Thanks Rob. I have been both lurking and contributing on this site since 2005, but I tend to contribute mostly during French election campaigns.
Please keep on contributing
Agreed! You are currently averaging 0.8 posts per year! I think TSE is about a thousand times more prolific
I posted hundreds of time under different commenting systems (and two other names linked to my change of posting country) in the past. But only the oldies from2007 might remember that!
I was on here in 2007 but I'd need reminding what your username was.
I was Chris(fromParis) then Chris(fromBethesda).
I think I remember the Bethesda handle. Always wondered if you meant the game company, or the actual town!
Thanks Rob. I have been both lurking and contributing on this site since 2005, but I tend to contribute mostly during French election campaigns.
Please keep on contributing
Agreed! You are currently averaging 0.8 posts per year! I think TSE is about a thousand times more prolific
I posted hundreds of time under different commenting systems (and two other names linked to my change of posting country) in the past. But only the oldies from2007 might remember that!
I was on here in 2007 but I'd need reminding what your username was.
I was Chris(fromParis) then Chris(fromBethesda).
I think I remember the Bethesda handle. Always wondered if you meant the game company, or the actual town!
I lived in Bethesda, MD at the time
For a long time I assumed you were based in Wales at the time.
Hmmmm... dubious. Sounds like a money making scam. Pay tens of thousands of pounds to stick someones body in a metal tank which occasionally gets topped up with liquid nitrogen (which is the most abundant gas on earth).
Two holds and one gain for the Blues so far tonight. How long will Dumfries & Galloway take?
Im told D and G is the expected Con hold but no figures
It's by STV isn't it? Might take a while. SNP had the second-highest first-preference vote tally for their sole individual candidate back in May 2012 (as per the thread), so maybe they have a shot (given their rise in popularity since then).
Trump has now just edged ahead of Romney: Trump 60,963k Romney 60,933k
Clinton almost 4 million down on Obama: Clinton 62,020k Obama 65,015k
So Clinton currently just over 1 million ahead of Trump.
If California it looks as if Clinton has approx 1.1m still to be added and Trump approx another 600k. So final total Clinton lead looks to be heading for a bit over 1.5m - depending on what's still to be added in other states.
As I said, everybody is on for Secretary of State. It's Cabinet Apprentice.
Is this Trumps plan for the next four years have the media chase after him down a rabbit hole, so much so he just confuses everybody and gets away without being held accountable by the ADHD cable news networks? Seems to have worked for him thus far, very masterful I must say.
Most convincing during debate (all viewers) Juppe 30 Fillon 25 Sarkozy 13 NKM 6 Poisson 4 Cope 2 Le Maire 2
Most convincing during debate (primary voters, 23% of sample) Fillon 38 Juppe 26 Sarkozy 23 Poisson 4 NKM 3 Cope 3 Le Maire 1
The debate gave you a better or worse opinion of each candidate Fillon better 59 worse 2 same 39 Net +57 Juppe better 24 worse 19 same 57 Net +5 Sarkozy better 22 worse 29 same 49 Net -7 NKM better 21 worse 25 same 54 Net -4 Poisson better 14 worse 43 same 43 Net -29 Cope better 13 worse 31 same 56 Net -18 Le Maire better 12 worse 38 same 49 Net -26
On issues, Juppe is preferred on Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy on immigration, Fillon on Education and Social issues
If this poll is close to reality, this is an amazing result for Fillon.
Trump has now just edged ahead of Romney: Trump 60,963k Romney 60,933k
Clinton almost 4 million down on Obama: Clinton 62,020k Obama 65,015k
So Clinton currently just over 1 million ahead of Trump.
If California it looks as if Clinton has approx 1.1m still to be added and Trump approx another 600k. So final total Clinton lead looks to be heading for a bit over 1.5m - depending on what's still to be added in other states.
Hmmmm... dubious. Sounds like a money making scam. Pay tens of thousands of pounds to stick someones body in a metal tank which occasionally gets topped up with liquid nitrogen (which is the most abundant gas on earth).
Very sad story Dodgy expensive procedure but if it gave her hope maybe that's worth the money.
2 things jumped out from telegraph:
1. Fathers objection was that in woo years she would wake up in the USA. What does he know about the year PT199*
2. Father wanted to see his daughter's body after she died so he could say goodbye (not having seen her since 2008). Mother said no. I mean, WTF?
Trump has now just edged ahead of Romney: Trump 60,963k Romney 60,933k
Clinton almost 4 million down on Obama: Clinton 62,020k Obama 65,015k
So Clinton currently just over 1 million ahead of Trump.
If California it looks as if Clinton has approx 1.1m still to be added and Trump approx another 600k. So final total Clinton lead looks to be heading for a bit over 1.5m - depending on what's still to be added in other states.
Hmmmm... dubious. Sounds like a money making scam. Pay tens of thousands of pounds to stick someones body in a metal tank which occasionally gets topped up with liquid nitrogen (which is the most abundant gas on earth).
Very sad story Dodgy expensive procedure but if it gave her hope maybe that's worth the money.
2 things jumped out from telegraph:
1. Fathers objection was that in woo years she would wake up in the USA. What does he know about the year PT199*
2. Father wanted to see his daughter's body after she died so he could say goodbye (not having seen her since 2008). Mother said no. I mean, WTF?
* post Trump
Post Trump? He'll abolish elections and replace the republic with an hereditary monarchy. The trump dynasty will still be in power
"2016: it's been quite a year"... no! You ain't seen nothing yet! It's like an action thriller film. Everything is beginning to fall into place after numerous dramatic kerfuffles, and almost everything is resolved, but the audience is conscious of the fact that there are still 25 minutes before the end of the film, so there is bound to be one more big twist.
2016, now, in mid-November, has reached that point in the film.
Either the Electoral College will elect somebody completely different as President - Roberta McCain, perhaps - or Donald Trump will be kidnapped by an alien armadillo, or the meteorite will come and obliterate the Eastern Seaboard, or California will fall into the sea, or Putin will invade Estonia, or Kim Jong-Un will join Mebyon Kernow, or we will wake up from an "Inception" type dream, find ourselves lying next to Leonardo DiCaprio, and discover that Hillary Clinton has been elected President after all.
There's pedantry and there's pedantry. According to the Guardian website 'quote President-elect Donald Trump’s team has declared that “President-elect Trump has never advocated for any registry or system that tracks individuals based on their religion.”end quote.'
Whereas Presidential candidate Trump unquestionably did so for Muslims.
Morning. Three wickets for England before lunch, might be a chance of this Test not being a draw.
India 455 all out. From where England were overnight they should be pretty happy with that but they are going to have to bat and bat. We may miss Woakes in the lower order. He has been handy.
"2016: it's been quite a year"... no! You ain't seen nothing yet! It's like an action thriller film. Everything is beginning to fall into place after numerous dramatic kerfuffles, and almost everything is resolved, but the audience is conscious of the fact that there are still 25 minutes before the end of the film, so there is bound to be one more big twist.
2016, now, in mid-November, has reached that point in the film.
Either the Electoral College will elect somebody completely different as President - Roberta McCain, perhaps - or Donald Trump will be kidnapped by an alien armadillo, or the meteorite will come and obliterate the Eastern Seaboard, or California will fall into the sea, or Putin will invade Estonia, or Kim Jong-Un will join Mebyon Kernow, or we will wake up from an "Inception" type dream, find ourselves lying next to Leonardo DiCaprio, and discover that Hillary Clinton has been elected President after all.
Why put a real possibility in with the jokey stuff? (Putin will invade Estonia)
I know this was discussed and generally discounted yesterday, but this guy makes good points about Trump's attitude to laws, and the Republican party's preference for the Vice President. Opinion polls and mid-term elections may affect sentiment too.
Interesting post mortem on the Clinton defeat at Huffpo, strongly confirming the impression that she probably lost an election she could have won: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-campaign-neglect_us_582cacb0e4b058ce7aa8b861 In Michigan alone, a senior battleground state operative told HuffPost that the state party and local officials were running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004. Desperate for more human capital, the state party and local officials ended up raising $300,000 themselves to pay 500 people to help canvass in the election’s closing weeks. By that point, however, they were operating in the dark. One organizer said that in a precinct in Flint, they were sent to a burned down trailer park. No one had taken it off the list of places to visit because no one had been there until the final weekend. Clinton lost the state by 12,000 votes.
A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin. According to several operatives there, the campaign’s state office and local officials scrambled to raise nearly $1 million for efforts to get out the vote in the closing weeks. Brooklyn headquarters had balked at funding it themselves, arguing that the state already had a decent-sized footprint because of the labor-backed super PAC For Our Future and pointing out that Clinton had never trailed in a single poll in Wisconsin.
The campaign’s state office argued additionally for prominent African-American surrogates to help in Milwaukee. “There are only so many times you can get folks excited about Chelsea Clinton,” explained one Wisconsin Democrat. But President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama didn’t come. Nor did Hillary Clinton after the July Democratic convention. She would go on to lose the state, hampered by lower turnout in precisely the place that had operatives worried. Clinton got 289,000 votes in Milwaukee County compared to the 328,000 that Obama won in 2012.
“They had staff on the ground and lots of volunteers, but they weren’t running a massive program because they thought they were up 6-7 points,” said the aforementioned senior battleground state operative…
"2016: it's been quite a year"... no! You ain't seen nothing yet! It's like an action thriller film. Everything is beginning to fall into place after numerous dramatic kerfuffles, and almost everything is resolved, but the audience is conscious of the fact that there are still 25 minutes before the end of the film, so there is bound to be one more big twist.
2016, now, in mid-November, has reached that point in the film.
Either the Electoral College will elect somebody completely different as President - Roberta McCain, perhaps - or Donald Trump will be kidnapped by an alien armadillo, or the meteorite will come and obliterate the Eastern Seaboard, or California will fall into the sea, or Putin will invade Estonia, or Kim Jong-Un will join Mebyon Kernow, or we will wake up from an "Inception" type dream, find ourselves lying next to Leonardo DiCaprio, and discover that Hillary Clinton has been elected President after all.
I am the centre of the matrix! The rest of you will disappear when I wake up
Morning. Three wickets for England before lunch, might be a chance of this Test not being a draw.
India 455 all out. From where England were overnight they should be pretty happy with that but they are going to have to bat and bat. We may miss Woakes in the lower order. He has been handy.
And once again, "Captain" Cook makes a prat of himself with the bat.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
It depends on which policies you think are counter to British interests?
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
It depends on which policies you think are counter to British interests?
Pro-Putin, NATO-sceptic, anti-free trade are three biggies.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
Some on the right are so carried away by Trump beating Hillary they have forgotten Trump also beat all the Republican candidates, and that much of the GOP Establishment refused to endorse him. Trump is sui generis, as the lawyers say.
Brexit Britain needs as much free trade as possible. Donald Trump wants as little as possible. That may well work for the US, which has a large internal market and produces a range of innovative, cutting-edge products that people overseas will pay a premium to buy. It absolutely will not work for us. At the same time, any reduction in the US's commitment to NATO forces a fundamental rethink of our entire defence and diplomatic strategy that will inevitably lead to much higher spending in those areas and so significantly less elsewhere.
A lot of the economic arguments for Brexit were predicated on the establshed NATO-based, pax Americana and an increase in free trade across the world. Both are now in very serious doubt. A Trump presidency could well be the most damaging for British interests since (thanks Mr Herdson) the early years of the American Republic.
Brexit Britain needs as much free trade as possible. Donald Trump wants as little as possible. That may well work for the US, which has a large internal market and produces a range of innovative, cutting-edge products that people overseas will pay a premium to buy. It absolutely will not work for us. At the same time, any reduction in the US's commitment to NATO forces a fundamental rethink of our entire defence and diplomatic strategy that will inevitably lead to much higher spending in those areas and so significantly less elsewhere.
I agree over trade, the US internal market makes protectionism work better for them than us, particularly a Britain outside the Single Market.
The end of NATO, and removal of US bases in Europe is probably a good thing though.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
It depends on which policies you think are counter to British interests?
Pro-Putin, NATO-sceptic, anti-free trade are three biggies.
Pro-Putin? Who cares? It's probably for the best that two major military powers aren't totally at loggerheads.
He wants Europe, which has relied for so long on American generosity for its defense, to pull it's own weight. Can't see a problem with that.
As for trade, I fail to see how his attitude matters much to us. The deals he has criticised are the ones that are bad for US jobs. Any free-trade deal with the UK is not going to be bad for the US.
Morning. Three wickets for England before lunch, might be a chance of this Test not being a draw.
India 455 all out. From where England were overnight they should be pretty happy with that but they are going to have to bat and bat. We may miss Woakes in the lower order. He has been handy.
And once again, "Captain" Cook makes a prat of himself with the bat.
'Once again'? Yes, because his record is that is common?
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. [snip]
George Washington and James Madison are two that spring to mind.
In the long term, American independence did us a favour. If they'd stayed, the balance of power in the British Empire would have shifted across the Atlantic and we'd have ended up working for them -- imagine the past 240 years as having foreign policy run by Tony Blair.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
It depends on which policies you think are counter to British interests?
Pro-Putin, NATO-sceptic, anti-free trade are three biggies.
Pro-Putin? Who cares? It's probably for the best that two major military powers aren't totally at loggerheads.
He wants Europe, which has relied for so long on American generosity for its defense, to pull it's own weight. Can't see a problem with that.
As for trade, I fail to see how his attitude matters much to us. The deals he has criticised are the ones that are bad for US jobs. Any free-trade deal with the UK is not going to be bad for the US.
"Labour accepts the referendum result as the voice of the majority and we must embrace the enormous opportunities to reshape our country that Brexit has opened for us."
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
Cosy Liberal identity politics certainty may be less popular amongst some Tories than non identity politics uncertainty shocker....
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
It depends on which policies you think are counter to British interests?
Pro-Putin, NATO-sceptic, anti-free trade are three biggies.
Pro-Putin? Who cares? It's probably for the best that two major military powers aren't totally at loggerheads.
He wants Europe, which has relied for so long on American generosity for its defense, to pull it's own weight. Can't see a problem with that.
As for trade, I fail to see how his attitude matters much to us. The deals he has criticised are the ones that are bad for US jobs. Any free-trade deal with the UK is not going to be bad for the US.
As I said, the level of delusion is Corbynite.
Or in other words you don't have an answer when people point out you are talking bollocks. "Our interests" is just code for your interests.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
Cosy Liberal identity politics certainty may be less popular amongst some Tories than non identity politics uncertainty shocker....
Trump is all about identity politics. Clearly a lot of right wing Tories like that and are happy to ignore how damaging a Trump presidency looks like being to Brexit Britain's interests.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
It depends on which policies you think are counter to British interests?
Pro-Putin, NATO-sceptic, anti-free trade are three biggies.
He has a point on two - Putin isn't the enemy, and the Ukraine debacle highlights how the eastward expansionism that is EU and NATO driven is causing a problem with Russia.
NATO has been a free pass for many countries, but not for the US or the UK. All nations should do what they are pledged to do under the treaty, just as other treaties are similarly observed.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
It depends on which policies you think are counter to British interests?
Pro-Putin, NATO-sceptic, anti-free trade are three biggies.
Pro-Putin? Who cares? It's probably for the best that two major military powers aren't totally at loggerheads.
He wants Europe, which has relied for so long on American generosity for its defense, to pull it's own weight. Can't see a problem with that.
As for trade, I fail to see how his attitude matters much to us. The deals he has criticised are the ones that are bad for US jobs. Any free-trade deal with the UK is not going to be bad for the US.
As I said, the level of delusion is Corbynite.
Or in other words you don't have an answer when people point out you are talking bollocks. "our interests" is just code for your interests.
Nope - we need free trade, Trump opposes it. Our entire military strategy is based on the US's commitment to NATO. Trump is not committed to NATO. Russian expansion under Putin threatens establshed European borders. We are a part of Europe and are vulnerable to all shockwaves any changes cause. Sorry.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
It depends on which policies you think are counter to British interests?
Pro-Putin, NATO-sceptic, anti-free trade are three biggies.
Pro-Putin? Who cares? It's probably for the best that two major military powers aren't totally at loggerheads.
He wants Europe, which has relied for so long on American generosity for its defense, to pull it's own weight. Can't see a problem with that.
As for trade, I fail to see how his attitude matters much to us. The deals he has criticised are the ones that are bad for US jobs. Any free-trade deal with the UK is not going to be bad for the US.
Agreed. I think Trump will be good for trade between US and UK, certainly more than Hillary would have been - she would have spent her whole term trying and failing to get an agreement with the EU.
He will favour trade with similar nations, that can help US companies to grow. He's against trade agreements that see wholesale offshoring of jobs to lower-cost countries like Mexico and China. I'm expecting Trump to target trade agreements with other large counties with similar GDP/Capita - UK, Aus/NZ, Japan etc.
He'll certainly be expecting the other NATO countries to pull their weight, which is a good thing for the UK too.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. [snip]
George Washington and James Madison are two that spring to mind.
In the long term, American independence did us a favour. If they'd stayed, the balance of power in the British Empire would have shifted across the Atlantic and we'd have ended up working for them -- imagine the past 240 years as having foreign policy run by Tony Blair.
US politics would look quite different if a chunk of the country was in Europe.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
It depends on which policies you think are counter to British interests?
Pro-Putin, NATO-sceptic, anti-free trade are three biggies.
He has a point on two - Putin isn't the enemy, and the Ukraine debacle highlights how the eastward expansionism that is EU and NATO driven is causing a problem with Russia.
NATO has been a free pass for many countries, but not for the US or the UK. All nations should do what they are pledged to do under the treaty, just as other treaties are similarly observed.
On Free trade I agree, he might be problematic.
NATO didn't conquer those countries. They wanted to join the EU and NATO. Why do you suppose that might have been? Or do you subscribe to the view that those countries are not in fact sovereign to determine their own foreign policy and should be condemned to a latter-day spheres-of-influence regime?
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
It depends on which policies you think are counter to British interests?
Pro-Putin, NATO-sceptic, anti-free trade are three biggies.
Pro-Putin? Who cares? It's probably for the best that two major military powers aren't totally at loggerheads.
He wants Europe, which has relied for so long on American generosity for its defense, to pull it's own weight. Can't see a problem with that.
As for trade, I fail to see how his attitude matters much to us. The deals he has criticised are the ones that are bad for US jobs. Any free-trade deal with the UK is not going to be bad for the US.
Agreed. I think Trump will be good for trade between US and UK, certainly more than Hillary would have been - she would have spent her whole term trying and failing to get an agreement with the EU.
He will favour trade with similar nations, that can help US companies to grow. He's against trade agreements that see wholesale offshoring of jobs to lower-cost countries like Mexico and China. I'm expecting Trump to target trade agreements with other large counties with similar GDP/Capita - UK, Aus/NZ, Japan etc.
TPP plus UK but minus Mexico/Peru/Chile/Vietnam? Seems unlikely, I doubt his constituency would appreciate the difference between Japanese and Chinese imports.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. [snip]
George Washington and James Madison are two that spring to mind.
In the long term, American independence did us a favour. If they'd stayed, the balance of power in the British Empire would have shifted across the Atlantic and we'd have ended up working for them -- imagine the past 240 years as having foreign policy run by Tony Blair.
I do have a novel in the writing based on that alternate history, where the American Revolution never took place (well, it kind of got wrapped up into a US Civil War, where the South became independent and slavery survived into the 20th century).
Even with a massively bigger British America, chances are that London would have remained the fulcrum of the empire.
A lot of the economic arguments for Brexit were predicated on the establshed NATO-based, pax Americana and an increase in free trade across the world. Both are now in very serious doubt. A Trump presidency could well be the most damaging for British interests since (thanks Mr Herdson) the early years of the American Republic.
I see the doom mongering continues apace - very difficult to take it all so seriously when looking out upon clear blue skies and a forecast 24 degrees as the southern spanish winter kicks in. And to be more serious with this level of pessimism any performance to the upside will be seen as brilliant.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. The level of delusion on the British right about Trump and Brexit is extraordinary. In fact, it's Corbynite.
It depends on which policies you think are counter to British interests?
Pro-Putin, NATO-sceptic, anti-free trade are three biggies.
He has a point on two - Putin isn't the enemy, and the Ukraine debacle highlights how the eastward expansionism that is EU and NATO driven is causing a problem with Russia.
NATO has been a free pass for many countries, but not for the US or the UK. All nations should do what they are pledged to do under the treaty, just as other treaties are similarly observed.
On Free trade I agree, he might be problematic.
NATO didn't conquer those countries. They wanted to join the EU and NATO. Why do you suppose that might have been? Or do you subscribe to the view that those countries are not in fact sovereign to determine their own foreign policy and should be condemned to a latter-day spheres-of-influence regime?
I think the Ukraine situation is not what you describe. There was an agreement, the EU with push from the USA tried to bring the EU right up to Putin's doorstep, and tried to remove an asset in the Crimea.
I see that it seems Flynn is Trump's new National Security Advisor, anti-Islam, pro-Putin, pro waterboarding but also pro-Erdogan's crackdown.
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
May wants to be Maggie to Trump's Reagan! But never before has a US president advocated policies so contrary to UK interests. [snip]
George Washington and James Madison are two that spring to mind.
In the long term, American independence did us a favour. If they'd stayed, the balance of power in the British Empire would have shifted across the Atlantic and we'd have ended up working for them -- imagine the past 240 years as having foreign policy run by Tony Blair.
I do have a novel in the writing based on that alternate history, where the American Revolution never took place (well, it kind of got wrapped up into a US Civil War, where the South became independent and slavery survived into the 20th century).
Even with a massively bigger British America, chances are that London would have remained the fulcrum of the empire.
There's an alternative history novel 'Underground Airlines' published earlier this year which is very good. It looks at what would have happened if the US Civil War hadn't have taken place. Might be worth having a read if you are planning your own novel - when you are dealing with alternative history, loads of room for alternative scenarios and a big market of readers who want to be told 'what if'!
@Iain_Whiteley: Labour will today attempt to reverse the parliamentary vote in the last parliament to reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600
I see Clarkson got rave reviews last night. Hard to disagree with SeanT. The BBC should never have let him go.
Clarkson getting the sack might be the best thing to happen to him and fans of proper top gear. Before he whacked the producer, proper top gear wasn't as good as it used to be. It felt like it had run out of steam. Going by the first episode it was back with better cinematography, bigger stunts and some cracking one liners.
Unfortunately for the bbc, that show they now have isn't in the same ballpark. Even bit parters in TGT were funnier than Leblanc et al. Communist...
Was surprised to see Tories take that Bath council seat, given the government deferred electrification of main line to Bath, and is pushing on with proposal for an elected Metro Western mayor, after Bath & NE Somerset had rejected a city wide mayoralty.
@Iain_Whiteley: Labour will today attempt to reverse the parliamentary vote in the last parliament to reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600
More pointless posturing, they're just trying to have the boundary review postponed again. This sort of crap is what we have been criticising American politicians for.
I see Clarkson got rave reviews last night. Hard to disagree with SeanT. The BBC should never have let him go.
Unfortunately for the bbc, that show they now have isn't in the same ballpark. Even bit parters in TGT were funnier than Leblanc et al. Communist...
The BBC in increasingly being left behind in the new media movement away from established channels. Netflix, Amazon, HBO is the real future of entertainment. Shows like Stranger Things, Westworld and Game of Thrones are miles ahead of anything the BBC is currently doing.
I see Clarkson got rave reviews last night. Hard to disagree with SeanT. The BBC should never have let him go.
Clarkson getting the sack might be the best thing to happen to him and fans of proper top gear. Before he whacked the producer, proper top gear wasn't as good as it used to be. It felt like it had run out of steam. Going by the first episode it was back with better cinematography, bigger stunts and some cracking one liners.
Unfortunately for the bbc, that show they now have isn't in the same ballpark. Even bit parters in TGT were funnier than Leblanc et al. Communist...
I am yet to see TGT, but I agree that Top Gear had been running on empty for a season or two. A year off and a rethink was long overdue. From the sound of it TGT works.
No the US election is all about identity politics. Trump is merely playing the game as the rules now are.
In 2012 90-odd per cent of US blacks voted Obama. Even the middle class ones who would have been better off under Romney. IF whites now do vote as an ethnic group, they are pretty late to THAT party.
Hillary shamelessly targeted voters along identity lines. Trump was dubbed a sexist and a racists in an attempt to seal off certain ' identity' groups such as 'women' and 'Latinos'.
Comments
Hmmmm... dubious. Sounds like a money making scam. Pay tens of thousands of pounds to stick someones body in a metal tank which occasionally gets topped up with liquid nitrogen (which is the most abundant gas on earth).
Trump has now just edged ahead of Romney:
Trump 60,963k
Romney 60,933k
Clinton almost 4 million down on Obama:
Clinton 62,020k
Obama 65,015k
So Clinton currently just over 1 million ahead of Trump.
If California it looks as if Clinton has approx 1.1m still to be added and Trump approx another 600k. So final total Clinton lead looks to be heading for a bit over 1.5m - depending on what's still to be added in other states.
2012:
Obama won California by 3m
Obama won everywhere else by 1m
Obama won USA by 4m
2016:
Clinton won California by 3.5m
Clinton lost everywhere else by 2m
Clinton won USA by 1.5m
Kyle Kondik – @kkondik
52/67 PA counties are officially Appalachian. They cast 44% of 2-party vote 2012 & 2016. Romney won by 175k. Trump by 492k.
Trump's share in California is currently 32.9% - as more California votes are added, Trump's overall national share falls.
http://www.lepoint.fr/presidentielle/pour-opinion-way-fillon-et-juppe-ont-remporte-le-dernier-debat-18-11-2016-2083888_3121.php
Most convincing during debate (all viewers)
Juppe 30 Fillon 25 Sarkozy 13 NKM 6 Poisson 4 Cope 2 Le Maire 2
Most convincing during debate (primary voters, 23% of sample)
Fillon 38 Juppe 26 Sarkozy 23 Poisson 4 NKM 3 Cope 3 Le Maire 1
The debate gave you a better or worse opinion of each candidate
Fillon better 59 worse 2 same 39 Net +57
Juppe better 24 worse 19 same 57 Net +5
Sarkozy better 22 worse 29 same 49 Net -7
NKM better 21 worse 25 same 54 Net -4
Poisson better 14 worse 43 same 43 Net -29
Cope better 13 worse 31 same 56 Net -18
Le Maire better 12 worse 38 same 49 Net -26
On issues, Juppe is preferred on Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy on immigration, Fillon on Education and Social issues
If this poll is close to reality, this is an amazing result for Fillon.
Turnout in Minnesota and New Hampshire was apparently well into the 70s; New York and California (so far), low-to-mid 50s:
http://www.electproject.org/2016g
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true
Trump already down to 46.8%
Dodgy expensive procedure but if it gave her hope maybe that's worth the money.
2 things jumped out from telegraph:
1. Fathers objection was that in woo years she would wake up in the USA. What does he know about the year PT199*
2. Father wanted to see his daughter's body after she died so he could say goodbye (not having seen her since 2008). Mother said no. I mean, WTF?
* post Trump
Elabe for BFM TV
http://elabe.fr/a-gagne-debat-2/
Most convincing during debate (all viewers)
Fillon 33 Juppe 32 Sarkozy 18 NKM 6 Poisson 4 Le Maire 4 Cope 3
Most convincing during debate (viewers self-identified as close to te right or centre)
Fillon 39 Sarkozy 26 Juppe 25 NKM 3 Le Maire 3 Poisson 2 Cope 2
Good opinion
Juppe 67 (+6)
Fillon 62 (+8)
NKM 45 (+5)
Le Maire 41 (-3)
Sarkozy 35 (+4)
Poisson 26 (+2)
Cope 23 (+3)
Better chance of winning the presidency for the right
Juppe 50 (-7)
Fillon 22 (+9)
Sarkozy 18 (+1)
Le Maire 3 (-2 ) NKM 3(=) Cope 2 (=) Poisson 2 (=)
Closer to your concerns
Juppe 28 (-5)
Fillon 24 (+6)
Sarkozy 18 (+1)
NKM 11 (-1) Le Maire 9 (-3) Poisson 6 (+1) Cope 2 (=)
Would be the best President
Juppe 40 (-2)
Fillon 25 (+7)
Sarkozy 19 (=)
NKM 6 (=) Le Maire 4 (-3) Poisson 3 (-1) Cope 1
"2016: it's been quite a year"... no! You ain't seen nothing yet! It's like an action thriller film. Everything is beginning to fall into place after numerous dramatic kerfuffles, and almost everything is resolved, but the audience is conscious of the fact that there are still 25 minutes before the end of the film, so there is bound to be one more big twist.
2016, now, in mid-November, has reached that point in the film.
Either the Electoral College will elect somebody completely different as President - Roberta McCain, perhaps - or Donald Trump will be kidnapped by an alien armadillo, or the meteorite will come and obliterate the Eastern Seaboard, or California will fall into the sea, or Putin will invade Estonia, or Kim Jong-Un will join Mebyon Kernow, or we will wake up from an "Inception" type dream, find ourselves lying next to Leonardo DiCaprio, and discover that Hillary Clinton has been elected President after all.
Whereas Presidential candidate Trump unquestionably did so for Muslims.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/david-brock-donald-trump-donor-network-231588
The Guardian gives two thumbs up for Clarkson’s The Grand Tour - Spoiler alert.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/nov/18/the-grand-tour-review-jeremy-clarkson-james-may-richard-hammond-leave-the-bbc-in-their-dust?CMP=twt_gu
Opinion polls and mid-term elections may affect sentiment too.
I also liked Fillon's closing statement in which he said (if my translator is working properly) :
"I say to the french watching: fear not sunday, do not be afraid to contradict the polls and the media who had everything arranged in advance"
Seems to strike the right tone and capture the mood which has seen experts and pollsters confounded this year.
He seems to have the momentum which could well take him into the next round and beyond.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-campaign-neglect_us_582cacb0e4b058ce7aa8b861
In Michigan alone, a senior battleground state operative told HuffPost that the state party and local officials were running at roughly one-tenth the paid canvasser capacity that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) had when he ran for president in 2004. Desperate for more human capital, the state party and local officials ended up raising $300,000 themselves to pay 500 people to help canvass in the election’s closing weeks. By that point, however, they were operating in the dark. One organizer said that in a precinct in Flint, they were sent to a burned down trailer park. No one had taken it off the list of places to visit because no one had been there until the final weekend. Clinton lost the state by 12,000 votes.
A similar situation unfolded in Wisconsin. According to several operatives there, the campaign’s state office and local officials scrambled to raise nearly $1 million for efforts to get out the vote in the closing weeks. Brooklyn headquarters had balked at funding it themselves, arguing that the state already had a decent-sized footprint because of the labor-backed super PAC For Our Future and pointing out that Clinton had never trailed in a single poll in Wisconsin.
The campaign’s state office argued additionally for prominent African-American surrogates to help in Milwaukee. “There are only so many times you can get folks excited about Chelsea Clinton,” explained one Wisconsin Democrat. But President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama didn’t come. Nor did Hillary Clinton after the July Democratic convention. She would go on to lose the state, hampered by lower turnout in precisely the place that had operatives worried. Clinton got 289,000 votes in Milwaukee County compared to the 328,000 that Obama won in 2012.
“They had staff on the ground and lots of volunteers, but they weren’t running a massive program because they thought they were up 6-7 points,” said the aforementioned senior battleground state operative…
It looks like Trump will rule as he ran.
http://fortune.com/2016/11/15/ford-move-mexico-trump/
post truth politics strikes again!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trumps-pick-for-national-security-adviser-brings-experience-and-controversy/2016/11/17/0962eb88-ad08-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html
I can understand the Islamophobia and Putin manlove, but am scratching my head over the support for Erdogan's crackdown.
Is it just a love of dictators?
Shadow Brexit secretary said to be ‘furious’ at speech urging Britain to ‘embrace the enormous opportunities’ of leaving EU
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/18/brexit-row-keir-starmer-john-mcdonnell-threatens-labour-truce?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
The end of NATO, and removal of US bases in Europe is probably a good thing though.
He wants Europe, which has relied for so long on American generosity for its defense, to pull it's own weight. Can't see a problem with that.
As for trade, I fail to see how his attitude matters much to us. The deals he has criticised are the ones that are bad for US jobs. Any free-trade deal with the UK is not going to be bad for the US.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/10/09/joff-wild-says-keep-an-eye-on-keir/
Cheers for this, Mr. Hayfield.
"Labour accepts the referendum result as the voice of the majority and we must embrace the enormous opportunities to reshape our country that Brexit has opened for us."
NATO has been a free pass for many countries, but not for the US or the UK. All nations should do what they are pledged to do under the treaty, just as other treaties are similarly observed.
On Free trade I agree, he might be problematic.
He will favour trade with similar nations, that can help US companies to grow. He's against trade agreements that see wholesale offshoring of jobs to lower-cost countries like Mexico and China. I'm expecting Trump to target trade agreements with other large counties with similar GDP/Capita - UK, Aus/NZ, Japan etc.
He'll certainly be expecting the other NATO countries to pull their weight, which is a good thing for the UK too.
Even with a massively bigger British America, chances are that London would have remained the fulcrum of the empire.
Unfortunately for the bbc, that show they now have isn't in the same ballpark. Even bit parters in TGT were funnier than Leblanc et al. Communist...
Britain Elects @britainelects 9h9 hours ago
Abbey (Bath & NE Somerset) result:
CON: 32.8% (+2.4)
LD: 25.6% (+4.7)
GRN: 23.6% (-4.5)
LAB: 11.8% (-4.9)
IND: 4.0% (+4.0)
UKIP: 2.2% (+2.2)
Here's another one showing Con down:
Britain Elects @britainelects 10h10 hours ago
Misterton (Harborough) result:
CON: 50.4% (-24.7)
LAB: 23.3% (-1.6)
LDEM: 15.1% (+15.1)
UKIP: 11.2% (+11.2)
and another showing eveybody down (except LibDem)
Britain Elects @britainelects 9h9 hours ago
Haldens (Welwyn Hatfield) result:
CON: 34.1% (-1.3)
LAB: 30.8% (-6.9)
LDEM: 29.6% (+17.8)
GRN: 5.5% (-9.5)
http://news.sky.com/story/vw-cuts-30000-jobs-in-emission-scandal-cost-saving-plan-10661335
No the US election is all about identity politics. Trump is merely playing the game as the rules now are.
In 2012 90-odd per cent of US blacks voted Obama. Even the middle class ones who would have been better off under Romney. IF whites now do vote as an ethnic group, they are pretty late to THAT party.
Hillary shamelessly targeted voters along identity lines. Trump was dubbed a sexist and a racists in an attempt to seal off certain ' identity' groups such as 'women' and 'Latinos'.
His economic policies were barely mentioned.