Just heard clip of head of CNN saying they gave Trump too much coverage. Find this and Facebook promise to clamp down on "false" news very worrying. Also when will they get it...Censorship will just encourage even more conspiracy theories.
Well, given that the TRump campaign is threatening legal action against people who say mean things about Trump it's a two way street.
An Facebook isn't clamping down on false news, it's clamping down on fake news. Bogus websites made to look like legitimate but non-existent newspapers. There's a cookie cutter template for them that basically fills in The Daily "City Name Here" Times template around the bogus story.
Trump is bonkers...and he can't because of freedom of speech and all his "open up libel laws" is bollocks.
BUT....I am trying to look at this at how to we avoid another Trump. Well CNN think we should reduce coverage of what they actually say, that will do it. It is a) censorship, which never has a good outcome and b) again failure to understand or want to understand why he won.
Again, although Zuckerberg says fake news on Facebook didn't win it for Trump, some outlets are again using this as an excuse for him winning. They were also shall we kindly saying already adjusting the trending patterns of news on their site, and again this just reinforces the conspiracy theorists.
Like Brexit, we have these easy excuses for a result certain people don't like, it was the thick racists watching CNN and believing everything they read on The Facebook. For starters, the thick racists ain't watching the Clinton News Network.
Like Brexit many thick racists voted to leave, but they don't make anywhere near 50% of the population. In the US, educational standards aren't as high and there are more issues with race, but again there are many more complicated factors to why Trump beat Clinton, than racists, CNN showing Trump speeches or The Facebook.
Trump is bonkers...and he can't because of freedom of speech and all his "open up libel laws" is bollocks.
Not entirely, should he get to shape the Supreme Court, beyond the single appointment currently in his gift. The modern interpretation of the First Amendment, creation of 'judicial activism' that it is, remains vulnerable to judicial activism in the opposite direction.
Ted Cruz for SCOTUS potentially.
And there are fair odds that he will replace another Justice as well.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
I was referring to the absolute dearth of comment from Leavers on Farage's self promoted lynchpin status, several of whom also assured me & the wider public that Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of Brexit.
Commenting on Scottish politicos, who pretend to have levers when they don't, seems to have blinded to the reality that Farage merely visited Trump.
You'll have to translate that for me. Though I am getting the distinct impression that levers get you excited.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
I was referring to the absolute dearth of comment from Leavers on Farage's self promoted lynchpin status, several of whom also assured me & the wider public that Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of Brexit.
Commenting on Scottish politicos, who pretend to have levers when they don't, seems to have blinded to the reality that Farage merely visited Trump. He is not in government, nor even in any elected British office. His only position is as interim leader of a party and MEP, both of which are likely to disappear in the coming months and years.
Lots of hot air, whether from Sturgeon or Farage, don't equal levers of power within the British govt.
It isn't just hot air from Farage
Theresa May is facing a growing Cabinet backlash over her decision to dismiss Nigel Farage despite him being the only British politician to meet with Donald Trump since his victory.
The Telegraph understands a number of members of the Cabinet and other Government ministers believe the Prime Minister's allies have made a mistake by referring to Mr Farage as an “irrelevance”.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
I was referring to the absolute dearth of comment from Leavers on Farage's self promoted lynchpin status, several of whom also assured me & the wider public that Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of Brexit.
Commenting on Scottish politicos, who pretend to have levers when they don't, seems to have blinded to the reality that Farage merely visited Trump. He is not in government, nor even in any elected British office. His only position is as interim leader of a party and MEP, both of which are likely to disappear in the coming months and years.
Lots of hot air, whether from Sturgeon or Farage, don't equal levers of power within the British govt.
It isn't just hot air from Farage
Theresa May is facing a growing Cabinet backlash over her decision to dismiss Nigel Farage despite him being the only British politician to meet with Donald Trump since his victory.
The Telegraph understands a number of members of the Cabinet and other Government ministers believe the Prime Minister's allies have made a mistake by referring to Mr Farage as an “irrelevance”.
Source for that? Isn't the wall in most places just structural stonework with rubble infill, in which case any (ahem) settlement will be easy to compensate for. It's also 400 people for every 8 or 9 kilometres on average if it was *all* the workers entombed.
One of the popular legends about this is that of Meng Jiagnu.
Meng and her husband lived in a nearby village and on their wedding day, the soldiers forcibly took away her husband for the construction of the great wall. When a year passed without any news from her husband, Meng decided to go look for him. Upon reaching the Great Wall, Meng was told by the conscripted labourers that her husband had been worked to death, and that the dead workers were buried under the Great Wall. Upon hearing this news, Meng began to cry loudly and hit the wall. A huge chunk of the Great Wall collapsed, revealing countless mounds of human bones.
The angry Emperor of the Qin Dynasty came to survey the damage done to his project. But when he saw Meng Jiang, he was enchanted by her beauty and wanted to marry her. Meng put forward three conditions for the marriage — firstly, she wanted her former husband to be given a grand burial; second, the emperor and his court must go into mourning for him; and lastly she wanted to visit the ocean. Though, the emperor wasn’t very happy with the second condition, he agreed so that he could gain this rare beauty. After Meng got her third wish fulfilled, she scolded the Emperor bitterly and cast herself into the ocean.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
I was referring to the absolute dearth of comment from Leavers on Farage's self promoted lynchpin status, several of whom also assured me & the wider public that Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of Brexit.
Commenting on Scottish politicos, who pretend to have levers when they don't, seems to have blinded to the reality that Farage merely visited Trump. He is not in government, nor even in any elected British office. His only position is as interim leader of a party and MEP, both of which are likely to disappear in the coming months and years.
Lots of hot air, whether from Sturgeon or Farage, don't equal levers of power within the British govt.
It isn't just hot air from Farage
Theresa May is facing a growing Cabinet backlash over her decision to dismiss Nigel Farage despite him being the only British politician to meet with Donald Trump since his victory.
The Telegraph understands a number of members of the Cabinet and other Government ministers believe the Prime Minister's allies have made a mistake by referring to Mr Farage as an “irrelevance”.
Israel: 290.6 billion USD (2013) Length of wall: 650 kilometers Israel Pop: 8 million or so
USA GDP: 16.77 trillion USD (2013) Length of USA-Mexico border 3,201 kilometers USA pop: 320 millionish
I'm not saying its a great idea, but I don't see a fundamental block to it.
Also it's a huge federal construction project, which will create jobs, enrich Trump's friends and create political kickbacks.
Also China: Length of wall: 8,850 kilometers China pop: 75 million to 200 million (Ming dynasty)
I'm unsure that the Great Wall construction is something we'd want to replicate nowadays:
When Emperor Qin Shi Huang ordered construction of the Great Wall around 221 B.C., the labor force that built the wall was made up largely of soldiers and convicts. It is said that as many as 400,000 people died during the wall's construction; many of these workers were buried within the wall itself.
Although the idea might appeal to some on here ...
They were not burried within the wall itself. Urban myth, thet would have compromised the structural integrity of the wall.
Source for that? Isn't the wall in most places just structural stonework with rubble infill, in which case any (ahem) settlement will be easy to compensate for. It's also 400 people for every 8 or 9 kilometres on average if it was *all* the workers entombed.
The Qin Shi Huang wall was made almost entirely of packed earth that would have crumbled as corpses rotted in it, it is not the sturdy brick wall of "modern" times.
At a fundamental level, it's about trying to re-create the village life from which our forebears came - where you knew everyone and everyone knew you. In a global online world, the village has gone but deep down we want it back and feel comfortable in it.
Yes, strangers are welcome but only if they are like us. PB is much the same. Posters who have expressed views or challenged the prevailing ethos have been hounded and even driven off the site.
Trump's win, like Brexit, is part driven by nostalgia - a desire to return to the village, to the romanticised idyll of the past where we were in control of our destiny and where we had all the things that gave our lives meaning and status - job, house, family, control, the way of life we wanted to have without other people telling us how to live.
The trouble with the past is it's a comforting place but it's no help for the present or future. Shaping the future starts with not only the recognition that the present isn't working but the past didn't work either and being receptive to different ideas and ways is how the future gets shaped.
The dangerous thing is that people who use their Twitter and Facebook feeds as barometers of public opinion (without realising that by their very nature they are echo chambers) think that everything they say is not just what they believe, but what is true and mainstream opinion. They are also awash with conspiracy theories which gain bizarre traction. That's how you end up with disbelief and grief when your side loses and an assumption that the world is rigged against you.
There's been far too much evidence this year of people for whom democracy only counts when they win.
e.g. Trump
Of course. He and his supporters would have been just the same as the HRC fans, if not worse. That's pretty obvious.
Yup.
It frustrates me that people respond to criticism of protests, 'notmypresident' etc by saying such and such a group would have done it too.
Two wrongs and all that...
Not even two wrongs a lot of the time (though 'they would have done it' has more validity in Trump's case as he himself was more than ambivalent about committing to accepting the result beforehand).
But more frequently, the argument that 'they would have done it too' is pure projection without any evidence and simply plays to a pre-existing belief that the other side is evil and out to destroy their opponents.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
I was referring to the absolute dearth of comment from Leavers on Farage's self promoted lynchpin status, several of whom also assured me & the wider public that Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of Brexit.
Commenting on Scottish politicos, who pretend to have levers when they don't, seems to have blinded to the reality that Farage merely visited Trump.
You'll have to translate that for me. Though I am getting the distinct impression that levers get you excited.
Sturgeon likes to think she has power over constitutional affairs - turns out she should have read up on the matter.
Else she might end up meeting junior foreign ministers in restaurants...
Theresa May is facing a growing Cabinet backlash over her decision to dismiss Nigel Farage despite him being the only British politician to meet with Donald Trump since his victory.
The Telegraph understands a number of members of the Cabinet and other Government ministers believe the Prime Minister's allies have made a mistake by referring to Mr Farage as an “irrelevance”.
How would it work? Farage does not support the government's policies, unless he did how could he do any envoy type of job for the government? And that's ignoring his high likelihood of saying or doing something that would result in him getting the boot.
If Farage really is a pal of The Donald it probably isn't a bad idea to make use of him unofficially, but giving him a role in government is simply asking for trouble. Fox and Johnson are a handful as it is, May would be foolish to add Farage on top.
In response to Corporeal's missive (for which many thanks), I would argue the adage "people like people like themselves" has always held true, As I look back through my life and the friendships and relationships I have had, the common factor is they were all with people with similar traits.
There have always been "echo chambers" - there were fewer once. You might argue there were once only three "upper class, middle class and working class". Now, the number has increased exponentially and include political preference, football team, postcode where you live, the games you play, the tv you watch.
At a fundamental level, it's about trying to re-create the village life from which our forebears came - where you knew everyone and everyone knew you. In a global online world, the village has gone but deep down we want it back and feel comfortable in it.
Yes, strangers are welcome but only if they are like us. PB is much the same. Posters who have expressed views or challenged the prevailing ethos have been hounded and even driven off the site.
Trump's win, like Brexit, is part driven by nostalgia - a desire to return to the village, to the romanticised idyll of the past where we were in control of our destiny and where we had all the things that gave our lives meaning and status - job, house, family, control, the way of life we wanted to have without other people telling us how to live.
The trouble with the past is it's a comforting place but it's no help for the present or future. Shaping the future starts with not only the recognition that the present isn't working but the past didn't work either and being receptive to different ideas and ways is how the future gets shaped.
..snip...
There's been far too much evidence this year of people for whom democracy only counts when they win.
e.g. Trump
Of course. He and his supporters would have been just the same as the HRC fans, if not worse. That's pretty obvious.
Yes, both Trump and Farage said explicitly that they would not accept the result if they lost. Trump called for a protest march when it looked like the previous election would result in Obama winning the EC but losing the popular vote - he's not doing that this year.
"Of course I would accept a clear result, but I would also reserve the right to file a legal in the case of a questionable result. I will follow and abide by all the rules and traditions of all the many candidates that have come before me."
Just heard clip of head of CNN saying they gave Trump too much coverage. Find this and Facebook promise to clamp down on "false" news very worrying. Also when will they get it...Censorship will just encourage even more conspiracy theories.
Well, given that the TRump campaign is threatening legal action against people who say mean things about Trump it's a two way street.
An Facebook isn't clamping down on false news, it's clamping down on fake news. Bogus websites made to look like legitimate but non-existent newspapers. There's a cookie cutter template for them that basically fills in The Daily "City Name Here" Times template around the bogus story.
Trump is bonkers...and he can't because of freedom of speech and all his "open up libel laws" is bollocks.
BUT....I am trying to look at this at how to we avoid another Trump. Well CNN think we should reduce coverage of what they actually say, that will do it. It is a) censorship, which never has a good outcome and b) again failure to understand or want to understand why he won.
Again, although Zuckerberg says fake news on Facebook didn't win it for Trump, some outlets are again using this as an excuse for him winning. They were also shall we kindly saying already adjusting the trending patterns of news on their site, and again this just reinforces the conspiracy theorists.
Like Brexit, we have these easy excuses for a result certain people don't like, it was the thick racists watching CNN and believing everything they read on The Facebook. For starters, the thick racists ain't watching the Clinton News Network.
Like Brexit many thick racists voted to leave, but they don't make anywhere near 50% of the population. In the US, educational standards aren't as high and there are more issues with race, but again there are many more complicated factors to why Trump beat Clinton, than racists, CNN showing Trump speeches or The Facebook.
Trump is bonkers...and he can't because of freedom of speech and all his "open up libel laws" is bollocks.
Not entirely, should he get to shape the Supreme Court, beyond the single appointment currently in his gift. The modern interpretation of the First Amendment, creation of 'judicial activism' that it is, remains vulnerable to judicial activism in the opposite direction.
American freedom of speech has usually been constrained far more by social and political pressure than by the legal process.
Israel: 290.6 billion USD (2013) Length of wall: 650 kilometers Israel Pop: 8 million or so
USA GDP: 16.77 trillion USD (2013) Length of USA-Mexico border 3,201 kilometers USA pop: 320 millionish
I'm not saying its a great idea, but I don't see a fundamental block to it.
Also it's a huge federal construction project, which will create jobs, enrich Trump's friends and create political kickbacks.
Also China: Length of wall: 8,850 kilometers China pop: 75 million to 200 million (Ming dynasty)
I'm unsure that the Great Wall construction is something we'd want to replicate nowadays:
When Emperor Qin Shi Huang ordered construction of the Great Wall around 221 B.C., the labor force that built the wall was made up largely of soldiers and convicts. It is said that as many as 400,000 people died during the wall's construction; many of these workers were buried within the wall itself.
Although the idea might appeal to some on here ...
They were not burried within the wall itself. Urban myth, thet would have compromised the structural integrity of the wall.
Source for that? Isn't the wall in most places just structural stonework with rubble infill, in which case any (ahem) settlement will be easy to compensate for. It's also 400 people for every 8 or 9 kilometres on average if it was *all* the workers entombed.
The Qin Shi Huang wall was made almost entirely of packed earth that would have crumbled as corpses rotted in it, it is not the sturdy brick wall of "modern" times.
Thanks to you and GeoffM.
I'm still not fully unconvinced it isn't possible for many to have been buried within it.
Edit: from GeoffM's kink:
Archaeologists have even discovered numerous human remains buried under sections of the wall.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Is he a judge? I always assumed one had to be for SCOTUS?
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
True though, the Tory frothers cannot believe they will only be able to deal with "The Donald" via their nemesis Nigel. Poetic justice at its finest.
Yes, it's a sad state of affairs. Sir Malc was bravely trying to play it down earlier but the situation is clear: Farage now wields enormous power and Tory ministers will have to grovel. I don't have much sympathy with the Tory Leavers though. Many were gleeful about a Trump win because they thought he'd be sympathetic about a trade deal. Little did they know it will be conducted entirely on UKIP's terms.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Thinking about that - could any hardline SCOTUS members retire so that their opinions could be passed on to a younger generation? Not sure of their ages but I suspect that they are not all in the first flush of youth.
In response to Corporeal's missive (for which many thanks), I would argue the adage "people like people like themselves" has always held true, As I look back through my life and the friendships and relationships I have had, the common factor is they were all with people with similar traits.
There have always been "echo chambers" - there were fewer once. You might argue there were once only three "upper class, middle class and working class". Now, the number has increased exponentially and include political preference, football team, postcode where you live, the games you play, the tv you watch.
At a fundamental level, it's about trying to re-create the village life from which our forebears came - where you knew everyone and everyone knew you. In a global online world, the village has gone but deep down we want it back and feel comfortable in it.
Yes, strangers are welcome but only if they are like us. PB is much the same. Posters who have expressed views or challenged the prevailing ethos have been hounded and even driven off the site.
Trump's to live.
The the future gets shaped.
..snip...
There's been far too much evidence this year of people for whom democracy only counts when they win.
e.g. Trump
Of course. He and his supporters would have been just the same as the HRC fans, if not worse. That's pretty obvious.
Yes, both Trump and Farage said explicitly that they would not accept the result if they lost. Trump called for a protest march when it looked like the previous election would result in Obama winning the EC but losing the popular vote - he's not doing that this year.
"Of course I would accept a clear result, but I would also reserve the right to file a legal in the case of a questionable result. I will follow and abide by all the rules and traditions of all the many candidates that have come before me."
Yes, strangers are welcome but only if they are like us. PB is much the same. Posters who have expressed views or challenged the prevailing ethos have been hounded and even driven off the site.
Trump's win, like Brexit, is part driven by nostalgia - a desire to return to the village, to the romanticised idyll of the past where we were in control of our destiny and where we had all the things that gave our lives meaning and status - job, house, family, control, the way of life we wanted to have without other people telling us how to live.
The trouble with the past is it's a comforting place but it's no help for the present or future. Shaping the future starts with not only the recognition that the present isn't working but the past didn't work either and being receptive to different ideas and ways is how the future gets shaped.
The dangerous thing is that people who use their Twitter and Facebook feeds as barometers of public opinion (without realising that by their very nature they are echo chambers) think that everything they say is not just what they believe, but what is true and mainstream opinion. They are also awash with conspiracy theories which gain bizarre traction. That's how you end up with disbelief and grief when your side loses and an assumption that the world is rigged against you.
There's been far too much evidence this year of people for whom democracy only counts when they win.
e.g. Trump
Of course. He and his supporters would have been just the same as the HRC fans, if not worse. That's pretty obvious.
Yup.
It frustrates me that people respond to criticism of protests, 'notmypresident' etc by saying such and such a group would have done it too.
Two wrongs and all that...
Not even two wrongs a lot of the time (though 'they would have done it' has more validity in Trump's case as he himself was more than ambivalent about committing to accepting the result beforehand).
But more frequently, the argument that 'they would have done it too' is pure projection without any evidence and simply plays to a pre-existing belief that the other side is evil and out to destroy their opponents.
Yup. A mate on FB had one of his periodic explosions at me last week - apparently I am trying to be the moral policeman of Facebook for having the temerity to disagree with him on some article about something close to his SJW heart...
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Thinking about that - could any hardline SCOTUS members retire so that their opinions could be passed on to a younger generation? Not sure of their ages but I suspect that they are not all in the first flush of youth.
But it's an amazing job. Why would you want to give it up?
Just heard clip of head of CNN saying they gave Trump too much coverage. Find this and Facebook promise to clamp down on "false" news very worrying. Also when will they get it...Censorship will just encourage even more conspiracy theories.
Well, given that the TRump campaign is threatening legal action against people who say mean things about Trump it's a two way street.
An Facebook isn't clamping down on false news, it's clamping down on fake news. Bogus websites made to look like legitimate but non-existent newspapers. There's a cookie cutter template for them that basically fills in The Daily "City Name Here" Times template around the bogus story.
We had a lot of those fake (or to be kind, satirical) sites linked to pb by the Trump fans. It wasted a good deal of time, and suggested that at least some of those posting links were not actually reading beyond the headline.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
From what I've seen, Trump will murder you if he thinks you are a rival but is perfectly willing to work with you once he's established his superiority.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Thinking about that - could any hardline SCOTUS members retire so that their opinions could be passed on to a younger generation? Not sure of their ages but I suspect that they are not all in the first flush of youth.
I know they're partisan but they're still actual lawyers. I'd be a bit surprised if they were prepared to give up their seats if they expected them to be filled by pure political hacks.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Thinking about that - could any hardline SCOTUS members retire so that their opinions could be passed on to a younger generation? Not sure of their ages but I suspect that they are not all in the first flush of youth.
Between Bayer and Ginsburg, the probability of the reaper must be around 50% I'd have thought.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Thinking about that - could any hardline SCOTUS members retire so that their opinions could be passed on to a younger generation? Not sure of their ages but I suspect that they are not all in the first flush of youth.
I know they're partisan but they're still actual lawyers. I'd be a bit surprised if they were prepared to give up their seats if they expected them to be filled by pure political hacks.
They're only partisan in that the parties, like them, take social views.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
From what I've seen, Trump will murder you if he thinks you are a rival but is perfectly willing to work with you once he's established his superiority.
All the more reason Cruz isn't likely to be a SCOTUS pick. Once chosen, they are beyond the control of any president. IMO, Trump is more likely to use his pick(s) as a high value bargaining chip with republican Congress.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
True though, the Tory frothers cannot believe they will only be able to deal with "The Donald" via their nemesis Nigel. Poetic justice at its finest.
Yes, it's a sad state of affairs. Sir Malc was bravely trying to play it down earlier but the situation is clear: Farage now wields enormous power and Tory ministers will have to grovel. I don't have much sympathy with the Tory Leavers though. Many were gleeful about a Trump win because they thought he'd be sympathetic about a trade deal. Little did they know it will be conducted entirely on UKIP's terms.
No, it will conducted entirely on the US's terms. We will we have absolutely no leverage. The US will insist on the best possible deal for itself. Fantasies about Donald Trump giving unfettered access to UK goods and services in the US are just that. He opposes free trade and wants less of it.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Is he a judge? I always assumed one had to be for SCOTUS?
Bush tried to appoint the Whitehouse Counsel to SCOTUS
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Thinking about that - could any hardline SCOTUS members retire so that their opinions could be passed on to a younger generation? Not sure of their ages but I suspect that they are not all in the first flush of youth.
But it's an amazing job. Why would you want to give it up?
@theuniondivvie@TheScreamingEagles From the look of May's odd Mansion House speech she's seen the threat of Brexit becoming Trexit ( just as Farage has spotted the opportunity ) May also seems to have grasped that Trexit would trigger buyers remorse in a few Brexit voters. Worth noting Farage had Kassam with him at Trump Tower and Banks has backed Kassam for leader.
All Trump does is Turbo charge the base problem that Brexit was a rejection of something by a majority coalition of voters who don't agree on a replacement. That doesn't/didn't matter as the coalition would hold until after it was too late to reverse Brexit. However turning Brexit into Trexit may be a bridge too far for a 3.8% majority. The other issue is the Anglocentric nature of Brexit thinking. We could blow up our EU membership safe in the knowledge the rest of the liberal international order is there to fall back on. But what happens if the rest of the international order is being blown up at the same time ?
Presumably there is a Greek Myth somewhere on something can only happen in circumstances that cause it to subsequently fail. I suppose Midas, Cassandra and Tantalus hint at this.
This is what now faces our PB globalizing Leavers. Like Dr Frankenstein can they control what they've created ?
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Is he a judge? I always assumed one had to be for SCOTUS?
Bush tried to appoint the Whitehouse Counsel to SCOTUS
Indeed. Which was up there with Caligula making Incitatus a senator
After an initial deep breath and "maybe not so bad thought", I'd already been stocking up on Trump doom over the weekend, in articles like these linked pair.
Not perfect these - you'd heavily dispute the HuffPost examples showing societies hitting their liberal democratic apogee before self-destructing (even the original Plato would have been hard-pressed placing the rise of Gen Al-Sisi follows into that pattern).
But then someone as usually unhyperbolic as David Herdson calls Fascism on Trump and ruins my Monday catchup. The four risks of Trump may not come to pass, due to the strength of those democratic checks and balances, or simply by not being true, but they are pretty scary:
Fascism - could we rule out incidents of firing on protesters, could poorly controlled second amendment militias help out putting Mexicans in internment camps, and how far will pliant Republicans stretch justifying initially 'reasonable' positions if these turn ugly and will they ultimately face such eventualities down (after all, as we well know here, internment of immigrants and firing on protestors have long history in places that we would not describe as other than liberal democracies).
Alignment with Putin - the Baltic states could well be on the precipice of at very least a frozen conflict. How we can respond to what looks like a shaky NATO commitment even without Trump playing the Russian patsy. At worst, Brexit could proceed from a 24 nation EU, not aa 27 nation - and we may come to look upon an EU army not as some vanity project but as a necessity.
Trade - Even if the above are untrue, "the first president to be unashamedly protectionist since the 1920s" should ring alarm bells. And what of the UK running headlong towards Trump, ignoring the other risks. Is it the protectionist Trump, in which case "no deal" or is it the Fascist/Putinist Trump looking for Russophilic vassals and a desparate post-Brexit UK Conservative party who provide that vassal. In which case commie Corbyn is cast in the role of the Western democratic bullwark and self-styled Churchillian scholar Johnson failing to see any danger and being cast as Vichy (and what a n*b cheese he has been this weekend). The ultimate irony of ironies.
Simple unpredictability - Trump rules as a broadly conservative politician, doing uncomfortable things on immigration, unborn rights in a broadly orthodox way, but with significant foreign policy power just blows the gaffe by getting it badly worn somewhere like Korea.
What will go wrong. I don't know. What can go wrong. Everything.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
I was referring to the absolute dearth of comment from Leavers on Farage's self promoted lynchpin status, several of whom also assured me & the wider public that Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of Brexit.
Commenting on Scottish politicos, who pretend to have levers when they don't, seems to have blinded to the reality that Farage merely visited Trump. He is not in government, nor even in any elected British office. His only position is as interim leader of a party and MEP, both of which are likely to disappear in the coming months and years.
Lots of hot air, whether from Sturgeon or Farage, don't equal levers of power within the British govt.
And yet the first UK politician ( in fact the first non US one as well ) to be specially invited to come over and visit is Nigel. Have you heard a peep about the pymgies in charge, they are squabbling between them on whether they should ask Nigel to beg "The Donald" to talk to them. Lots of tears in cabinet meeting today I fear as the losers berate themselves for underestimating Nigel.
PS: "Levers of power " made me laugh, they could not burst a wet paper poke
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Thinking about that - could any hardline SCOTUS members retire so that their opinions could be passed on to a younger generation? Not sure of their ages but I suspect that they are not all in the first flush of youth.
But it's an amazing job. Why would you want to give it up?
Only around 30% of SC justices die in office.
Ginsburg will not give up her job under President Trump. She wouldn't under Obama, when the Dems could have done with her doing so !
@theuniondivvie@TheScreamingEagles From the look of May's odd Mansion House speech she's seen the threat of Brexit becoming Trexit ( just as Farage has spotted the opportunity ) May also seems to have grasped that Trexit would trigger buyers remorse in a few Brexit voters. Worth noting Farage had Kassam with him at Trump Tower and Banks has backed Kassam for leader.
All Trump does is Turbo charge the base problem that Brexit was a rejection of something by a majority coalition of voters who don't agree on a replacement. That doesn't/didn't matter as the coalition would hold until after it was too late to reverse Brexit. However turning Brexit into Trexit may be a bridge too far for a 3.8% majority. The other issue is the Anglocentric nature of Brexit thinking. We could blow up our EU membership safe in the knowledge the rest of the liberal international order is there to fall back on. But what happens if the rest of the international order is being blown up at the same time ?
Presumably there is a Greek Myth somewhere on something can only happen in circumstances that cause it to subsequently fail. I suppose Midas, Cassandra and Tantalus hint at this.
This is what now faces our PB globalizing Leavers. Like Dr Frankenstein can they control what they've created ?
May's basic problem is one that will affect us all: she has to keep the Fox/Davis/Johnson fantasist wing onside to stay in her job. And it is the job that matters to her more than anything.
Just read that Trump isn't going to try and reverse equal marriage in the US, saying the SCOTUS has settled the issue. I wonder whether the abortion rhetoric will eventually go the same way. The wall has turned into a part wall/part fence/part river/part mountain. Repeal Obamacare has turned into, hold on let me keep the bits that everyone likes and force the GOP into increasing Medicaid funding (and I'm going to guess this will also come with collective bargaining on drug prices to pay for it).
Overall I'm not convinced that Trump will be the harbinger of doom that so many think (and hope, unfortunately) he will. In the end he will continue Obama's policies on deportation of illegals, end the stupid sanctuary status that trumped up liberal city officials have come up with and expand the border fence in places and erect a wall in other places.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
I was referring to the absolute dearth of comment from Leavers on Farage's self promoted lynchpin status, several of whom also assured me & the wider public that Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of Brexit.
Commenting on Scottish politicos, who pretend to have levers when they don't, seems to have blinded to the reality that Farage merely visited Trump. He is not in government, nor even in any elected British office. His only position is as interim leader of a party and MEP, both of which are likely to disappear in the coming months and years.
Lots of hot air, whether from Sturgeon or Farage, don't equal levers of power within the British govt.
And yet the first UK politician ( in fact the first non US one as well ) to be specially invited to come over and visit is Nigel. Have you heard a peep about the pymgies in charge, they are squabbling between them on whether they should ask Nigel to beg "The Donald" to talk to them. Lots of tears in cabinet meeting today I fear as the losers berate themselves for underestimating Nigel.
PS: "Levers of power " made me laugh, they could not burst a wet paper poke
He advised Trump, he spoke at Trump rallies. No cabinet member would have done that and this is the result.
@theuniondivvie@TheScreamingEagles From the look of May's odd Mansion House speech she's seen the threat of Brexit becoming Trexit ( just as Farage has spotted the opportunity ) May also seems to have grasped that Trexit would trigger buyers remorse in a few Brexit voters. Worth noting Farage had Kassam with him at Trump Tower and Banks has backed Kassam for leader.
All Trump does is Turbo charge the base problem that Brexit was a rejection of something by a majority coalition of voters who don't agree on a replacement. That doesn't/didn't matter as the coalition would hold until after it was too late to reverse Brexit. However turning Brexit into Trexit may be a bridge too far for a 3.8% majority. The other issue is the Anglocentric nature of Brexit thinking. We could blow up our EU membership safe in the knowledge the rest of the liberal international order is there to fall back on. But what happens if the rest of the international order is being blown up at the same time ?
Presumably there is a Greek Myth somewhere on something can only happen in circumstances that cause it to subsequently fail. I suppose Midas, Cassandra and Tantalus hint at this.
This is what now faces our PB globalizing Leavers. Like Dr Frankenstein can they control what they've created ?
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
I was referring to the absolute dearth of comment from Leavers on Farage's self promoted lynchpin status, several of whom also assured me & the wider public that Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of Brexit.
Commenting on Scottish politicos, who pretend to have levers when they don't, seems to have blinded to the reality that Farage merely visited Trump. He is not in government, nor even in any elected British office. His only position is as interim leader of a party and MEP, both of which are likely to disappear in the coming months and years.
Lots of hot air, whether from Sturgeon or Farage, don't equal levers of power within the British govt.
And yet the first UK politician ( in fact the first non US one as well ) to be specially invited to come over and visit is Nigel. Have you heard a peep about the pymgies in charge, they are squabbling between them on whether they should ask Nigel to beg "The Donald" to talk to them. Lots of tears in cabinet meeting today I fear as the losers berate themselves for underestimating Nigel.
PS: "Levers of power " made me laugh, they could not burst a wet paper poke
He advised Trump, he spoke at Trump rallies. No cabinet member would have done that and this is the result.
I doubt any cabinet minister *could* have spoken at rallies, for either side. It's Farage's 'outsider' status (and what a laugh that is) that allows it.
@theuniondivvie@TheScreamingEagles From the look of May's odd Mansion House speech she's seen the threat of Brexit becoming Trexit ( just as Farage has spotted the opportunity ) May also seems to have grasped that Trexit would trigger buyers remorse in a few Brexit voters. Worth noting Farage had Kassam with him at Trump Tower and Banks has backed Kassam for leader.
All Trump does is Turbo charge the base problem that Brexit was a rejection of something by a majority coalition of voters who don't agree on a replacement. That doesn't/didn't matter as the coalition would hold until after it was too late to reverse Brexit. However turning Brexit into Trexit may be a bridge too far for a 3.8% majority. The other issue is the Anglocentric nature of Brexit thinking. We could blow up our EU membership safe in the knowledge the rest of the liberal international order is there to fall back on. But what happens if the rest of the international order is being blown up at the same time ?
Presumably there is a Greek Myth somewhere on something can only happen in circumstances that cause it to subsequently fail. I suppose Midas, Cassandra and Tantalus hint at this.
This is what now faces our PB globalizing Leavers. Like Dr Frankenstein can they control what they've created ?
Erm. Hasn't Kassam pulled out of the race?
Yes, Nuttall is basically being given a clear run and a chance to turn UKIP into Trump for the north. If he can't do that then I think Banks and Farage will start a new party aimed at achieving that.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
I was referring to the absolute dearth of comment from Leavers on Farage's self promoted lynchpin status, several of whom also assured me & the wider public that Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of Brexit.
Commenting on Scottish politicos, who pretend to have levers when they don't, seems to have blinded to the reality that Farage merely visited Trump.
You'll have to translate that for me. Though I am getting the distinct impression that levers get you excited.
Sturgeon likes to think she has power over constitutional affairs - turns out she should have read up on the matter.
Else she might end up meeting junior foreign ministers in restaurants...
Mortimer, you cannot be as stupid as you make out , I presume you are baiting TUD and that you know well that Sturgeon is not a turnip like your average Tory Cabinet minister, that she knows she has no power(s) and merely points it out to show the few deluded NO voters left that think otherwise.
@theuniondivvie@TheScreamingEagles From the look of May's odd Mansion House speech she's seen the threat of Brexit becoming Trexit ( just as Farage has spotted the opportunity ) May also seems to have grasped that Trexit would trigger buyers remorse in a few Brexit voters. Worth noting Farage had Kassam with him at Trump Tower and Banks has backed Kassam for leader.
All Trump does is Turbo charge the base problem that Brexit was a rejection of something by a majority coalition of voters who don't agree on a replacement. That doesn't/didn't matter as the coalition would hold until after it was too late to reverse Brexit. However turning Brexit into Trexit may be a bridge too far for a 3.8% majority. The other issue is the Anglocentric nature of Brexit thinking. We could blow up our EU membership safe in the knowledge the rest of the liberal international order is there to fall back on. But what happens if the rest of the international order is being blown up at the same time ?
Presumably there is a Greek Myth somewhere on something can only happen in circumstances that cause it to subsequently fail. I suppose Midas, Cassandra and Tantalus hint at this.
This is what now faces our PB globalizing Leavers. Like Dr Frankenstein can they control what they've created ?
Erm. Hasn't Kassam pulled out of the race?
Yes, Nuttall is basically being given a clear run and a chance to turn UKIP into Trump for the north. If he can't do that then I think Banks and Farage will start a new party aimed at achieving that.
Banks doesn't really like Nuttall, who he thinks will let the traitors stay in UKIP.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
True though, the Tory frothers cannot believe they will only be able to deal with "The Donald" via their nemesis Nigel. Poetic justice at its finest.
Yes, it's a sad state of affairs. Sir Malc was bravely trying to play it down earlier but the situation is clear: Farage now wields enormous power and Tory ministers will have to grovel. I don't have much sympathy with the Tory Leavers though. Many were gleeful about a Trump win because they thought he'd be sympathetic about a trade deal. Little did they know it will be conducted entirely on UKIP's terms.
Yes absolutely poetic justice , I cannot stop smiling at the thought of those absolute dullards in the cabinet trying to work out how they were outwitted.
"But the vast majority of the MSM were against Trump and genuinely offended by the things he said and had done. And the people were not, at least a significant number were not."
People often say offensive things, certainly in my hearing. And especially in pubs. They say it to make a point and it's usually exaggerated. They may even say things they don't really mean. Surely they do that in London too?
The MSM by comparison tread on eggshells. They fear a backlash even if it's merely badly expressed. The "you can't say that" horror. The snowflake generation seem to rule in the elite world.
I remember Alan Hansen being savagely attacked for supporting the anti-racism push in football because he used the word "coloured". Oh, the horror, he must be a racist! Burn him.
That's why Germaine Greer becomes a misogynist. Normal people just think these snowflakes are bonkers (or is the expression ... have mental health issues? No, it's bonkers). Whatever happened to "Sticks and stones ..."
Trump says bonkers things occasionally. The MSM hold up their frocks and dance around. Clearly many Americans just think ... Exaggerated but yeah, he's talking their language.
They insult their friends sometimes for fun, they may even stereotype them but they remain friends. They know the difference between banter and genuine hatred. If you don't you're eligible to be part of the MSM, and you can buy a ticket to the offence bus. And welcome to the bubble.
I think you may be on to something. Trump may be a racist and sexist - the number of things he has said and how he has said it point that way as far as I'm concerned - but there is a difference between sometimes, especially in moments of anger or thoughtlessness, merely saying something deemed racist and sexist, and actually being racist and sexist. Mere use of a word, once, does not mean you embody the worst of those who also use such words. If it is repeated, if the actions back it up, then it may mean that.
California is now the US equivalent of Merseyside, politically.
And of London economically.
Not so much, outside of Silicon Valley (obviously a big exception). There is a surprising level of poverty in California, and its schools now rank with Alabama and Mississippi.
That is America, though, isn't it? Across the country, the divides in wealth are huge and lifetime outcomes are deeply unequal. Just look at life expectancy - truly shocking for the richest country on earth.
This is why free trade in the US has become unpopular. It has been used by their 1% to enrich themselves at the expense of the common worker. US companies are paying Mexican labour rates and charging the US consumer, US prices. The boom in company profits has been followed by a boom boardroom pay and bonuses while the workers are being told that they are too expensive to keep on or those that remain are being told to accept real terms pay cuts to compete with Mexican labour rates.
The difference between the US and UK in terms of trade is that the US could cut off free trade tomorrow and still have an internal market big enough to sustain itself, I don't think the UK has that option.
No, we don't. That's what makes leaving the Single Market such a huge long-term risk; especially as the US becomes less inclined towards free trade and China fills the gaps that the Americans leave behind. We will have to get used to Theresa May and Liam Fox stepping off of aeroplanes in far away places desperately trying to get deals done. And, like the Indians, every country they visit will understand just what a weak hand they have.
I don't really want to start this discussion all over again, but I think we're both in agreement over that anyway. I just think if we stay in the single market it needs to be followed up by taking an almighty axe to in working benefits and housing benefits and the withdrawal of any benefit rights (including affordable housing or council housing) for anyone (British or European) who hasn't paid into the system for a minimum of 24 months.
@Freggles I didn't know he'd pulled out. But what interested me was Banks backing an obvious none winner after so obviously being hot and cold on the future of UKIP. Banks/Farage/Kassam seem to have a new project. Turning Brexit into Trexit. UKIP is now one potential means but not an end.
@theuniondivvie@TheScreamingEagles From the look of May's odd Mansion House speech she's seen the threat of Brexit becoming Trexit ( just as Farage has spotted the opportunity ) May also seems to have grasped that Trexit would trigger buyers remorse in a few Brexit voters. Worth noting Farage had Kassam with him at Trump Tower and Banks has backed Kassam for leader.
All Trump does is Turbo charge the base problem that Brexit was a rejection of something by a majority coalition of voters who don't agree on a replacement. That doesn't/didn't matter as the coalition would hold until after it was too late to reverse Brexit. However turning Brexit into Trexit may be a bridge too far for a 3.8% majority. The other issue is the Anglocentric nature of Brexit thinking. We could blow up our EU membership safe in the knowledge the rest of the liberal international order is there to fall back on. But what happens if the rest of the international order is being blown up at the same time ?
Presumably there is a Greek Myth somewhere on something can only happen in circumstances that cause it to subsequently fail. I suppose Midas, Cassandra and Tantalus hint at this.
This is what now faces our PB globalizing Leavers. Like Dr Frankenstein can they control what they've created ?
Erm. Hasn't Kassam pulled out of the race?
Yes, Nuttall is basically being given a clear run and a chance to turn UKIP into Trump for the north. If he can't do that then I think Banks and Farage will start a new party aimed at achieving that.
Banks doesn't really like Nuttall, who he thinks will let the traitors stay in UKIP.
Yes, but he's still being given a clear run. All of the Farage surrogates have pulled out of the race. I think he'll get six months to "Make UKIP great again" and after that Banks will assess the situation.
I'm still not fully unconvinced it isn't possible for many to have been buried within it.
Edit: from GeoffM's kink:
Archaeologists have even discovered numerous human remains buried under sections of the wall.
You need to be careful with people's use of the word "under". What that means is in graveyards next to the wall rather than in the structure or foundations of the wall itself. As myth 5 here says there is no archeological or written evidence for corpses in the wall
Ancient rumours speak of labourers being buried in the Wall. These probably emanated from a chief historian of the Han dynasty, Sima Qian, who criticised his own emperor by slighting his Qin predecessor. However, no bones have ever been found in the Wall and there is no evidence, written or archaeological, for the slander.
@Freggles I didn't know he'd pulled out. But what interested me was Banks backing an obvious none winner after so obviously being hot and cold on the future of UKIP. Banks/Farage/Kassam seem to have a new project. Turning Brexit into Trexit. UKIP is now one potential means but not an end.
I'm interested to know the extent of Lord Ashcroft's involvement in all this. When you scratch the surface, his name keeps coming up at one remove.
California is now the US equivalent of Merseyside, politically.
And of London economically.
Not so much, outside of Silicon Valley (obviously a big exception). There is a surprising level of poverty in California, and its schools now rank with Alabama and Mississippi.
That is America, though, isn't it? Across the country, the divides in wealth are huge and lifetime outcomes are deeply unequal. Just look at life expectancy - truly shocking for the richest country on earth.
This is why free trade in the US has become unpopular. It has been used by their 1% to enrich themselves at the expense of the common worker. US companies are paying Mexican labour rates and charging the US consumer, US prices. The boom in company profits has been followed by a boom boardroom pay and bonuses while the workers are being told that they are too expensive to keep on or those that remain are being told to accept real terms pay cuts to compete with Mexican labour rates.
The difference between the US and UK in terms of trade is that the US could cut off free trade tomorrow and still have an internal market big enough to sustain itself, I don't think the UK has that option.
No, we don't. That's what makes leaving the Single Market such a huge long-term risk; especially as the US becomes less inclined towards free trade and China fills the gaps that the Americans leave behind. We will have to get used to Theresa May and Liam Fox stepping off of aeroplanes in far away places desperately trying to get deals done. And, like the Indians, every country they visit will understand just what a weak hand they have.
I don't really want to start this discussion all over again, but I think we're both in agreement over that anyway. I just think if we stay in the single market it needs to be followed up by taking an almighty axe to in working benefits and housing benefits and the withdrawal of any benefit rights (including affordable housing or council housing) for anyone (British or European) who hasn't paid into the system for a minimum of 24 months.
California is now the US equivalent of Merseyside, politically.
And of London economically.
Not so much, outside of Silicon Valley (obviously a big exception). There is a surprising level of poverty in California, and its schools now rank with Alabama and Mississippi.
That is America, though, isn't it? Across the country, the divides in wealth are huge and lifetime outcomes are deeply unequal. Just look at life expectancy - truly shocking for the richest country on earth.
This is why free trade in the US has become unpopular. It has been used by their 1% to enrich themselves at the expense of the common worker. US companies are paying Mexican labour rates and charging the US consumer, US prices. The boom in company profits has been followed by a boom boardroom pay and bonuses while the workers are being told that they are too expensive to keep on or those that remain are being told to accept real terms pay cuts to compete with Mexican labour rates.
The difference between the US and UK in terms of trade is that the US could cut off free trade tomorrow and still have an internal market big enough to sustain itself, I don't think the UK has that option.
No, we don't. That's what makes leaving the Single Market such a huge long-term risk; especially as the US becomes less inclined towards free trade and China fills the gaps that the Americans leave behind. We will have to get used to Theresa May and Liam Fox stepping off of aeroplanes in far away places desperately trying to get deals done. And, like the Indians, every country they visit will understand just what a weak hand they have.
I don't really want to start this discussion all over again, but I think we're both in agreement over that anyway. I just think if we stay in the single market it needs to be followed up by taking an almighty axe to in working benefits and housing benefits and the withdrawal of any benefit rights (including affordable housing or council housing) for anyone (British or European) who hasn't paid into the system for a minimum of 24 months.
Should be a lot longer than 24 months, try 10 years. They should also have to deposit minimum £10K in government account on arrival to ensure there is a bit of cash if they need any treatment in the interim.
Iffy source at the moment, but Reddit has 3m non-citizen (illegals/undocumented or whatever) registrations out of 180m registered voters for this election.
If that is confirmed then it could turn into a big deal, especially given Trump struggled in Arizona and Texas.
@Freggles I didn't know he'd pulled out. But what interested me was Banks backing an obvious none winner after so obviously being hot and cold on the future of UKIP. Banks/Farage/Kassam seem to have a new project. Turning Brexit into Trexit. UKIP is now one potential means but not an end.
His stated reasons were, the level of public scrutiny, and not having a realistic chance
Should be a lot longer than 24 months, try 10 years. They should also have to deposit minimum £10K in government account on arrival to ensure there is a bit of cash if they need any treatment in the interim.
10 years might be a big harsh, Malc. But agreed on the healthcare deposit. It's the National Health Service, not the International Health Service.
Sam Coates @Arron_banks is suggesting running 200 non partisan candidates against "corrupt and/or career politicians" at the next election....
Oh my.
If he is really going to label them corrupt then he's going to be spending a lot of time with his legal team.
Banks hasn't got *that* much money to fund this sort of thing, he'd need further backers to stand 200 serious candidates. Or they could be the Dog Lovers' Party and not try to win.
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
True though, the Tory frothers cannot believe they will only be able to deal with "The Donald" via their nemesis Nigel. Poetic justice at its finest.
Yes, it's a sad state of affairs. Sir Malc was bravely trying to play it down earlier but the situation is clear: Farage now wields enormous power and Tory ministers will have to grovel. I don't have much sympathy with the Tory Leavers though. Many were gleeful about a Trump win because they thought he'd be sympathetic about a trade deal. Little did they know it will be conducted entirely on UKIP's terms.
5% of those in the UK think Trump will be a great or good president. 12% think he will be a poor president 67% think he will be a terrible president
Farage is on a mission to seek personal gratification by boasting of being Trump's man in the UK, but UKIP are going to play a very high price for that.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Thinking about that - could any hardline SCOTUS members retire so that their opinions could be passed on to a younger generation? Not sure of their ages but I suspect that they are not all in the first flush of youth.
But it's an amazing job. Why would you want to give it up?
Only around 30% of SC justices die in office.
Ginsburg will not give up her job under President Trump. She wouldn't under Obama, when the Dems could have done with her doing so !
I toast her continued good health on a regular basis.
Sam Coates @Arron_banks is suggesting running 200 non partisan candidates against "corrupt and/or career politicians" at the next election....
Who defines a 'career politician' and why are they deemed as bad as a corrupt one, even if they are not corrupt themselves? It doesn't sound non-partisan, it sounds like if they don't like a candidate they will call them careerist, whether they are a younger MP without much outside politics experience, or an MP with decades of experience in the Commons, since if you enter without much non-politics background you are a careerist, and if you've been in parliament for a long time that is your career. Is a careerist someone who holds a senior position, someone you suspect of wanting to hold a senior position, someone who for entirely honourable reasons agrees with their leadership consistently?
With reference to Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, is it normal for governments to use leaders of opposition parties to implement government policies? And if not, why should that change now?
Another thing the PB Tory leavers got wrong.
I was assured Nigel Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of a Leave victory.
Lalala, hand wave, tumbleweed, look squirrel etc.
Juvenile.
I was referring to the absolute dearth of comment from Leavers on Farage's self promoted lynchpin status, several of whom also assured me & the wider public that Farage would be nowhere near the levers of power in the event of Brexit.
Commenting on Scottish politicos, who pretend to have levers when they don't, seems to have blinded to the reality that Farage merely visited Trump.
You'll have to translate that for me. Though I am getting the distinct impression that levers get you excited.
Sturgeon likes to think she has power over constitutional affairs - turns out she should have read up on the matter.
Else she might end up meeting junior foreign ministers in restaurants...
Mortimer, you cannot be as stupid as you make out , I presume you are baiting TUD and that you know well that Sturgeon is not a turnip like your average Tory Cabinet minister, that she knows she has no power(s) and merely points it out to show the few deluded NO voters left that think otherwise.
No voters are very happy she doesn't have constitutional powers over Scotland's position with other nations.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Is he a judge? I always assumed one had to be for SCOTUS?
Bush tried to appoint the Whitehouse Counsel to SCOTUS
Indeed. Which was up there with Caligula making Incitatus a senator
Sam Coates @Arron_banks is suggesting running 200 non partisan candidates against "corrupt and/or career politicians" at the next election....
Who defines a 'career politician' and why are they deemed as bad as a corrupt one, even if they are not corrupt themselves? It doesn't sound non-partisan, it sounds like if they don't like a candidate they will call them careerist, whether they are a younger MP without much outside politics experience, or an MP with decades of experience in the Commons, since if you enter without much non-politics background you are a careerist, and if you've been in parliament for a long time that is your career. Is a careerist someone who holds a senior position, someone you suspect of wanting to hold a senior position, someone who for entirely honourable reasons agrees with their leadership consistently?
No way this is non-partisan.
And who defines "non partisan" ? Basically, a joke.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Is he a judge? I always assumed one had to be for SCOTUS?
Bush tried to appoint the Whitehouse Counsel to SCOTUS
Indeed. Which was up there with Caligula making Incitatus a senator
Well now, can we really be sure Incitatus was not a decent senator? Granted, I can see a few drawbacks standing in his way, but compared to some?
Iffy source at the moment, but Reddit has 3m non-citizen (illegals/undocumented or whatever) registrations out of 180m registered voters for this election.
If that is confirmed then it could turn into a big deal, especially given Trump struggled in Arizona and Texas.
Or, in my doom mood, a post-truth pretext that could be used at some juncture down the road to label a further 3m Mexicans &c as 'criminal' and send them off into camps.
I'd be more than happy for it to all be a pub joke that passed over my head. But, meanwhile, forgive me for supporting some serious contingency planning here.
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Is he a judge? I always assumed one had to be for SCOTUS?
Bush tried to appoint the Whitehouse Counsel to SCOTUS
Indeed. Which was up there with Caligula making Incitatus a senator
@iainmartin1: Under v clever @LeaveEUOfficial plan to restrict MPs to 2 terms, Thatcher would have left Commons 1966. Churchill 1910. Attlee 1924. Genius
@hugorifkind: Somebody says this every five years, as though it's a new idea. And they always end up with Kilroy and Esther Rantzen, again. twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficia…
I find that one hard to believe... for one thing- is Trump really ready to forget the non-endorsement slight at the convention? For another... would Cruz accept- wouldn't he still harbour presidential ambitions?
Bridges can get mended remarkably quickly in victory.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Is he a judge? I always assumed one had to be for SCOTUS?
Bush tried to appoint the Whitehouse Counsel to SCOTUS
Indeed. Which was up there with Caligula making Incitatus a senator
Well now, can we really be sure Incitatus was not a decent senator? Granted, I can see a few drawbacks standing in his way, but compared to some?
Quite. Often we just get the ass; the whole thing might be seen as an improvement.
Sam Coates @Arron_banks is suggesting running 200 non partisan candidates against "corrupt and/or career politicians" at the next election....
Oh my.
If he is really going to label them corrupt then he's going to be spending a lot of time with his legal team.
The Berlusconi phenomenon is heading our way.
Remember what a breath of fresh air Berlusconi seemed at first; an apparently successful businessman untainted by the notorious web of corruption that is Italian politics, sweeping away the establishment parties that had kept power within a narrow little circle for so long.
Edit/ yet another disruptive political ideology/movement that started in Italy
Sam Coates @Arron_banks is suggesting running 200 non partisan candidates against "corrupt and/or career politicians" at the next election....
Hmmmm. I'd suggest that the MPs really in his gun sights will be those who refuse to support Brexit. But I'm not sure running "outraged" candidates against them would be the smartest move.
"Corruption" has certain connotations that the libel laws might wade in on. And what is a "career politician"? Is it aimed at SPADS who get a Westminster seat? Is Dr. Sarah Wollaston now a career politician, despite having had a previous career in the NHS? It's all a bit opaque....
Sam Coates @Arron_banks is suggesting running 200 non partisan candidates against "corrupt and/or career politicians" at the next election....
Oh my.
If he is really going to label them corrupt then he's going to be spending a lot of time with his legal team.
The Berlusconi phenomenon is heading our way.
Remember what a breath of fresh air Berlusconi seemed at first; an apparently successful businessman untainted by the notorious web of corruption that is Italian politics, sweeping away the establishment parties that had kept power within a narrow little circle for so long.
If anyone really thought that about Berlusconi, then they didn't ask questions as to where his initial seed-corn money came from....
''All Trump does is Turbo charge the base problem that Brexit was a rejection of something by a majority coalition of voters who don't agree on a replacement.''
This is the latest comfort blanket being used by the progressive left. The uneducated mass are rebelling, but don;t know what they want, and so we don;t have to implement anything.
Sam Coates @Arron_banks is suggesting running 200 non partisan candidates against "corrupt and/or career politicians" at the next election....
Who defines a 'career politician' and why are they deemed as bad as a corrupt one, even if they are not corrupt themselves? It doesn't sound non-partisan, it sounds like if they don't like a candidate they will call them careerist, whether they are a younger MP without much outside politics experience, or an MP with decades of experience in the Commons, since if you enter without much non-politics background you are a careerist, and if you've been in parliament for a long time that is your career. Is a careerist someone who holds a senior position, someone you suspect of wanting to hold a senior position, someone who for entirely honourable reasons agrees with their leadership consistently?
No way this is non-partisan.
Non-partisan candidate = someone who agrees with me Biased news = stories in the media I do not like Democratic control of the judiciary = courts that do what I want them to do
Sam Coates @Arron_banks is suggesting running 200 non partisan candidates against "corrupt and/or career politicians" at the next election....
Oh my.
If he is really going to label them corrupt then he's going to be spending a lot of time with his legal team.
The Berlusconi phenomenon is heading our way.
Remember what a breath of fresh air Berlusconi seemed at first; an apparently successful businessman untainted by the notorious web of corruption that is Italian politics, sweeping away the establishment parties that had kept power within a narrow little circle for so long.
If anyone really thought that about Berlusconi, then they didn't ask questions as to where his initial seed-corn money came from....
No, they didn't, and, yes they did. He was immensely popular because of what he replaced rather than what he was. As someone once said, 'Remind you of anyone'?
''All Trump does is Turbo charge the base problem that Brexit was a rejection of something by a majority coalition of voters who don't agree on a replacement.''
This is the latest comfort blanket being used by the progressive left. The uneducated mass are rebelling, but don;t know what they want, and so we don;t have to implement anything.
No, you won so we don't have to do anything. You don't agree amongst yourselves but have to implement something. Tick Tock.
Iffy source at the moment, but Reddit has 3m non-citizen (illegals/undocumented or whatever) registrations out of 180m registered voters for this election.
If that is confirmed then it could turn into a big deal, especially given Trump struggled in Arizona and Texas.
Or, in my doom mood, a post-truth pretext that could be used at some juncture down the road to label a further 3m Mexicans &c as 'criminal' and send them off into camps.
I'd be more than happy for it to all be a pub joke that passed over my head. But, meanwhile, forgive me for supporting some serious contingency planning here.
I find it highly unlikely that the US will ever go down the internment route. Processing centres and shifting people in busses back to Mexico is definitely possible, but that already exists. Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast. I also think harsh penalties for hiring illegals including jail time and massive fines are going to come down the line. Fines for universities who offer palaces to illegals is also something I think they will look at. Basically the Trump administration will have to make it very unattractive to hire illegal immigrants and eventually once they stop getting work they will stop coming. Even middle class families who hire illegal labourers to cut the grass will face hefty fines.
The view that this whole alt right, new politics, coalition of the c***s thing is essentially one big lads' weekend that's got out of hand, with the middle aged participants trying to be nostalgically edgy certainly holds a lot of water. I just did a bit of sick in my mouth.
David Miliband has the Hilary problem of representing the establishment to a tee.
Spot on. A brand-name that's already been trashed. In Clinton's case, a by-word for corruption. In Miliband's case, a by-word for muddled thinking and incompetence.
At David Miliband's first open event, he'd be dogged by people wearing "Ed-stone" outfits.
Iffy source at the moment, but Reddit has 3m non-citizen (illegals/undocumented or whatever) registrations out of 180m registered voters for this election.
If that is confirmed then it could turn into a big deal, especially given Trump struggled in Arizona and Texas.
Or, in my doom mood, a post-truth pretext that could be used at some juncture down the road to label a further 3m Mexicans &c as 'criminal' and send them off into camps.
I'd be more than happy for it to all be a pub joke that passed over my head. But, meanwhile, forgive me for supporting some serious contingency planning here.
I find it highly unlikely that the US will ever go down the internment route. Processing centres and shifting people in busses back to Mexico is definitely possible, but that already exists. Trump's major change will be the destruction of "sanctuary" status in liberal cities along the west coast. I also think harsh penalties for hiring illegals including jail time and massive fines are going to come down the line. Fines for universities who offer palaces to illegals is also something I think they will look at. Basically the Trump administration will have to make it very unattractive to hire illegal immigrants and eventually once they stop getting work they will stop coming. Even middle class families who hire illegal labourers to cut the grass will face hefty fines.
I wonder how many illegals Trump businesses employ.
Comments
'Number of ministers'
Yep, sounds like hot air to me...
You're becoming a bit Tim earred to news about May.
Meng and her husband lived in a nearby village and on their wedding day, the soldiers forcibly took away her husband for the construction of the great wall. When a year passed without any news from her husband, Meng decided to go look for him. Upon reaching the Great Wall, Meng was told by the conscripted labourers that her husband had been worked to death, and that the dead workers were buried under the Great Wall. Upon hearing this news, Meng began to cry loudly and hit the wall. A huge chunk of the Great Wall collapsed, revealing countless mounds of human bones.
The angry Emperor of the Qin Dynasty came to survey the damage done to his project. But when he saw Meng Jiang, he was enchanted by her beauty and wanted to marry her. Meng put forward three conditions for the marriage — firstly, she wanted her former husband to be given a grand burial; second, the emperor and his court must go into mourning for him; and lastly she wanted to visit the ocean. Though, the emperor wasn’t very happy with the second condition, he agreed so that he could gain this rare beauty. After Meng got her third wish fulfilled, she scolded the Emperor bitterly and cast herself into the ocean.
But more frequently, the argument that 'they would have done it too' is pure projection without any evidence and simply plays to a pre-existing belief that the other side is evil and out to destroy their opponents.
Cruz's main concern with Trump is that he'd lose and there'd be a liberal majority on the bench for at least the next 20 years, possibly 'forever'(*).
I think Cruz would definitely accept, SCOTUS is a more secure job than Senator and he'd get to defend the constitution.
Else she might end up meeting junior foreign ministers in restaurants...
If Farage really is a pal of The Donald it probably isn't a bad idea to make use of him unofficially, but giving him a role in government is simply asking for trouble. Fox and Johnson are a handful as it is, May would be foolish to add Farage on top.
"Of course I would accept a clear result, but I would also reserve the right to file a legal in the case of a questionable result. I will follow and abide by all the rules and traditions of all the many candidates that have come before me."
2) UKIP are very good at winning large numbers of votes, but very bad at winning elections in FPTP.
I'm still not fully unconvinced it isn't possible for many to have been buried within it.
Edit: from GeoffM's kink:
Archaeologists have even discovered numerous human remains buried under sections of the wall.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-calls-electoral-college-a-disaster-during-2012-tweetstorm/
The morbidity tables look to favour the conservatives to me.
IMO, Trump is more likely to use his pick(s) as a high value bargaining chip with republican Congress.
In bizarre ‘birther’ twist, claims Trump is Pakistani
Report says president-elect was born as Dawood Ibrahim Khan in Waziristan before being adopted by American family
http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-bizarre-birther-twist-claims-trump-is-pakistani/
All Trump does is Turbo charge the base problem that Brexit was a rejection of something by a majority coalition of voters who don't agree on a replacement. That doesn't/didn't matter as the coalition would hold until after it was too late to reverse Brexit. However turning Brexit into Trexit may be a bridge too far for a 3.8% majority. The other issue is the Anglocentric nature of Brexit thinking. We could blow up our EU membership safe in the knowledge the rest of the liberal international order is there to fall back on. But what happens if the rest of the international order is being blown up at the same time ?
Presumably there is a Greek Myth somewhere on something can only happen in circumstances that cause it to subsequently fail. I suppose Midas, Cassandra and Tantalus hint at this.
This is what now faces our PB globalizing Leavers. Like Dr Frankenstein can they control what they've created ?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-stone/history-tells-us-what-will-brexit-trump_b_11179774.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html
Not perfect these - you'd heavily dispute the HuffPost examples showing societies hitting their liberal democratic apogee before self-destructing (even the original Plato would have been hard-pressed placing the rise of Gen Al-Sisi follows into that pattern).
But then someone as usually unhyperbolic as David Herdson calls Fascism on Trump and ruins my Monday catchup. The four risks of Trump may not come to pass, due to the strength of those democratic checks and balances, or simply by not being true, but they are pretty scary:
Fascism - could we rule out incidents of firing on protesters, could poorly controlled second amendment militias help out putting Mexicans in internment camps, and how far will pliant Republicans stretch justifying initially 'reasonable' positions if these turn ugly and will they ultimately face such eventualities down (after all, as we well know here, internment of immigrants and firing on protestors have long history in places that we would not describe as other than liberal democracies).
Alignment with Putin - the Baltic states could well be on the precipice of at very least a frozen conflict. How we can respond to what looks like a shaky NATO commitment even without Trump playing the Russian patsy. At worst, Brexit could proceed from a 24 nation EU, not aa 27 nation - and we may come to look upon an EU army not as some vanity project but as a necessity.
Trade - Even if the above are untrue, "the first president to be unashamedly protectionist since the 1920s" should ring alarm bells. And what of the UK running headlong towards Trump, ignoring the other risks. Is it the protectionist Trump, in which case "no deal" or is it the Fascist/Putinist Trump looking for Russophilic vassals and a desparate post-Brexit UK Conservative party who provide that vassal. In which case commie Corbyn is cast in the role of the Western democratic bullwark and self-styled Churchillian scholar Johnson failing to see any danger and being cast as Vichy (and what a n*b cheese he has been this weekend). The ultimate irony of ironies.
Simple unpredictability - Trump rules as a broadly conservative politician, doing uncomfortable things on immigration, unborn rights in a broadly orthodox way, but with significant foreign policy power just blows the gaffe by getting it badly worn somewhere like Korea.
What will go wrong. I don't know. What can go wrong. Everything.
Lots of tears in cabinet meeting today I fear as the losers berate themselves for underestimating Nigel.
PS: "Levers of power " made me laugh, they could not burst a wet paper poke
Overall I'm not convinced that Trump will be the harbinger of doom that so many think (and hope, unfortunately) he will. In the end he will continue Obama's policies on deportation of illegals, end the stupid sanctuary status that trumped up liberal city officials have come up with and expand the border fence in places and erect a wall in other places.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/09/trump-puts-out-new-list-of-potential-supreme-court-nominees.php
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-candidate-suffers-surprise-defeat-in-london-a3394836.html
Unison - which has supported Corbyn up to now - abstained.
Clinton has, now well ahead 47.8% to 47.3%, about 670,000, with the gap growing. The national polls weren't that far off.
How about 20th Jan 2017 for that march on Washington?
http://www.historyextra.com/article/premium/10-myth-busting-great-wall-china-facts
Ancient rumours speak of labourers being buried in the Wall. These probably emanated from a chief historian of the Han dynasty, Sima Qian, who criticised his own emperor by slighting his Qin predecessor. However, no bones have ever been found in the Wall and there is no evidence, written or archaeological, for the slander.
@Arron_banks is suggesting running 200 non partisan candidates against "corrupt and/or career politicians" at the next election....
If that is confirmed then it could turn into a big deal, especially given Trump struggled in Arizona and Texas.
12% think he will be a poor president
67% think he will be a terrible president
Farage is on a mission to seek personal gratification by boasting of being Trump's man in the UK, but UKIP are going to play a very high price for that.
No way this is non-partisan.
Otherwise they would have voted Yes.
on the other hand, some of the greatest Justices were not judges:
http://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme_court/justices/nopriorexp.html
Basically, a joke.
"sister of...."
Labour really is a family business these days.
I'd be more than happy for it to all be a pub joke that passed over my head. But, meanwhile, forgive me for supporting some serious contingency planning here.
A Trumpet Voluntary please for the volunteer president.
http://qz.com/836327/donald-trump-tells-60-minutes-he-wont-take-a-salary-as-us-president/
Harriet Miers' performance in front of the Senate judiciary committee was embarrassing as she couldn't grasp basic jurisprudence concepts.
It was like if George W Bush had decided to make his bank manager Treasury Secretary
@hugorifkind: Somebody says this every five years, as though it's a new idea. And they always end up with Kilroy and Esther Rantzen, again. twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficia…
Often we just get the ass; the whole thing might be seen as an improvement.
Remember what a breath of fresh air Berlusconi seemed at first; an apparently successful businessman untainted by the notorious web of corruption that is Italian politics, sweeping away the establishment parties that had kept power within a narrow little circle for so long.
Edit/ yet another disruptive political ideology/movement that started in Italy
"Corruption" has certain connotations that the libel laws might wade in on. And what is a "career politician"? Is it aimed at SPADS who get a Westminster seat? Is Dr. Sarah Wollaston now a career politician, despite having had a previous career in the NHS? It's all a bit opaque....
Is this a subtle insult?
David Miliband set to return to the UK after Trump victory- sparking rumours of Corbyn leadership challenge
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-miliband-set-return-uk-9249884
This is the latest comfort blanket being used by the progressive left. The uneducated mass are rebelling, but don;t know what they want, and so we don;t have to implement anything.
Biased news = stories in the media I do not like
Democratic control of the judiciary = courts that do what I want them to do
A progressive attempt to define Trump that is doomed to failure, I reckon.
https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/797649380564172800
At David Miliband's first open event, he'd be dogged by people wearing "Ed-stone" outfits.