@SamCoatesTimes: No10 can't tell journalists they know who the source is --- and then also claim they know nothing about memo...
Goes to show why you should not immediately believe everything that the government tells you really, doesn't it?
It's pretty obvious that it was solicited by a member of the government in order to put pressure on someone else, it is not a "government memo" nor was it solicited by the government.
When is a memo solicited by a member of the government not solicited by the government?
The government is a collective, like any company or entity.
And when does the government ever collectively solicit a memo from a consultant working for the Cabinet Office? It doesn't happen, so to try to contrast that situation with what has happened here is obfuscation.
The government solicits reports from external consultants all the time, usually via the civil service (including the Cabinet Office). Indeed the lack of civil service paw marks on this one is rather the give away.
Perhaps a FOI request could clarify whether the authors of the report were paid for their time.
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
What happens if countries then just decide to not pay their subs for a few years, then ask to come back in at a later date?
And what happens if, say, Taiwan pays. Does that make the US *legally* obliged to intervene in a dispute with China? And who will enforce their rights? Sound like a shakedoen me
Only in the context of a nuclear strike from China against Taiwan.
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
Ah yes, 'protection money'.
I don't think even Donald Trump is suggesting he will nuke Tokyo and Berlin if they don't pay up!
Just that they wouldn't want anything to 'happen' ;-).
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
Being a nuclear state in today's world is a burden and liability. I wish we weren't - I think it is quite right that those that benefit from the US umbrella should pay up.
If Trump went for this kind of policy it had implications for the UK, would we continue to spend £40bn plus £2bn per year on Trident if we could bung the US $1.5-2bn per year and call it a day?
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Democrats could try appealing to voters in small rural States. Well within recent memory, they held seats in North and South Dakota, Iowa, Arkansas, Nebraska, and still hold one in Montana (but vulnerable). If they're now writing off such States, that's their fault, not the fault of the system.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senate is that way by design not and not a bug, it is deliberate part of being a federation so that states like Wyoming don't get overwhelmed by states like California or New York. The Founding Fathers wrote that quite deliberately and the logic hasn't changed since.
On Germany and military expenditure. I think Germany will pull its socks up for three reasons:
1. They accept Trump has a point about sharing the burden. Germany wants to be in the Western Alliance. NATO is a key part of it. There is a fee to pay. Germany needs to pay it. It's a very German logic "konsequent sein" (being consistent).
2. They want to build up military resources in the EU that aren't dependent on Britain because they think that country is unreliable.
3. They are worried about Russia, particularly about what it could do in the Near East.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senatorial distribution reflects the fact that the US is a federation not a country.
You may find it inconvenient, but people think of themselves as Texan or Californian or Virginia before they think of themselves as American.
(I am down in Tennessee this week, after a short stop in NYC, so will report on anything interesting)
Outside of Texas, I have never come across anyone who sees themselves as being from a state ahead of being American. And even in Texas it is relatively unusual. People put the Stars and Stripes on flagpoles and in their front gardens, not their state flags.
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
Being a nuclear state in today's world is a burden and liability. I wish we weren't - I think it is quite right that those that benefit from the US umbrella should pay up.
If Trump went for this kind of policy it had implications for the UK, would we continue to spend £40bn plus £2bn per year on Trident if we could bung the US $1.5-2bn per year and call it a day?
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
Being a nuclear state in today's world is a burden and liability. I wish we weren't - I think it is quite right that those that benefit from the US umbrella should pay up.
If Trump went for this kind of policy it had implications for the UK, would we continue to spend £40bn plus £2bn per year on Trident if we could bung the US $1.5-2bn per year and call it a day?
If World War 3 breaks out, does Trident help ?
As long the French have nuclear weapons so should we.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senate is that way by design not and not a bug, it is deliberate part of being a federation so that states like Wyoming don't get overwhelmed by states like California or New York. The Founding Fathers wrote that quite deliberately and the logic hasn't changed since.
Back in the day Virginia was the "California" I think of its time.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senatorial distribution reflects the fact that the US is a federation not a country.
You may find it inconvenient, but people think of themselves as Texan or Californian or Virginia before they think of themselves as American.
(I am down in Tennessee this week, after a short stop in NYC, so will report on anything interesting)
Outside of Texas, I have never come across anyone who sees themselves as being from a state ahead of being American. And even in Texas it is relatively unusual. People put the Stars and Stripes on flagpoles and in their front gardens, not their state flags.
States rights is a massive issue in America, though also the America they are proud of is an America that is a Federation and views all states as equals.
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
Being a nuclear state in today's world is a burden and liability. I wish we weren't - I think it is quite right that those that benefit from the US umbrella should pay up.
If Trump went for this kind of policy it had implications for the UK, would we continue to spend £40bn plus £2bn per year on Trident if we could bung the US $1.5-2bn per year and call it a day?
If World War 3 breaks out, does Trident help ?
As long the French have nuclear weapons so should we.
Are we certain Putin or the Chinese aren't tracking our nuclear subs right now ?
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
That's far too transactional.
An alliance has to be based on more than that: both shared interests and shared burdens. That means troops on the ground, ships on the sea and aircraft in the sky. The US (and Britain and France) accept both the burdens and advantages of nuclear weapon state status. Not offering that protection to other countries would be a significant incentive to proliferation - and preventing proliferation keeps those three states in a privileged position. However, that means that other allies have to bring something else to the table.
The more fundamental question is what does the US get from NATO? Why wouldn't Trump choose Putin over Juncker? He views the biggest threat to the US both physically and ideologically as radical Islam, which is essentially the same as Putin does. Both also should share a secondary concern about the rise of China. There is the basis there for co-operation.
At which point, we can remind ourselves that small countries exist at the whim of the great ones; something that Poland could vouch for, among others.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Democrats could try appealing to voters in small rural States. Well within recent memory, they held seats in North and South Dakota, Iowa, Arkansas, Nebraska, and still hold one in Montana (but vulnerable). If they're now writing off such States, that's their fault, not the fault of the system.
Yep, I agree. The US is a federation and it is right that the Senate reflects that. What maybe needs to be looked at is some of the Senate's powers.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senatorial distribution reflects the fact that the US is a federation not a country.
You may find it inconvenient, but people think of themselves as Texan or Californian or Virginia before they think of themselves as American.
(I am down in Tennessee this week, after a short stop in NYC, so will report on anything interesting)
Outside of Texas, I have never come across anyone who sees themselves as being from a state ahead of being American. And even in Texas it is relatively unusual. People put the Stars and Stripes on flagpoles and in their front gardens, not their state flags.
Californians increasingly see themselves as a breed apart as well. You see the state flag all over the place.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senate is that way by design not and not a bug, it is deliberate part of being a federation so that states like Wyoming don't get overwhelmed by states like California or New York. The Founding Fathers wrote that quite deliberately and the logic hasn't changed since.
Back in the day Virginia was the "California" I think of its time.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senate is that way by design not and not a bug, it is deliberate part of being a federation so that states like Wyoming don't get overwhelmed by states like California or New York. The Founding Fathers wrote that quite deliberately and the logic hasn't changed since.
Your posts going on endlessly about features and bugs is definitely starting to look like a bug
The answer is for Southern California and upstate New York to set themselves up independently!
@AlanJonesPA: Thousands of London Underground staff, including drivers, have voted to go on strike in separate disputes - @RMTunion
@PippaCrerar: Sadiq in Feb: I'd roll up my sleeves & make sure I'm talking to everyone who runs public transport to ensure there are zero days of strikes. twitter.com/alanjonespa/st…
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
That's far too transactional.
An alliance has to be based on more than that: both shared interests and shared burdens. That means troops on the ground, ships on the sea and aircraft in the sky. The US (and Britain and France) accept both the burdens and advantages of nuclear weapon state status. Not offering that protection to other countries would be a significant incentive to proliferation - and preventing proliferation keeps those three states in a privileged position. However, that means that other allies have to bring something else to the table.
The more fundamental question is what does the US get from NATO? Why wouldn't Trump choose Putin over Juncker? He views the biggest threat to the US both physically and ideologically as radical Islam, which is essentially the same as Putin does. Both also should share a secondary concern about the rise of China. There is the basis there for co-operation.
At which point, we can remind ourselves that small countries exist at the whim of the great ones; something that Poland could vouch for, among others.
I don't mean the wider military alliance of friendly nations, I meant specific subscription payments for the US nuclear umbrella. Nothing more or less and no implications for NATO.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senatorial distribution reflects the fact that the US is a federation not a country.
You may find it inconvenient, but people think of themselves as Texan or Californian or Virginia before they think of themselves as American.
(I am down in Tennessee this week, after a short stop in NYC, so will report on anything interesting)
Outside of Texas, I have never come across anyone who sees themselves as being from a state ahead of being American. And even in Texas it is relatively unusual. People put the Stars and Stripes on flagpoles and in their front gardens, not their state flags.
Californians increasingly see themselves as a breed apart as well. You see the state flag all over the place.
Economically they could leave.
When does Cali-ref come, and do Washington and Oregon join them ?
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senate is that way by design not and not a bug, it is deliberate part of being a federation so that states like Wyoming don't get overwhelmed by states like California or New York. The Founding Fathers wrote that quite deliberately and the logic hasn't changed since.
Your posts going on endlessly about features and bugs is definitely starting to look like a bug
The answer is for Southern California and upstate New York to set themselves up independently!
You might want to look up what happened last time states chose to leave the federation ...
@AlanJonesPA: Thousands of London Underground staff, including drivers, have voted to go on strike in separate disputes - @RMTunion
@PippaCrerar: Sadiq in Feb: I'd roll up my sleeves & make sure I'm talking to everyone who runs public transport to ensure there are zero days of strikes. twitter.com/alanjonespa/st…
I see his new potty mouthed tax efficient party planner was a big Mrs T fan.
What this memo does show again, Mrs May's government leaks like a sieve, which does not bode well for good governance
With a big high stakes issue and the complete spectrum of opinion within the government, leaks are almost inevitable, including those that it suits the government to enable.
On Germany and military expenditure. I think Germany will pull its socks up for three reasons:
1. They accept Trump has a point about sharing the burden. Germany wants to be in the Western Alliance. NATO is a key part of it. There is a fee to pay. Germany needs to pay it. It's a very German logic "konsequent sein" (being consistent).
2. They want to build up military resources in the EU that aren't dependent on Britain because they think that country is unreliable.
3. They are worried about Russia, particularly about what it could do in the Near East.
4. If you do this as an EU army rather than the German army, and hire soldiers in poor EU countries where they're cheap, it's an easy way to get German conservatives to vote for fiscal transfers, which everybody knows the Eurozone needs but nobody knows how to sell to the voters who are going to have to pay for them.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senate is that way by design not and not a bug, it is deliberate part of being a federation so that states like Wyoming don't get overwhelmed by states like California or New York. The Founding Fathers wrote that quite deliberately and the logic hasn't changed since.
Your posts going on endlessly about features and bugs is definitely starting to look like a bug
The answer is for Southern California and upstate New York to set themselves up independently!
You might want to look up what happened last time states chose to leave the federation ...
I will, as I have no idea. (Edit/ OK I am being dim, recalling the CW).
But I was more thinking of SoCal and NoCal becoming their own states within the USA, delivering extra senators and ECVs. They just need to apportion the massive debts they have.
''Probably not. And a generic GOPer wouldn't have gained the Rust Belt swings that Trump did. On the other hand, someone like Kasich or Romney for example (and they're about as 'generic GOP' as you get), would in all probability have gained a much bigger *national* swing when up against Hillary. ''
Can you name the states which Trump lost, that a generic GOP candidate would have won?
So here's a Trump policy I think might get aired soon. The US will charge an annual subscription fee for being under their nuclear umbrella. Nations without their own deterrent will have to pay up to the US to benefit from their mega programme. Instead of Japan paying $50bn and then $3bn per year they hand over $1.5bn per year to the US. The same goes for European and other Asian countries. It could make the US $30-40bn per year, enough to offset the cost of their nuclear programme and Trump could then say the US are getting a fair deal for protecting the world and they wouldn't need to withdraw from defence pacts on Asia.
That's far too transactional.
An alliance has to be based on more than that: both shared interests and shared burdens. That means troops on the ground, ships on the sea and aircraft in the sky. The US (and Britain and France) accept both the burdens and advantages of nuclear weapon state status. Not offering that protection to other countries would be a significant incentive to proliferation - and preventing proliferation keeps those three states in a privileged position. However, that means that other allies have to bring something else to the table.
The more fundamental question is what does the US get from NATO? Why wouldn't Trump choose Putin over Juncker? He views the biggest threat to the US both physically and ideologically as radical Islam, which is essentially the same as Putin does. Both also should share a secondary concern about the rise of China. There is the basis there for co-operation.
At which point, we can remind ourselves that small countries exist at the whim of the great ones; something that Poland could vouch for, among others.
I don't mean the wider military alliance of friendly nations, I meant specific subscription payments for the US nuclear umbrella. Nothing more or less and no implications for NATO.
There are a number of major problems with this but the biggest is an overly literal interpretation of the nuclear umbrella metaphor. Even if a NATO member were attacked today the US wouldn't immediately retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Californians increasingly see themselves as a breed apart as well. You see the state flag all over the place.
American patriotism runs deep. That's why Trump will get a relatively free run. People who can't stand him as a person will support the president of their country, while being clear about the difference between the two. Several friends have told me that's what they think.
In the UK, the Queen gets all the kudos and the pols are weak-willed money grubbers. In the US the president gets some of the stardust.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senate is that way by design not and not a bug, it is deliberate part of being a federation so that states like Wyoming don't get overwhelmed by states like California or New York. The Founding Fathers wrote that quite deliberately and the logic hasn't changed since.
Your posts going on endlessly about features and bugs is definitely starting to look like a bug
The answer is for Southern California and upstate New York to set themselves up independently!
You might want to look up what happened last time states chose to leave the federation ...
Californian secession really would be a massive blow to the Democrats.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senatorial distribution reflects the fact that the US is a federation not a country.
You may find it inconvenient, but people think of themselves as Texan or Californian or Virginia before they think of themselves as American.
(I am down in Tennessee this week, after a short stop in NYC, so will report on anything interesting)
Outside of Texas, I have never come across anyone who sees themselves as being from a state ahead of being American. And even in Texas it is relatively unusual. People put the Stars and Stripes on flagpoles and in their front gardens, not their state flags.
I've come across Texans, Californians, New Yorkers, New Englanders (albeit not a state), Carolinians and Mid-Westerners (again not a state) that think like that.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senate is that way by design not and not a bug, it is deliberate part of being a federation so that states like Wyoming don't get overwhelmed by states like California or New York. The Founding Fathers wrote that quite deliberately and the logic hasn't changed since.
Your posts going on endlessly about features and bugs is definitely starting to look like a bug
The answer is for Southern California and upstate New York to set themselves up independently!
You might want to look up what happened last time states chose to leave the federation ...
Californian secession really would be a massive blow to the Democrats.
California is, I think, a bigger economy than ours now, and one of the few states that really could go it alone.
But I was more thinking of the larger Dem states splitting up but staying within the US. After all, Dakota having a North and south is just having a laugh.
On Germany and military expenditure. I think Germany will pull its socks up for three reasons:
1. They accept Trump has a point about sharing the burden. Germany wants to be in the Western Alliance. NATO is a key part of it. There is a fee to pay. Germany needs to pay it. It's a very German logic "konsequent sein" (being consistent).
2. They want to build up military resources in the EU that aren't dependent on Britain because they think that country is unreliable.
3. They are worried about Russia, particularly about what it could do in the Near East.
4. If you do this as an EU army rather than the German army, and hire soldiers in poor EU countries where they're cheap, it's an easy way to get German conservatives to vote for fiscal transfers, which everybody knows the Eurozone needs but nobody knows how to sell to the voters who are going to have to pay for them.
Interesting idea. Greece spends a ridiculous amount on the military for a bankrupt supposedly liberal democracy. Other Balkan countries have relatively high military expenditure too.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senatorial distribution reflects the fact that the US is a federation not a country.
You may find it inconvenient, but people think of themselves as Texan or Californian or Virginia before they think of themselves as American.
(I am down in Tennessee this week, after a short stop in NYC, so will report on anything interesting)
Outside of Texas, I have never come across anyone who sees themselves as being from a state ahead of being American. And even in Texas it is relatively unusual. People put the Stars and Stripes on flagpoles and in their front gardens, not their state flags.
Californians increasingly see themselves as a breed apart as well. You see the state flag all over the place.
We keep the Californian flag flying in NW8. Although we do keep the flags of Hampshire and London as well for balance
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senatorial distribution reflects the fact that the US is a federation not a country.
You may find it inconvenient, but people think of themselves as Texan or Californian or Virginia before they think of themselves as American.
(I am down in Tennessee this week, after a short stop in NYC, so will report on anything interesting)
Outside of Texas, I have never come across anyone who sees themselves as being from a state ahead of being American. And even in Texas it is relatively unusual. People put the Stars and Stripes on flagpoles and in their front gardens, not their state flags.
I've come across Texans, Californians, New Yorkers, New Englanders (albeit not a state), Carolinians and Mid-Westerners (again not a state) that think like that.
To quote a certain Nobel laureate, "The country I come from is called the Mid-West."
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senate is that way by design not and not a bug, it is deliberate part of being a federation so that states like Wyoming don't get overwhelmed by states like California or New York. The Founding Fathers wrote that quite deliberately and the logic hasn't changed since.
Your posts going on endlessly about features and bugs is definitely starting to look like a bug
The answer is for Southern California and upstate New York to set themselves up independently!
''Probably not. And a generic GOPer wouldn't have gained the Rust Belt swings that Trump did. On the other hand, someone like Kasich or Romney for example (and they're about as 'generic GOP' as you get), would in all probability have gained a much bigger *national* swing when up against Hillary. ''
Can you name the states which Trump lost, that a generic GOP candidate would have won?
...Secrets has already received reports that illegals are already starting to leave the country. One source said that some in Virginia left for the border on Wednesday, the day Donald Trump was declared the winner.
The agency that took the names, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, has on file 1,443,762 names of applicants for DACA and DAPA. They break down this way:
— 1 million are from Mexico.
— 119,788 are from the three countries from which thousands of youths fled in the last three years, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
— Over half, 607,000 live in California and Texas.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senatorial distribution reflects the fact that the US is a federation not a country.
You may find it inconvenient, but people think of themselves as Texan or Californian or Virginia before they think of themselves as American.
(I am down in Tennessee this week, after a short stop in NYC, so will report on anything interesting)
Outside of Texas, I have never come across anyone who sees themselves as being from a state ahead of being American. And even in Texas it is relatively unusual. People put the Stars and Stripes on flagpoles and in their front gardens, not their state flags.
I've come across Texans, Californians, New Yorkers, New Englanders (albeit not a state), Carolinians and Mid-Westerners (again not a state) that think like that.
We clearly move in very different circles in the US!
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senatorial distribution reflects the fact that the US is a federation not a country.
You may find it inconvenient, but people think of themselves as Texan or Californian or Virginia before they think of themselves as American.
(I am down in Tennessee this week, after a short stop in NYC, so will report on anything interesting)
Outside of Texas, I have never come across anyone who sees themselves as being from a state ahead of being American. And even in Texas it is relatively unusual. People put the Stars and Stripes on flagpoles and in their front gardens, not their state flags.
I've come across Texans, Californians, New Yorkers, New Englanders (albeit not a state), Carolinians and Mid-Westerners (again not a state) that think like that.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair aspect of the US system however is the awarding of 2 senators to each state regardless of size. This may have had its merits at the time the constitution was written but it indefensible now - how can anyone seriously believe it is right to give Wyoming and North Dakota the same number of Senators as California and New York. It gives rural GOP America a ludicrous advantage.
As EC Votes are based on the number of Senators/Congressmen in a state the bias doesn't end with the Senate bit carries over to the POTUS election - which is why on the last 3 occasions the GOP has won the Presidency they have lost the popular vote twice.
Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
.
Your posts going on endlessly about features and bugs is definitely starting to look like a bug
The answer is for Southern California and upstate New York to set themselves up independently!
You might want to look up what happened last time states chose to leave the federation ...
Californian secession really would be a massive blow to the Democrats.
California is, I think, a bigger economy than ours now, and one of the few states that really could go it alone.
But I was more thinking of the larger Dem states splitting up but staying within the US. After all, Dakota having a North and south is just having a laugh.
Splitting California and New York would presumably give the Democrats and Republicans an extra 2 Senators apiece.
Astonishing to think that Republican support in California is now lower than in Massachussetts.
The Yes California campaign — also known as "Calexit" — is urging state residents to support a 2019 referendum advocating the state's secession. The campaign's web site vows to put the issue to a vote after qualifying for a state ballot initiative in 2018:
Another betting market yet to be settled is the number of States won by the Republicans. I make it 30, which is right on the limit of Ladbrokes' 21-30 State band as mentioned by Richard Nabavi at an early stage of the election campaign. Yet Laddies are using the ridiculous delay with Michigan to delay paying out winning bets ....... certainly no Paddy Power they, who even pay out on losing bets, although I suspect those days will shortly be over now that they've merged with Betfair.
Doubt it. It's still a very valid use of advertising funds. They get huge value advertising from some of those early payouts.
Interesting. So Trump's efficiency of vote overcomes Clinton's lead in the popular vote regardless? But why do Americans think it is ok that some votes are worth so much more than others? Its like some of the more bizarre arguments against equal seat sizes here.
Clearly "Independence for Southern California!" is the Dems best strategy...
Socal would generally vote GOP. That's why the congressional redistricting was so outrageous. They gerrymandered by splitting OC up and merging parts of it with SouthCentral LA and parts with Anaheim. Went from 2 GOP seats to 2 Dem seats. (This wad bwfore the Trump election with the Johnson effect)
The gerrymandering of Congressional districts is an insult to democracy. Both parties are guilty and given the perpetual GOP seats to votes bias in the House I would say they are the worst offenders.
The most patently unfair Clinton will win the popular vote by more votes than Brexit won the referendum.
The Senatorial distribution reflects the fact that the US is a federation not a country.
You may find it inconvenient, but people think of themselves as Texan or Californian or Virginia before they think of themselves as American.
(I am down in Tennessee this week, after a short stop in NYC, so will report on anything interesting)
Outside of Texas, I have never come across anyone who sees themselves as being from a state ahead of being American. And even in Texas it is relatively unusual. People put the Stars and Stripes on flagpoles and in their front gardens, not their state flags.
I've come across Texans, Californians, New Yorkers, New Englanders (albeit not a state), Carolinians and Mid-Westerners (again not a state) that think like that.
We clearly move in very different circles in the US!
The people you meet probably think of themselves as citizens of the world first and foremost.
California is, I think, a bigger economy than ours now, and one of the few states that really could go it alone.
But I was more thinking of the larger Dem states splitting up but staying within the US. After all, Dakota having a North and south is just having a laugh.
But that would create even more red states not new blue ones. Long Island voted for Trump.
The Yes California campaign — also known as "Calexit" — is urging state residents to support a 2019 referendum advocating the state's secession. The campaign's web site vows to put the issue to a vote after qualifying for a state ballot initiative in 2018:
Califarewell or Californaway would be smoother campaign tags
I can't see the east coast being very happy, even though I suspect the Midwest would be delighted.
I've come across Texans, Californians, New Yorkers, New Englanders (albeit not a state), Carolinians and Mid-Westerners (again not a state) that think like that.
We clearly move in very different circles in the US!
I spend a lot of time with ordinary folk. It's one of the perks of specializing in protein.
Of course I spend a couple of weeks a year in NYC and some in SF but I don't really feel the zeitgeist in the same way as I do in the mid West or the South.
The Yes California campaign — also known as "Calexit" — is urging state residents to support a 2019 referendum advocating the state's secession. The campaign's web site vows to put the issue to a vote after qualifying for a state ballot initiative in 2018:
Califarewell or Californaway would be smoother campaign tags
I can't see the east coast being very happy, even though I suspect the Midwest would be delighted.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
Another betting market yet to be settled is the number of States won by the Republicans. I make it 30, which is right on the limit of Ladbrokes' 21-30 State band as mentioned by Richard Nabavi at an early stage of the election campaign. Yet Laddies are using the ridiculous delay with Michigan to delay paying out winning bets ....... certainly no Paddy Power they, who even pay out on losing bets, although I suspect those days will shortly be over now that they've merged with Betfair.
Doubt it. It's still a very valid use of advertising funds. They get huge value advertising from some of those early payouts.
The Yes California campaign — also known as "Calexit" — is urging state residents to support a 2019 referendum advocating the state's secession. The campaign's web site vows to put the issue to a vote after qualifying for a state ballot initiative in 2018:
'When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.' Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868) So will smug California liberals laughing at Britain's Brexit woes take their chances negotiating an exit agreement with the author of Art of the Deal?
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
In political terms Brexit is exactly Iraq 2. It was a discretionary project that was controversial at the time and oversold, with few real prospects of a successful outcome. Because those bringing it forward overinvested in the rhetoric, they failed to do the precautionary planning that would maximise the slim chances of an OK-ish outcome and minimise the many pitfalls. Like Iraq, Brexit will dominate and infect the political discourse at the expense of other things that need attention.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
I can think of some differences between Britain today and Iraq.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
Because of the lack of planning by those who took us there?
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
In political terms Brexit is exactly Iraq 2. It was a discretionary project that was controversial at the time and oversold, with few real prospects of a successful outcome. Because those bringing it forward overinvested in the rhetoric, they failed to do the precautionary planning that would maximise the slim chances of an OK-ish outcome and minimise the many pitfalls. Like Iraq, Brexit will dominate and infect the political discourse at the expense of other things that need attention.
And Trump's team is going to be basically the same guys.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
I can think of some differences between Britain today and Iraq.
The Yes California campaign — also known as "Calexit" — is urging state residents to support a 2019 referendum advocating the state's secession. The campaign's web site vows to put the issue to a vote after qualifying for a state ballot initiative in 2018:
Califarewell or Californaway would be smoother campaign tags
I can't see the east coast being very happy, even though I suspect the Midwest would be delighted.
Californication. As in: they can f*ck off.
Nah. That's the name of a really brilliant TV show and also the name of an album by the Red Hot Chili Peppers.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
Because of the lack of planning by those who took us there?
Brexit was always going to be hard work, particularly when the explicit decision was made pre vote by civil servants, as directed by Ministers, to do no planning for the possibility of a Leave vote. None.
Cameron should go down in history as the Pound Shop Eden. At least the latter had the excuse of illness. Dave was simply inept and lazy.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
I can think of some differences between Britain today and Iraq.
We don't even have a green zone where we can pretend Brexit is working.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
Richard Tyndall also made that analogy back in June too
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
Because of the lack of planning by those who took us there?
The problem in Iraq wasn't so much that they didn't plan - although that certainly didn't help. But the infrastructure of a state, physical, cultural and human, is much easier destroyed than recreated, and the forcible invasion followed by disbandment of the local army etc. destroyed the Iraqi state utterly. For western invaders to start from rubble and impose a functioning state by way of replacement for what went before was an almost impossible task, plan or no plan.
The absence of a Brexit plan - and seeing HMG slowly panic as the scale and cost of the work they need to get done begins to dawn on them - is certainly concerning, but since both the UK and the EU continue to function the Iraq comparison doesn't work even as a debating point!
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
I can think of some differences between Britain today and Iraq.
Definitely fewer camels.
I blame the lack of an EU subsidy for camel rearing.
Its a small point but I don;t remember Tony Blair spending six months debating the Iraq war, and having a referendum on it. And 17.4 million people voting on it.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
I can think of some differences between Britain today and Iraq.
We don't even have a green zone where we can pretend Brexit is working.
Its a small point but I don;t remember Tony Blair spending six months debating the Iraq war, and having a referendum on it. And 17.4 million people voting on it.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
I can think of some differences between Britain today and Iraq.
Definitely fewer camels.
I blame the lack of an EU subsidy for camel rearing.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
I can think of some differences between Britain today and Iraq.
Definitely fewer camels.
I blame the lack of an EU subsidy for camel rearing.
Which is what some of us have been advocating for months.
Finally Mrs May gets there. She's a bit slow isn't she?
She could have avoided all of this bother back in August and announced that she was going to put an enabling bill in front of Parliament as soon as possible and dared the Lords to vote it down.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
Because of the lack of planning by those who took us there?
The problem in Iraq wasn't so much that they didn't plan - although that certainly didn't help. But the infrastructure of a state, physical, cultural and human, is much easier destroyed than recreated, and the forcible invasion followed by disbandment of the local army etc. destroyed the Iraqi state utterly. For western invaders to start from rubble and impose a functioning state by way of replacement for what went before was an almost impossible task, plan or no plan.
The absence of a Brexit plan - and seeing HMG slowly panic as the scale and cost of the work they need to get done begins to dawn on them - is certainly concerning, but since both the UK and the EU continue to function the Iraq comparison doesn't work even as a debating point!
The politics of Britain's participation in the Iraq invasion and its decision to leave the EU are very similar though. Certainly now Cameron has left the scene and Theresa May is carrying the project forward. Because Brexit is a controversial project and, strictly, an unnecessary one in that we could have decided to remain in the EU, she puts more effort into the rhetoric to try and convince people it's a good idea than adopt a cautious damage limitation approach to a project with a doubtful outcome. In that way she is just like Blair.
I've come across Texans, Californians, New Yorkers, New Englanders (albeit not a state), Carolinians and Mid-Westerners (again not a state) that think like that.
We clearly move in very different circles in the US!
I spend a lot of time with ordinary folk. It's one of the perks of specializing in protein.
Of course I spend a couple of weeks a year in NYC and some in SF but I don't really feel the zeitgeist in the same way as I do in the mid West or the South.
As I am hoping we will find with Trump, how people speak doesn'r always match up with how they think under the surface. Actually I feel I speak with a scintilla of authority here. In the US divisions of class, race, work, and education can be bigger than state loyalty. Mostly US citizens are very patriotic. In the absence of something like a royal family what provides the focus? I believe it's the US Constitution and its human manifestation. That is why I see Trump as a dangerous reflection of a very dangerous trend. As has been pointed out here he has been talking like a facist anger merchant. I hope the remarkable US system of checks can reign him in, or even better, that he experiences a Damascene conversion. Fat chance.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
I can think of some differences between Britain today and Iraq.
I'm surprised we haven't been compared to Carthage after the Romans sowed it with salt.
Yesterday, it suddenly struck me what Brexit Britain reminded me of: Iraq in the aftermath of the invasion. Despite many fierce and continuous assertions to the contrary, as the weeks rolled by it became clearer and clearer that no one had the slightest clue what was supposed to be happening.
Richard Tyndall also made that analogy back in June too
The other parallel will be that the people who supported this stupid idea will blame the result on the implementation, instead of the stupidness of the idea. It'll mostly be the same people, too.
In other news, the German economy is seriously slowing down. 0.2% growth for the previous quarter. Hopefully just a blip, the last thing we need is for the EU economy to slow down and for politicians to be looking for a reason to lash out at the UK for a domestic audience.
Comments
Like winter...
1. They accept Trump has a point about sharing the burden. Germany wants to be in the Western Alliance. NATO is a key part of it. There is a fee to pay. Germany needs to pay it. It's a very German logic "konsequent sein" (being consistent).
2. They want to build up military resources in the EU that aren't dependent on Britain because they think that country is unreliable.
3. They are worried about Russia, particularly about what it could do in the Near East.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/will-the-electoral-college-doom-the-democrats-again/
An alliance has to be based on more than that: both shared interests and shared burdens. That means troops on the ground, ships on the sea and aircraft in the sky. The US (and Britain and France) accept both the burdens and advantages of nuclear weapon state status. Not offering that protection to other countries would be a significant incentive to proliferation - and preventing proliferation keeps those three states in a privileged position. However, that means that other allies have to bring something else to the table.
The more fundamental question is what does the US get from NATO? Why wouldn't Trump choose Putin over Juncker? He views the biggest threat to the US both physically and ideologically as radical Islam, which is essentially the same as Putin does. Both also should share a secondary concern about the rise of China. There is the basis there for co-operation.
At which point, we can remind ourselves that small countries exist at the whim of the great ones; something that Poland could vouch for, among others.
The answer is for Southern California and upstate New York to set themselves up independently!
@PippaCrerar: Sadiq in Feb: I'd roll up my sleeves & make sure I'm talking to everyone who runs public transport to ensure there are zero days of strikes. twitter.com/alanjonespa/st…
When does Cali-ref come, and do Washington and Oregon join them ?
@PolhomeEditor: John McDonnell says Labour will use "moral pressure" to force Brexit concessions from the Government.
But I was more thinking of SoCal and NoCal becoming their own states within the USA, delivering extra senators and ECVs. They just need to apportion the massive debts they have.
In the UK, the Queen gets all the kudos and the pols are weak-willed money grubbers. In the US the president gets some of the stardust.
Russian Economy Minister Ulyukayev charged with $2m bribe
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37983744
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/798496014558785536
But I was more thinking of the larger Dem states splitting up but staying within the US. After all, Dakota having a North and south is just having a laugh.
NV +6 CO +9
MI -16 WI -10 ME-2 -1
PA 20 up for grabs (NH too, probably).
Still gives Rubio 274 even without PA.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/1.4-million-obama-amnesty-applicants-on-deportation-hit-list/article/2607171
...Secrets has already received reports that illegals are already starting to leave the country. One source said that some in Virginia left for the border on Wednesday, the day Donald Trump was declared the winner.
The agency that took the names, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, has on file 1,443,762 names of applicants for DACA and DAPA. They break down this way:
— 1 million are from Mexico.
— 119,788 are from the three countries from which thousands of youths fled in the last three years, El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras.
— Over half, 607,000 live in California and Texas.
Astonishing to think that Republican support in California is now lower than in Massachussetts.
The Yes California campaign — also known as "Calexit" — is urging state residents to support a 2019 referendum advocating the state's secession. The campaign's web site vows to put the issue to a vote after qualifying for a state ballot initiative in 2018:
He wore a gold medallion shaped like the state, with a diamond where Dallas would be, outside his dress shirt at all times.
He was a total arse. I believe he was later convicted of taking bribes from suppliers.
I can't see the east coast being very happy, even though I suspect the Midwest would be delighted.
Of course I spend a couple of weeks a year in NYC and some in SF but I don't really feel the zeitgeist in the same way as I do in the mid West or the South.
Trump 2020: "The wall just got a thousand miles longer"
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)
So will smug California liberals laughing at Britain's Brexit woes take their chances negotiating an exit agreement with the author of Art of the Deal?
LOL....just re-read that sentence for a moment. It really is a keeper.
Not "those who told us going there was a yooooge mistake"
Cameron should go down in history as the Pound Shop Eden. At least the latter had the excuse of illness. Dave was simply inept and lazy.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/26/richard-tyndall-on-the-exit-strategy/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3937072/Mini-onaire-Schoolboy-tycoon-14-nets-2MILLION-property-developer-offered-fortune-land-bought-cash-selling-tax-disk-reminders.html
Britain's future Trump?
The absence of a Brexit plan - and seeing HMG slowly panic as the scale and cost of the work they need to get done begins to dawn on them - is certainly concerning, but since both the UK and the EU continue to function the Iraq comparison doesn't work even as a debating point!
Brexiteers won. When will they "suck it up" ?
LOL....
Its a small point but I don;t remember Tony Blair spending six months debating the Iraq war, and having a referendum on it. And 17.4 million people voting on it.
But hey, this is just nit picking
Finally Mrs May gets there. She's a bit slow isn't she?
Now there's a challenge!