did.
The final polls showed little difference after Carney's statements and final clearing than before and Trump was already closing the gap anyway. Most final polls had Hillary ahead. They were wrong in the battleground states as, like Brexit, they underestimated white working class turnout and missed shy Leave and Trump voters
2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him
I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".
Yes but that will not be on offer
Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.
Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access
Actually that is not strictly true. Liechtenstein has very severe controls but is still part of the single market.
I am not saying this in support of restrictions nor do I believe the Liechtenstein solution would work for us. But the idea that this is a rule set in stone is not true. The EU is quite happy to bend rules when it wants to to further its own aims.
Liechtenstein has about the population of Canterbury and has never been in the EU It is also part of the Schengen area.. The EU elite and Merkel are clear they won't budge on free movement
All of which ignores the basic point I made. When it suits them the EU finds ways around even such basic principles as freedom of movement.
Even if they gave us the same controls as Liechtenstein we would still have to join the Schengen area as Liechtenstein has. Not that they will anyway of course
Nope there is no need to join Schengen as the Liechtenstein deal is unrelated Schengen membership.
2 key points from this poll. First 1% more voters back hard Brexit than soft Brexit and second most think it will be easier to do a trade deal with President Trump even if they don't like him
I suspect 70% of people (rather than 43%) would agree with the statement "would you support a form of Brexit that curtailed low skilled immigration, but which gave British firms full access to the single market".
Yes but that will not be on offer
Of course it's on offer. The only question is what the price is.
Any form of free movement controls will not give full single market access as the EU made clear, only possibility limited access
Actually that is not strictly true. Liechtenstein has very severe controls but is still part of the single market.
I am not saying this in support of restrictions nor do I believe the Liechtenstein solution would work for us. But the idea that this is a rule set in stone is not true. The EU is quite happy to bend rules when it wants to to further its own aims.
Liechtenstein has about the population of Canterbury and has never been in the EU It is also part of the Schengen area.. The EU elite and Merkel are clear they won't budge on free movement
All of which ignores the basic point I made. When it suits them the EU finds ways around even such basic principles as freedom of movement.
Even if they gave us the same controls as Liechtenstein we would still have to join the Schengen area as Liechtenstein has. Not that they will anyway of course
Nope there is no need to join Schengen as the Liechtenstein deal is unrelated Schengen membership.
The EU will not create an exception for the UK on free movement as Liechtenstein has if it does not have the other obligations Liechtenstein has on Schengen. Ain't going to happen
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
What was he supposed to do then Dr? His options were:
1) To ignore the emails - in which case he might be done for whatever the US equivalent of perverting the course of justice is if there had been anything in them;
2) Try to keep it quiet and when it inevitably leaked look as though he was covering up something really dodgy;
3) To tell the truth, go through them as quickly as possible and hope that the scandal could be minimised.
He chose 3. So would I. So would any person with any sense, I think.
Let it not be forgotten that the only reasons he was involved at all were that Hilary had potentially breached both the amended Federal Records Act and theEspionage Act, and the husband of one of her aides had been accused of a child sex offence.
If she had had better judgment, there would have been no problem - but then equally she would not be Hilary. The real mistake was made by the Dems in the first place when they let her stand despite all this kerfuffle.
The key words you used are " advised the government " . It was not instructed or mandated .
Of course not. The actual process is too complex to stick on a referendum paper.
The basic principle is clear though, and asking for second referendum is simply trying to find a sneaky way to block it. What if we decide against the new deal? Hard Brexit then becomes the only option, which is a stupid outcome. Therefore we must allow the government of the day to negotiate, then put it before parliament.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Did you chat to HL about the NHS and did you see my comment?
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
What was he supposed to do then Dr? His options were:
1) To ignore the emails - in which case he might be done for whatever the US equivalent of perverting the course of justice is if there had been anything in them;
2) Try to keep it quiet and when it inevitably leaked look as though he was covering up something really dodgy;
3) To tell the truth, go through them as quickly as possible and hope that the scandal could be minimised.
He chose 3. So would I. So would any person with any sense, I think.
Let it not be forgotten that the only reasons he was involved at all were that Hilary had potentially breached both the amended Federal Records Act and theEspionage Act, and the husband of one of her aides had been accused of a child sex offence.
If she had had better judgment, there would have been no problem - but then equally she would not be Hilary. The real mistake was made by the Dems in the first place when they let her stand despite all this kerfuffle.
I appreciate he was in a difficult position, but it was the critical incident of the last fortnight.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Absolutely yes, and not a little. The "no smoke without fire" defence of Comey's behaviour is suggests that it's OK to meddle with the customary rendering of US Democracy.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Did you chat to HL about the NHS and did you see my comment?
Let it not be forgotten that the only reasons he was involved at all were that Hilary had potentially breached both the amended Federal Records Act and theEspionage Act, and the husband of one of her aides had been accused of a child sex offence.
I thought that this was quite telling.
In a September 2015 interview with the FBI, a former agent who worked on the security details of both former secretaries of state Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton complained of a “stark difference” between Rice and Clinton in terms of their adherence to security and diplomatic protocols.
According to newly released documents by the FBI related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary, the former agent said that while Rice “observed strict adherence to State Department security and diplomatic protocols,” Clinton “frequently and ‘blatantly’ disregarded them.”
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Absolutely yes, and not a little. The "no smoke without fire" defence of Comey's behaviour is suggests that it's OK to meddle with the customary rendering of US Democracy.
It was Hillary who left emails on Weiner's server not Comey. No complaints from Hillary supporters either when gropegate dominated the headlines
From what I can tell re Michigan from the State website , Trump leads by 13,107 with around 87,000 votes still to be included . No reason why these should be heavily in Clinton's favour ,
Hmm actually I think those 87000 ballots or so probably have no top line of the selected 5, and are write ins that have been tossed.
I appreciate he was in a difficult position, but it was the critical incident of the last fortnight.
And there was nothing in the emails.
But how was he supposed to establish that without looking at them? That's the key difficulty he had, and as I have said doing nothing or trying to keep it quiet were not options - indeed the latter would have been far more damaging to Clinton and the entire party. He did the only thing he could realistically do.
Insofar as he was in a difficult position, it was one of her making and she should take the blame. She won't of course, because she has no moral courage or personal integrity and will find it easier to believe she was robbed by sinister forces rather than hoist on her own petard. But she should.
Let it not be forgotten that the only reasons he was involved at all were that Hilary had potentially breached both the amended Federal Records Act and theEspionage Act, and the husband of one of her aides had been accused of a child sex offence.
I thought that this was quite telling.
In a September 2015 interview with the FBI, a former agent who worked on the security details of both former secretaries of state Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton complained of a “stark difference” between Rice and Clinton in terms of their adherence to security and diplomatic protocols.
According to newly released documents by the FBI related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary, the former agent said that while Rice “observed strict adherence to State Department security and diplomatic protocols,” Clinton “frequently and ‘blatantly’ disregarded them.”
The key point is that after Powell's time the law was changed to ensure government business was properly sent on government servers so it could be secured, interrogated and archived properly.
Clinton apparently knew this, yet she deliberately ignored it. As Ghandi said in a somewhat different context, if you break a law you must be prepared to suffer the penalty.
In her case, she was fortunate that what she did did not meet the evidential threshold for prosecution. It has however ruined her career and wrecked her party. I think it's fair to say that's a considerable punishment on its own.
From what I can tell re Michigan from the State website , Trump leads by 13,107 with around 87,000 votes still to be included . No reason why these should be heavily in Clinton's favour ,
Hmm actually I think those 87000 ballots or so probably have no top line of the selected 5, and are write ins that have been tossed.
You have to love people who won't vote for Pres, but will fill out 60 pages of school board governers
I appreciate he was in a difficult position, but it was the critical incident of the last fortnight.
And there was nothing in the emails.
But how was he supposed to establish that without looking at them? That's the key difficulty he had, and as I have said doing nothing or trying to keep it quiet were not options - indeed the latter would have been far more damaging to Clinton and the entire party. He did the only thing he could realistically do.
Insofar as he was in a difficult position, it was one of her making and she should take the blame. She won't of course, because she has no moral courage or personal integrity and will find it easier to believe she was robbed by sinister forces rather than hoist on her own petard. But she should.
Had he kept quiet and it later transpired there was something in them his career would have been over. Had it even come out later that he had kept quiet when there might have been something in them, he would have been in deep water. He had no choice, and clearly they moved the earth to establish whether or not there was a concern very quickly thereafter.
After eight years of the same President, America almost always votes for change, and Hillary wasn't offering any.
That's why I still think Sanders would at least have stood a chance; although a Dem his campaign was change from start to finish. And Trump would have been the perfect foil to his crusade against the greedy 1%.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Did you chat to HL about the NHS and did you see my comment?
No. What was it?
You were discussing the NHS.. have a look back to this am , its the NHS way to (not) treat my sister unless she has two strokes..
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Absolutely yes, and not a little. The "no smoke without fire" defence of Comey's behaviour is suggests that it's OK to meddle with the customary rendering of US Democracy.
It was Hillary who left emails on Weiner's server not Comey. No complaints from Hillary supporters either when gropegate dominated the headlines
I'm curious. Is there a law that says her Maj cannot tell us how to vote? Or is it custom?
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Absolutely yes, and not a little. The "no smoke without fire" defence of Comey's behaviour is suggests that it's OK to meddle with the customary rendering of US Democracy.
It was Hillary who left emails on Weiner's server not Comey. No complaints from Hillary supporters either when gropegate dominated the headlines
I'm curious. Is there a law that says her Maj cannot tell us how to vote? Or is it custom?
No law, but the convention is it isn't done because the Commons is a counterweight to the Crown and should be allowed to express itself.
A King did once campaign against the re-election of a Parliament he had fallen out with and dissolved. It was in 1640 and didn't exactly end well for the King in question.
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Did you chat to HL about the NHS and did you see my comment?
No. What was it?
You were discussing the NHS.. have a look back to this am , its the NHS way to (not) treat my sister unless she has two strokes..
Only a third of UK voters support Brexit unconditionally, according to a poll that suggests a widespread wish for the government to share the terms of the UK’s departure from Europe before it embarks on the process.
The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.
Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.
“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.
The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.
Liberal - "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas"
Democrat - "an advocate or supporter of democracy"
Huh.
It is you who is the idiot and undemocratic . You believe that the 52% who voted Brexit deserve the votes of every single MP and the 48% who voted Remain should not have their views represented .
I believe that MPs should be bound by the results in their constituency - call them EU College Voters
He voted Stein knowing Trump held his final rally in Michigan and a final eve of poll poll had Trump ahead there, not to mention a number of Republicans voted Johnson too
Let it not be forgotten that the only reasons he was involved at all were that Hilary had potentially breached both the amended Federal Records Act and theEspionage Act, and the husband of one of her aides had been accused of a child sex offence.
I thought that this was quite telling.
In a September 2015 interview with the FBI, a former agent who worked on the security details of both former secretaries of state Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton complained of a “stark difference” between Rice and Clinton in terms of their adherence to security and diplomatic protocols.
According to newly released documents by the FBI related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary, the former agent said that while Rice “observed strict adherence to State Department security and diplomatic protocols,” Clinton “frequently and ‘blatantly’ disregarded them.”
The key point is that after Powell's time the law was changed to ensure government business was properly sent on government servers so it could be secured, interrogated and archived properly.
Clinton apparently knew this, yet she deliberately ignored it. As Ghandi said in a somewhat different context, if you break a law you must be prepared to suffer the penalty.
In her case, she was fortunate that what she did did not meet the evidential threshold for prosecution. It has however ruined her career and wrecked her party. I think it's fair to say that's a considerable punishment on its own.
The practice of using private email servers is widespread in government as government issued IT systems are so clumsy and unreliable, particularly in the 2000's. In my own limited experience working in gov't (albeit in a very different situation) everyone was doing it on some level. The charges were always ridiculous for this reason
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
It's no joke. It was wrong-headed of James Comey to break rules of custom if not the law itself. You might just as well have her Maj telling us how to vote. Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
He did that in July, under pressure from the DoJ. He had to correct a misleading impression
But instead he misled more. There was nothing in the emails.
No: he said we are looking at the emails. He didn't say if she's done anything wrong. At the time the DoJ was resisting him getting a warrant to even look.
It changed the whole tenor of the campaign at the height of early voting. For nothing.
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
Absolutely yes, and not a little. The "no smoke without fire" defence of Comey's behaviour is suggests that it's OK to meddle with the customary rendering of US Democracy.
It was Hillary who left emails on Weiner's server not Comey. No complaints from Hillary supporters either when gropegate dominated the headlines
I'm curious. Is there a law that says her Maj cannot tell us how to vote? Or is it custom?
No law, but the convention is it isn't done because the Commons is a counterweight to the Crown and should be allowed to express itself.
A King did once campaign against the re-election of a Parliament he had fallen out with and dissolved. It was in 1640 and didn't exactly end well for the King in question.
Thank you for that answer. It may also be that Comey broke no law. But...
The practice of using private email servers is widespread in government as government issued IT systems are so clumsy and unreliable, particularly in the 2000's. In my own limited experience working in gov't (albeit in a very different situation) everyone was doing it on some level. The charges were always ridiculous for this reason
She was the bloody Secretary of State, not the person in charge of the bin collection at your local council.
I thought good cartoonists are suppose to caricature and exaggerate their subjects' grotesquery, not polish them into Adonises? Or is the bloke under the umbrella Brad Pitt?
The practice of using private email servers is widespread in government as government issued IT systems are so clumsy and unreliable, particularly in the 2000's. In my own limited experience working in gov't (albeit in a very different situation) everyone was doing it on some level. The charges were always ridiculous for this reason
She was the bloody Secretary of State, not the person in charge of the bin collection at your local council.
So why were the Republicans and FBI silent when a Republican White House did something similar?
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
Thx - not up to date with state legislatures so very surprised republicans control so many when Trump only won 30 states. Democrats should probably get their thoughts towards changing the numbers.
TBH the media in this country seemed to be indicating that the GOP was on its last legs under incessant Democrat attack and demographic chnages. Reports of their demise seem greatly exaggerated.
Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...
Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures. Currently Republicans control 37.
wouldn't that require some individual supermajaorities and/or not gubernatorial veto?
I thought good cartoonists are suppose to caricature and exaggerate their subjects' grotesquery, not polish them into Adonises? Or is the bloke under the umbrella supposed to be Brad Pitt?
The bloke under the umbrella is not the subject of the cartoon...
Comments
I am not saying this in support of restrictions nor do I believe the Liechtenstein solution would work for us. But the idea that this is a rule set in stone is not true. The EU is quite happy to bend rules when it wants to to further its own aims.
EDIT: Alistair beat me to it I see.
I am not saying it is right but pragmatically the number of states currently enforcing it is probably about as far as you are likely to go.
it would have been superb to see all the Clinton supporters on here start shouting there was only a few per cent in it ( normally referenced as 50/50 on here) the voters didn't know what they were voting for and there should be a rerun of the election to ensure the head bangers, xenophobic etc etc don't get their way.
They could then take legal action to ensure the electoral college votes for HRC instead of Trump thus handing the presidency to the loser. ( actually the electoral college could I believe actually do that but have never done so previously except for one delegate*)
Either way they were both crap and as someone aptly pointed out on here the voters had a choice between what style of shit sandwich they actually wanted. They then got a shit sandwich.
* stand corrected if that part is inaccurate.
For those interested
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/12/voters-targeted-electoral-college-members-to-switch-their-trump-ballots-elect-clinton.html
How likely is this to succeed ? Sounds a bit like remoaners !
Ed Balls. Legend.
On Tuesday the great state of Maine voted to adopt the finest voting system known to man, AV, instead of First Past The Post.
Where Maine leads hopefully the rest of the USA follows
https://leftfootforward.org/2016/11/116455/
This is what he inherited in Morley:
Notional 2005 Results:
Labour: 19956 (50.2%)
Conservative: 10172 (25.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 4030 (10.1%)
Other: 5570 (14%)
Majority: 9784 (24.6%)
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/morleyandoutwood/comment-page-1/#comments
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/797530516824137728
Nigel meets Donald. BBC news
Hillary Clinton has blamed her defeat in the US presidential election on interventions by the FBI director. The Democratic candidate was speaking to top party donors in a phone call, which was leaked to the media.
Trump election: Clinton blames defeat on FBI director
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965
The findings of the ICM poll will please the growing number of MPs and peers calling for the government to clarify the terms of the exit – a demand that puts them on a collision course with Theresa May, who has made it clear that she is determined to begin the departure process in March.
Last week, Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, said his eight MPs and more than 100 peers would oppose Brexit unless the terms of the final deal were put to a second referendum. A small number of Labour MPs have said they share Farron’s concerns.
“Article 50 would proceed, but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal. And if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government,” Farron said.
The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/12/brexit-article-50-parliament-eu-farron-may?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Farron is an idiot.
Liberal - "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas"
Democrat - "an advocate or supporter of democracy"
Huh.
Had Clinton been elected and subsequently found to have broken the law she would have been subject to the law, not least by impeachment. Comey should have SHUT UP.
No A50 > no negotiations > no deal
A50 > negotiations > Brexit deal or no deal
We already have the votes of the MPs. They voted for a referendum to allow the public to decide. The public decided and advised the government to begin Brexit - which can only be started by activating A50. Now some un-liberal un-democratic MPs want to stop that.
You may not like what the public decided, but the decision is made.
I would prefer a soft Bexit. But if that is not available, then it will have to be a hard Brexit. Democracy means accepting the will of the people whether you like it or not.
You've also misunderstood. I wasn't referring to African Americans... instead I was thinking of children of immigrants (particularly Hispanic immigrants).
As to whether I have any basis in fact... well a bunch of them have previously supported it including one Donald J. Trump who has called for ending birthright citizenship.
Republicans actually introduced a bill to that effect previously: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-good-chunk-of-gop-field-wants-to-repeal-the-14th-amendment_us_55d24915e4b055a6dab12015
Doesn't it make you a little uneasy?
"from this day on- children of illegal immigrants/non-residents born in the USA no longer automatically count as US citizens".
What would be really controversial is trying to take away citizenship from people who currently are US citizens...
1) To ignore the emails - in which case he might be done for whatever the US equivalent of perverting the course of justice is if there had been anything in them;
2) Try to keep it quiet and when it inevitably leaked look as though he was covering up something really dodgy;
3) To tell the truth, go through them as quickly as possible and hope that the scandal could be minimised.
He chose 3. So would I. So would any person with any sense, I think.
Let it not be forgotten that the only reasons he was involved at all were that Hilary had potentially breached both the amended Federal Records Act and theEspionage Act, and the husband of one of her aides had been accused of a child sex offence.
If she had had better judgment, there would have been no problem - but then equally she would not be Hilary. The real mistake was made by the Dems in the first place when they let her stand despite all this kerfuffle.
Of course not. The actual process is too complex to stick on a referendum paper.
The basic principle is clear though, and asking for second referendum is simply trying to find a sneaky way to block it. What if we decide against the new deal? Hard Brexit then becomes the only option, which is a stupid outcome. Therefore we must allow the government of the day to negotiate, then put it before parliament.
Everything else work like this.
And there was nothing in the emails.
In a September 2015 interview with the FBI, a former agent who worked on the security details of both former secretaries of state Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton complained of a “stark difference” between Rice and Clinton in terms of their adherence to security and diplomatic protocols.
According to newly released documents by the FBI related to its investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary, the former agent said that while Rice “observed strict adherence to State Department security and diplomatic protocols,” Clinton “frequently and ‘blatantly’ disregarded them.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-documents-former-agent-complained-hillary-clinton-flouted-protocol-while-secretary/
Currently Republicans control 37.
Insofar as he was in a difficult position, it was one of her making and she should take the blame. She won't of course, because she has no moral courage or personal integrity and will find it easier to believe she was robbed by sinister forces rather than hoist on her own petard. But she should.
Clinton apparently knew this, yet she deliberately ignored it. As Ghandi said in a somewhat different context, if you break a law you must be prepared to suffer the penalty.
In her case, she was fortunate that what she did did not meet the evidential threshold for prosecution. It has however ruined her career and wrecked her party. I think it's fair to say that's a considerable punishment on its own.
BradyBigly Bunch....She would have had to have won PA - where she is currently 68,000 votes behind (1.2%). That's a fair margin.
The FBI may well have cost her MI but I doubt it cost her PA.
She would have also had to win WI but that's slightly closer than PA in % terms - though still 1.0%.
I think best guess is it would have been recounts in PA and WI with Clinton narrowly losing both.
After eight years of the same President, America almost always votes for change, and Hillary wasn't offering any.
That's why I still think Sanders would at least have stood a chance; although a Dem his campaign was change from start to finish. And Trump would have been the perfect foil to his crusade against the greedy 1%.
I bet this guy looked at them, and decided he was "safe" to vote Stein.
https://twitter.com/SeventhSentinel/status/795368162443358208
How many others ?
A King did once campaign against the re-election of a Parliament he had fallen out with and dissolved. It was in 1640 and didn't exactly end well for the King in question.
https://youtu.be/VDVU_TGLJU0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
TBH the media in this country seemed to be indicating that the GOP was on its last legs under incessant Democrat attack and demographic chnages. Reports of their demise seem greatly exaggerated.