They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Fucking.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!
Ground game 2.0.. where you don't actual campaign for fear of looking weak.
We need to be careful not to ascribe significance to every difference between the winning and losing campaigns. It might be true that Clinton lost because the ground game is crucial, and it might also be true that Labour lost GE2015 because ground games don't matter in the big data, social media age, but when two opposites appear true we should at least raise an eyebrow.
Mr. D, it looks bad now. If the Supreme Court doesn't find in the Government's favour, it'll look like prejudice.
So, the Supreme Court can only be neutral if it agrees with the government ?
This whole thing is about optics.
We've had enough of the Police getting involved in media manipulation and spin in recent years. Let's not extend that to the judiciary.
Yes, achievable by not talking publicly regarding a case you are about to sit in judgment over.
Given that Article 50 demands that the decision be made in accordance with our constitutional requirements, anything which furthers the legal debate so that we have a better chance of arriving at the 'correct' answer is a good thing.
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Fucking.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!
Ground game 2.0.. where you don't actual campaign for fear of looking weak.
We need to be careful not to ascribe significance to every difference between the winning and losing campaigns. It might be true that Clinton lost because the ground game is crucial, and it might also be true that Labour lost GE2015 because ground games don't matter in the big data, social media age, but when two opposites appear true we should at least raise an eyebrow.
And there is no inevitability about the Trump win; posts that assert that Trump was 'always going to win' because of...and then insert their pet theory, are obvious hogwash since just a handful of votes could have tipped it the other way; it was as close as you ever could get to a coin toss.
So the question is not why Trump was always going to win, but why the prevailing view that he was 'never going to win' proved erroneous.
Mr. D, it looks bad now. If the Supreme Court doesn't find in the Government's favour, it'll look like prejudice.
So, the Supreme Court can only be neutral if it agrees with the government ?
This whole thing is about optics.
We've had enough of the Police getting involved in media manipulation and spin in recent years. Let's not extend that to the judiciary.
Yes, achievable by not talking publicly regarding a case you are about to sit in judgment over.
Given that Article 50 demands that the decision be made in accordance with our constitutional requirements, anything which furthers the legal debate so that we have a better chance of arriving at the 'correct' answer is a good thing.
I don't think the SC Justices are the only people who can debate the matter.
Mr. D, it looks bad now. If the Supreme Court doesn't find in the Government's favour, it'll look like prejudice.
So, the Supreme Court can only be neutral if it agrees with the government ?
This whole thing is about optics.
We've had enough of the Police getting involved in media manipulation and spin in recent years. Let's not extend that to the judiciary.
Yes, achievable by not talking publicly regarding a case you are about to sit in judgment over.
Given that Article 50 demands that the decision be made in accordance with our constitutional requirements, anything which furthers the legal debate so that we have a better chance of arriving at the 'correct' answer is a good thing.
I don't think the SC Justices are the only people who can debate the matter.
Of course not, nor should they need to take a vow of silence.
Mr. D, it looks bad now. If the Supreme Court doesn't find in the Government's favour, it'll look like prejudice.
So, the Supreme Court can only be neutral if it agrees with the government ?
This whole thing is about optics.
We've had enough of the Police getting involved in media manipulation and spin in recent years. Let's not extend that to the judiciary.
Yes, achievable by not talking publicly regarding a case you are about to sit in judgment over.
Given that Article 50 demands that the decision be made in accordance with our constitutional requirements, anything which furthers the legal debate so that we have a better chance of arriving at the 'correct' answer is a good thing.
I don't think the SC Justices are the only people who can debate the matter.
Of course not, nor should they need to take a vow of silence.
There will be plenty of time for their contribution in their summation.
Mr. D, it looks bad now. If the Supreme Court doesn't find in the Government's favour, it'll look like prejudice.
So, the Supreme Court can only be neutral if it agrees with the government ?
This whole thing is about optics.
We've had enough of the Police getting involved in media manipulation and spin in recent years. Let's not extend that to the judiciary.
Yes, achievable by not talking publicly regarding a case you are about to sit in judgment over.
Given that Article 50 demands that the decision be made in accordance with our constitutional requirements, anything which furthers the legal debate so that we have a better chance of arriving at the 'correct' answer is a good thing.
I don't think the SC Justices are the only people who can debate the matter.
Of course not, nor should they need to take a vow of silence.
There will be plenty of time for their contribution in their summation.
And what if their summation contains a point that the government could have preempted with a counterargument if they had known it could be material beforehand?
Mr. D, it looks bad now. If the Supreme Court doesn't find in the Government's favour, it'll look like prejudice.
So, the Supreme Court can only be neutral if it agrees with the government ?
This whole thing is about optics.
We've had enough of the Police getting involved in media manipulation and spin in recent years. Let's not extend that to the judiciary.
Yes, achievable by not talking publicly regarding a case you are about to sit in judgment over.
Given that Article 50 demands that the decision be made in accordance with our constitutional requirements, anything which furthers the legal debate so that we have a better chance of arriving at the 'correct' answer is a good thing.
Well, quite. If this was a trial by jury then the critics would have a point - prejudicing the outcome etc. But here all the facts are established and there for everyone to see. All that remains are the nuances of legal interpretation.
Mr. D, it looks bad now. If the Supreme Court doesn't find in the Government's favour, it'll look like prejudice.
So, the Supreme Court can only be neutral if it agrees with the government ?
This whole thing is about optics.
We've had enough of the Police getting involved in media manipulation and spin in recent years. Let's not extend that to the judiciary.
Yes, achievable by not talking publicly regarding a case you are about to sit in judgment over.
Given that Article 50 demands that the decision be made in accordance with our constitutional requirements, anything which furthers the legal debate so that we have a better chance of arriving at the 'correct' answer is a good thing.
I don't think the SC Justices are the only people who can debate the matter.
Of course not, nor should they need to take a vow of silence.
There will be plenty of time for their contribution in their summation.
And what if their summation contains a point that the government could have preempted with a counterargument if they had known it could be material beforehand?
That's the Government's fault for having a crap lawyer.
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Fucking.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!
It is on par with Hitler refusing to give winter clothes to his soldiers in Russia because he didn't want them to think they will be fighting in the winter.
So the question is not why Trump was always going to win, but why the prevailing view that he was 'never going to win' proved erroneous.
To me the problem is that the professionalised political/media bubble has such a strictly defined deontology for how a political leader should behave and think that anyone outside that framework simply doesn't compute. They've forgotten that people don't vote according to the rules they live by.
Mr. D, it looks bad now. If the Supreme Court doesn't find in the Government's favour, it'll look like prejudice.
So, the Supreme Court can only be neutral if it agrees with the government ?
This whole thing is about optics.
We've had enough of the Police getting involved in media manipulation and spin in recent years. Let's not extend that to the judiciary.
Yes, achievable by not talking publicly regarding a case you are about to sit in judgment over.
Given that Article 50 demands that the decision be made in accordance with our constitutional requirements, anything which furthers the legal debate so that we have a better chance of arriving at the 'correct' answer is a good thing.
I don't think the SC Justices are the only people who can debate the matter.
Of course not, nor should they need to take a vow of silence.
They should avoid discussing issues publicly that are yet to come before them, especially where a matter is sensitive, politically or otherwise. It's not unheard of but its regarded as the best practice
We should continue to block it all the way down the line until the EU gives us a serious deal, rather than threatening to make an example of us.
The EU moves at a glacial pace & has time on its side. 2.5 years waiting is nothing to them.
So be it. And the UK can refuse them military and security thereafter if they want to play that game.
I'm not one of those who think the UK sinks if we walk away. A previous 'EU' once tried to block us out of trading from the whole continent; we developed our global markets instead.
It may be tough for a couple of years but we will ultimately thrive.
We should continue to block it all the way down the line until the EU gives us a serious deal, rather than threatening to make an example of us.
The EU moves at a glacial pace & has time on its side. 2.5 years waiting is nothing to them.
So be it. And the UK can refuse them military and security thereafter if they want to play that game.
How can we do that without withdrawing from NATO? And if you think we should withdraw from NATO I suggest there are some other aspects of your world-view that need updating too.
They refused to campaign in Wisconsin and Michigan because they didn't want to look weak in front of Trump.
Fucking.
Morons.
I cannot begin to describe my anger at this. I was confident about a Clinton win precisely because they weren't campaigning hard in Wisconsin and Michigan.
I didn't realise the reason was because they were total imbeciles.
OMFG!
It is on par with Hitler refusing to give winter clothes to his soldiers in Russia because he didn't want them to think they will be fighting in the winter.
Amusingly this is one of the reasons why Stalin was surprised by the German attack. He was monitoring the wool wholesale price in Germany in the assumption it would spike with the demand for winter gear for the Wehrmacht pre any invasion.
We should continue to block it all the way down the line until the EU gives us a serious deal, rather than threatening to make an example of us.
The EU moves at a glacial pace & has time on its side. 2.5 years waiting is nothing to them.
So be it. And the UK can refuse them military and security thereafter if they want to play that game.
How can we do that without withdrawing from NATO? And if you think we should withdraw from NATO I suggest there are some other aspects of your world-view that need updating too.
I suspect they are talking about military/intelligence cooperation that is done in the EU sphere.
Well it answers my question from a few days ago about if their data team saw this coming and could do nothing about it or were they surprised and it turns out it was neither.
They saw the iceberg and then took their hand off the tiller.
Well it answers my question from a few days ago about if their data team saw this coming and could do nothing about it or were they surprised and it turns out it was neither.
They saw the iceberg and then took their hand off the tiller.
Sounds like they hid so that the iceberg might not see them.
Incidentally, given the deterioration in the outlook for the public finances since June 23rd, as well as the indications of additional public spending, it seems prudent to plan on the assumption that Phillip Hammond is going to be looking for some dosh he can raid. If you're a higher-rate taxpayer planning to make a pension contribution this tax year, it might be as well to play on the safe side and make it before Wednesday, if you can. I don't expect yet another pension raid, but I don't think it can be ruled out. There is just a possibility that he might introduce further restrictions.
We should continue to block it all the way down the line until the EU gives us a serious deal, rather than threatening to make an example of us.
The EU moves at a glacial pace & has time on its side. 2.5 years waiting is nothing to them.
So be it. And the UK can refuse them military and security thereafter if they want to play that game.
How can we do that without withdrawing from NATO? And if you think we should withdraw from NATO I suggest there are some other aspects of your world-view that need updating too.
Incidentally, given the deterioration in the outlook for the public finances since June 23rd, as well as the indications of additional public spending, it seems prudent to plan on the assumption that Phillip Hammond is going to be looking for some dosh he can raid. If you're a higher-rate taxpayer planning to make a pension contribution this tax year, it might be as well to play on the safe side and make it before Wednesday, if you can. I don't expect yet another pension raid, but I don't think it can be ruled out. There is just a possibility that he might introduce further restrictions.
Incidentally, given the deterioration in the outlook for the public finances since June 23rd, as well as the indications of additional public spending, it seems prudent to plan on the assumption that Phillip Hammond is going to be looking for some dosh he can raid. If you're a higher-rate taxpayer planning to make a pension contribution this tax year, it might be as well to play on the safe side and make it before Wednesday, if you can. I don't expect yet another pension raid, but I don't think it can be ruled out. There is just a possibility that he might introduce further restrictions.
I suspect the tax cut for 40p payers may be deferred.
@RobD I know, that's the change in views I'm talking about. A couple of years ago he was really right wing, and back then may well have supported Trump.
We should continue to block it all the way down the line until the EU gives us a serious deal, rather than threatening to make an example of us.
The EU moves at a glacial pace & has time on its side. 2.5 years waiting is nothing to them.
So be it. And the UK can refuse them military and security thereafter if they want to play that game.
How can we do that without withdrawing from NATO? And if you think we should withdraw from NATO I suggest there are some other aspects of your world-view that need updating too.
I never said withdrawal from NATO.
You said 'refuse them military and security'. Not possible while we're in NATO.
Comments
So the question is not why Trump was always going to win, but why the prevailing view that he was 'never going to win' proved erroneous.
If the EU want to be unreasonable then the UK be unreasonable too.
Or they could both work together for something more akin to a win-win.
I'm not one of those who think the UK sinks if we walk away. A previous 'EU' once tried to block us out of trading from the whole continent; we developed our global markets instead.
It may be tough for a couple of years but we will ultimately thrive.
I crashed-out after Sunderland and awoke to Ohio (though not contiguously). Totally green on political-bets since 2010: Only mugs lose in this game!
They saw the iceberg and then took their hand off the tiller.