Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why I’ve taken the 5/1 on Trump not to visit the UK in 2017 an

124»

Comments

  • Options
    Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/825832222846550021

    Marine Le Pen third favourite. But still only 3/1, all the same. Interesting times and all that.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @ReutersPolitics: BREAKING: U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Corker says Trump should 'immediately' revise refugee executive order

    @elliotttimes: May name checked Corker in her Philadelphia speech and met him afterwards. twitter.com/reuterspolitic…
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,052

    https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/825832222846550021

    Marine Le Pen third favourite. But still only 3/1, all the same. Interesting times and all that.

    Paddy's over-rounds are insane: that book is about 140%
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,966
    rcs1000 said:

    https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/825832222846550021

    Marine Le Pen third favourite. But still only 3/1, all the same. Interesting times and all that.

    Paddy's over-rounds are insane: that book is about 140%
    Not even an exhaustive book either, add on 1 or 2 % for the remaining rags.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    What's the contact details for betfair to get them to add names to a market?
  • Options
    BudGBudG Posts: 711
    edited January 2017
    Alistair said:

    What's the contact details for betfair to get them to add names to a market?

    support.en@betfair.com
  • Options
    The Rev Dan Woodhouse, a Methodist minister in Leeds and Sam Walton, a Quaker, are accused of entering the BAE Systems site in Warton to disarm planes.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-38787630
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,997
    BudG said:

    Alistair said:

    What's the contact details for betfair to get them to add names to a market?

    support.en@betfair.com
    Or tweet them at @BetfairCS
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,927
    rcs1000 said:

    https://twitter.com/Simon_Nixon/status/825832222846550021

    Marine Le Pen third favourite. But still only 3/1, all the same. Interesting times and all that.

    Paddy's over-rounds are insane: that book is about 140%
    They've got to make back the £5m they lost on the early payouts on Hillary Clinton somehow.
  • Options
    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    Isn't the author a Tory MP?
    By Lefty I mean "socialist media" :)
  • Options
    brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    Isn't the author a Tory MP?
    Not sure how that stops her being a leftie.
  • Options
    Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    glw said:

    glw said:

    I was very much a Republican for years but recently my respect for the Queen has grown considerably.

    I'm a staunch Monarchist — God save the Queen — and my argument is very simple; look at America. Checkmate.
    I am 100% behind the Queen but what follows is a worry
    I'm no fan of Charles but the chance of Royal lineage throwing up a Nixon or Trump for just two examples is vanishingly small.
    There are so many counterexamples it is hard to know where to start. All of Georges 1 to 4 could give Trump a run for his money in boorishness, bad taste and outright insanity, and there's always Henry 8. Ivan the terrible was of impeccable royal descent, as was his elder son whom he murdered in a fit of bad temper. Royals are now safer than presidents not because they are nice but because they are powerless. If Charles were due to have the power to make executive orders when he comes to the throne I would be worried; he would be quite capable of prohibiting the nhs from prescribing any drugs other than homeopathic ones.
  • Options
    EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    Isn't the author a Tory MP?
    Not sure how that stops her being a leftie.
    Until earlier this year, it didn't stop you from being leader! ;)
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
  • Options
    Ishmael_Z said:

    glw said:

    glw said:

    I was very much a Republican for years but recently my respect for the Queen has grown considerably.

    I'm a staunch Monarchist — God save the Queen — and my argument is very simple; look at America. Checkmate.
    I am 100% behind the Queen but what follows is a worry
    I'm no fan of Charles but the chance of Royal lineage throwing up a Nixon or Trump for just two examples is vanishingly small.
    There are so many counterexamples it is hard to know where to start. All of Georges 1 to 4 could give Trump a run for his money in boorishness, bad taste and outright insanity, and there's always Henry 8. Ivan the terrible was of impeccable royal descent, as was his elder son whom he murdered in a fit of bad temper. Royals are now safer than presidents not because they are nice but because they are powerless. If Charles were due to have the power to make executive orders when he comes to the throne I would be worried; he would be quite capable of prohibiting the nhs from prescribing any drugs other than homeopathic ones.
    There is no comparison between those historical figures and today. Remember that those were also the times of such maniacs as Napoleon. Your argument is crass and ill informed.
  • Options
    EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    TIL pointing out a blatant piece of hypocrisy makes you alt-right.
  • Options
    Essexit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    Isn't the author a Tory MP?
    Not sure how that stops her being a leftie.
    Until earlier this year, it didn't stop you from being leader! ;)
    1) Earlier this year? I mean really?

    2) Must be worrying for all right wing Tories that the only Tory leader in the last 20 odd years to win a majority, let alone a general election was a leftie
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Essexit said:

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    TIL pointing out a blatant piece of hypocrisy makes you alt-right.
    Perhaps you should read some of what Dr Wollaton has written about Islam and feminism in the past.

    Sarah Wollaston: Veil debate should be wake-up call for feminism - Telegraph
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10311245/Sarah-Wollaston-Veil-debate-should-be-wake-up-call-for-feminism.html
  • Options

    Essexit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    Isn't the author a Tory MP?
    Not sure how that stops her being a leftie.
    Until earlier this year, it didn't stop you from being leader! ;)
    1) Earlier this year? I mean really?

    2) Must be worrying for all right wing Tories that the only Tory leader in the last 20 odd years to win a majority, let alone a general election was a leftie
    Dave's too posh to be a Lefty, shurely :lol:
  • Options

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.
  • Options

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.
    You deny that there is sexism in Islam, and a whole host of non-white cultures, which really is depressing?
  • Options

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.

    It's funny how righties pretend to care about women's rights, but label feminists feminazis. I also find it puzzling that none of them seem to have a problem with a white supremacist being appointed to sit on the National Security Council. I guess it's a case of lefties are from Venus, righties are from Mars.

  • Options
    EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956

    Essexit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    Isn't the author a Tory MP?
    Not sure how that stops her being a leftie.
    Until earlier this year, it didn't stop you from being leader! ;)
    1) Earlier this year? I mean really?

    2) Must be worrying for all right wing Tories that the only Tory leader in the last 20 odd years to win a majority, let alone a general election was a leftie
    TSE, I did a winky face, it was sarcastic. No fan of Cameron but I accept he's not a leftie.
  • Options

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.

    It's funny how righties pretend to care about women's rights, but label feminists feminazis.

    I can't quite recall calling feminists "Feminazis"! Please provide the cite, thanks!
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,971

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.

    It's funny how righties pretend to care about women's rights, but label feminists feminazis. I also find it puzzling that none of them seem to have a problem with a white supremacist being appointed to sit on the National Security Council. I guess it's a case of lefties are from Venus, righties are from Mars.

    What has happened Southam? You used to be absolutely shit hot at pouncing on anyone who dared describe 'the left' or 'the wwc' as a monolith, yet now throw around 'the right' like confetti, giving up the moral high ground.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited January 2017

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.
    You deny that there is sexism in Islam, and a whole host of non-white cultures, which really is depressing?
    On the contrary I have consistently criticised the structural misogyny of orthodox Islam, as has the author of the piece in the Guardian.

    I would not divide the world into "white" and "non-white" cultures in the way that you do.
  • Options

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.

    It's funny how righties pretend to care about women's rights, but label feminists feminazis.

    I can't quite recall calling feminists "Feminazis"! Please provide the cite, thanks!

    Just following your lead, Sunil - making sweeping statements about entire groups of people based on observations of individuals.

    I would love to point to any criticism you have made about Trump appointing a white supremacist to the National Security Council. Unfortunately, I can't. You're too busy attacking lefties.

  • Options
    isam said:

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.

    It's funny how righties pretend to care about women's rights, but label feminists feminazis. I also find it puzzling that none of them seem to have a problem with a white supremacist being appointed to sit on the National Security Council. I guess it's a case of lefties are from Venus, righties are from Mars.

    What has happened Southam? You used to be absolutely shit hot at pouncing on anyone who dared describe 'the left' or 'the wwc' as a monolith, yet now throw around 'the right' like confetti, giving up the moral high ground.

    I am sorry you did not understand the point of my post :-)

  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 40,971

    isam said:

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.

    It's funny how righties pretend to care about women's rights, but label feminists feminazis. I also find it puzzling that none of them seem to have a problem with a white supremacist being appointed to sit on the National Security Council. I guess it's a case of lefties are from Venus, righties are from Mars.

    What has happened Southam? You used to be absolutely shit hot at pouncing on anyone who dared describe 'the left' or 'the wwc' as a monolith, yet now throw around 'the right' like confetti, giving up the moral high ground.

    I am sorry you did not understand the point of my post :-)

    You do it a lot of the time, not just in that post
  • Options

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.

    It's funny how righties pretend to care about women's rights, but label feminists feminazis.

    I can't quite recall calling feminists "Feminazis"! Please provide the cite, thanks!

    Just following your lead, Sunil - making sweeping statements about entire groups of people based on observations of individuals.

    I would love to point to any criticism you have made about Trump appointing a white supremacist to the National Security Council. Unfortunately, I can't. You're too busy attacking lefties.

    Who's the white supramacist on the NSC?

    Also: are you suggesting I'm too, shall we say, "brown" to be a "rightie" (assuming I am, of course!)? How fucking racist of you!
  • Options

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.

    It's funny how righties pretend to care about women's rights, but label feminists feminazis.

    I can't quite recall calling feminists "Feminazis"! Please provide the cite, thanks!

    Just following your lead, Sunil - making sweeping statements about entire groups of people based on observations of individuals.

    I would love to point to any criticism you have made about Trump appointing a white supremacist to the National Security Council. Unfortunately, I can't. You're too busy attacking lefties.

    Who's the white supramacist on the NSC?

    Also: are you suggesting I'm too, shall we say, "brown" to be a "rightie" (assuming I am, of course!)? How fucking racist of you!

    No, I am suggesting you're so obsessed with scoring points about lefties you ignore the fact a white supremacist - Steve Bannon - is now sitting on the National Security Council. Do you have to be a leftie to find that disturbing?

  • Options
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.

    It's funny how righties pretend to care about women's rights, but label feminists feminazis. I also find it puzzling that none of them seem to have a problem with a white supremacist being appointed to sit on the National Security Council. I guess it's a case of lefties are from Venus, righties are from Mars.

    What has happened Southam? You used to be absolutely shit hot at pouncing on anyone who dared describe 'the left' or 'the wwc' as a monolith, yet now throw around 'the right' like confetti, giving up the moral high ground.

    I am sorry you did not understand the point of my post :-)

    You do it a lot of the time, not just in that post

    OK.

  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,291
    edited January 2017

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.

    It's funny how righties pretend to care about women's rights, but label feminists feminazis.

    I can't quite recall calling feminists "Feminazis"! Please provide the cite, thanks!

    Just following your lead, Sunil - making sweeping statements about entire groups of people based on observations of individuals.

    I would love to point to any criticism you have made about Trump appointing a white supremacist to the National Security Council. Unfortunately, I can't. You're too busy attacking lefties.

    Who's the white supramacist on the NSC?

    Also: are you suggesting I'm too, shall we say, "brown" to be a "rightie" (assuming I am, of course!)? How fucking racist of you!

    No, I am suggesting you're so obsessed with scoring points about lefties you ignore the fact a white supremacist - Steve Bannon - is now sitting on the National Security Council. Do you have to be a leftie to find that disturbing?

    Jeez I totally missed that with all the immigrant ban "noise"...Not only put him on the NSC, downgraded the role of the director of national intelligence and military chiefs of staff...bonkers is too kind a word.

    Its actually scary as hell, as the military bods only attend when "pertinent", so lots of discussion can go on without them there or I am guess knowing.
  • Options
    Apologies Richard_Tyndall, the 1803 removal was the one I referred to; it seems that my reference source is out-of-date. My point is that it is not easy to remove a Federal Judge. Remember, it was once said that the Founding Fathers intended to create a Government of Laws but that it has turned into a Government of Lawyers.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.

    It's funny how righties pretend to care about women's rights, but label feminists feminazis.

    I can't quite recall calling feminists "Feminazis"! Please provide the cite, thanks!

    Just following your lead, Sunil - making sweeping statements about entire groups of people based on observations of individuals.

    I would love to point to any criticism you have made about Trump appointing a white supremacist to the National Security Council. Unfortunately, I can't. You're too busy attacking lefties.

    Who's the white supramacist on the NSC?

    Also: are you suggesting I'm too, shall we say, "brown" to be a "rightie" (assuming I am, of course!)? How fucking racist of you!
    Not at all. There is a long history of intolerance and right wing nationalism in "Brown" countries too.
  • Options
    Old_Hand said:

    Apologies Richard_Tyndall, the 1803 removal was the one I referred to; it seems that my reference source is out-of-date. My point is that it is not easy to remove a Federal Judge. Remember, it was once said that the Founding Fathers intended to create a Government of Laws but that it has turned into a Government of Lawyers.

    A government of lawyers sounds brilliant.
  • Options

    Old_Hand said:

    Apologies Richard_Tyndall, the 1803 removal was the one I referred to; it seems that my reference source is out-of-date. My point is that it is not easy to remove a Federal Judge. Remember, it was once said that the Founding Fathers intended to create a Government of Laws but that it has turned into a Government of Lawyers.

    A government of lawyers sounds brilliant.
    Wasn't that New Labour?
  • Options

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.

    It's funny how righties pretend to care about women's rights, but label feminists feminazis.

    I can't quite recall calling feminists "Feminazis"! Please provide the cite, thanks!

    Just following your lead, Sunil - making sweeping statements about entire groups of people based on observations of individuals.

    I would love to point to any criticism you have made about Trump appointing a white supremacist to the National Security Council. Unfortunately, I can't. You're too busy attacking lefties.

    Who's the white supramacist on the NSC?

    Also: are you suggesting I'm too, shall we say, "brown" to be a "rightie" (assuming I am, of course!)? How fucking racist of you!

    No, I am suggesting you're so obsessed with scoring points about lefties you ignore the fact a white supremacist - Steve Bannon - is now sitting on the National Security Council. Do you have to be a leftie to find that disturbing?

    Jeez I totally missed that with all the immigrant ban "noise"...Not only put him on the NSC, downgraded the role of the director of national intelligence and military chiefs of staff...bonkers is too kind a word.

    Its actually scary as hell, as the military bods only attend when "pertinent", so lots of discussion can go on without them there or I am guess knowing.

    Should the UK be sharing intelligence that someone like Bannon may see?

  • Options

    Old_Hand said:

    Apologies Richard_Tyndall, the 1803 removal was the one I referred to; it seems that my reference source is out-of-date. My point is that it is not easy to remove a Federal Judge. Remember, it was once said that the Founding Fathers intended to create a Government of Laws but that it has turned into a Government of Lawyers.

    A government of lawyers sounds brilliant.
    Wasn't that New Labour?
    Nah. The Tory party circa 1995.

    The Chancellor, Home And Foreign Secretaries were all QCs.
  • Options
    Petition goes over 850,000.
  • Options
    Ken Livingstone ain't working for Trump is he?
  • Options

    Scott_P said:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. Lefties very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not Islam.
    I find your conversion to the alt.right deeply depressing, Sunil.

    You are too smart for that bollocks.
    alt.right?

    All I wrote is:
    Strange they mention Muslim countries and women's rights in the same sentence. SJWs on socialist media very keen to criticise Trump re. sexism, but not sexism in Islam.
    Maybe I am wrong. You are not too smart for that bollocks, which is still depressing.

    It's funny how righties pretend to care about women's rights, but label feminists feminazis.

    I can't quite recall calling feminists "Feminazis"! Please provide the cite, thanks!

    Just following your lead, Sunil - making sweeping statements about entire groups of people based on observations of individuals.

    I would love to point to any criticism you have made about Trump appointing a white supremacist to the National Security Council. Unfortunately, I can't. You're too busy attacking lefties.

    Who's the white supramacist on the NSC?

    Also: are you suggesting I'm too, shall we say, "brown" to be a "rightie" (assuming I am, of course!)? How fucking racist of you!

    No, I am suggesting you're so obsessed with scoring points about lefties you ignore the fact a white supremacist - Steve Bannon - is now sitting on the National Security Council. Do you have to be a leftie to find that disturbing?

    Jeez I totally missed that with all the immigrant ban "noise"...Not only put him on the NSC, downgraded the role of the director of national intelligence and military chiefs of staff...bonkers is too kind a word.

    Its actually scary as hell, as the military bods only attend when "pertinent", so lots of discussion can go on without them there or I am guess knowing.

    Should the UK be sharing intelligence that someone like Bannon may see?

    Putting aside his personal views, regardless of him or another spinner, the answer would still be no. Those meetings aren't for the spin doctors period.
  • Options

    Ken Livingstone ain't working for Trump is he?

    When Ken does it, it's bad; when Trump does it, silence. Go figure.

  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,291
    edited January 2017

    Ken Livingstone ain't working for Trump is he?

    When Ken does it, it's bad; when Trump does it, silence. Go figure.

    To be fair, again I missed this. The immigration ban stuff is totally overwhelming all the other Trump related stuff.
  • Options

    Ken Livingstone ain't working for Trump is he?

    When Ken does it, it's bad; when Trump does it, silence. Go figure.

    To be fair, again I missed this. The immigration ban stuff is totally overwhelming all the other Trump related stuff.

    I don't see this as a left/right thing at all. Things like the ban, the Bannon appointment and the holocaust statements will disturb all decent people of whatever political persuasion. The point I have been trying to make - perhaps inexpertly - is this is not really the time for point scoring. Serious and very worrying stuff is happening. That should be the focus.

  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,291
    edited January 2017

    Ken Livingstone ain't working for Trump is he?

    When Ken does it, it's bad; when Trump does it, silence. Go figure.

    To be fair, again I missed this. The immigration ban stuff is totally overwhelming all the other Trump related stuff.

    I don't see this as a left/right thing at all. Things like the ban, the Bannon appointment and the holocaust statements will disturb all decent people of whatever political persuasion. The point I have been trying to make - perhaps inexpertly - is this is not really the time for point scoring. Serious and very worrying stuff is happening. That should be the focus.

    Don't disagree. As I say the NSC thing totally passed me by and that is seriously worrying (not that the other stuff isn't). Perhaps that is part of the plan of Team Trump.

    While eventually his ban will get seriously revised / overturned, he sneaks through a lot of other stuff e.g. Supreme Court nomination reveal has been brought forward to Tuesday.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,354
    Pong said:

    "Trump could also be invited to address the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, after May spoke to the Republican congressional leadership last week"

    Oh, I do hope so. Perhaps he could be made an honorary member of the party, as a special State Visit thing? Or judge a Miss Tory beauty contest while he's there?
  • Options
    DanSmithDanSmith Posts: 1,215
    Plenty on the right are going to be furious about that.
  • Options
    NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,354



    It's also worth noting that even if Trump does nothing, these EOs will time out in 4 months and then the world will move on, except the permanently outraged, so by June the decks will be clear.

    Can EOs be renewed (once, or even indefinitely), like the Northern Ireland mergency legislation used to be?
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,291
    edited January 2017



    It's also worth noting that even if Trump does nothing, these EOs will time out in 4 months and then the world will move on, except the permanently outraged, so by June the decks will be clear.

    Can EOs be renewed (once, or even indefinitely), like the Northern Ireland mergency legislation used to be?
    Yes.

    e.g. On July 28, 1998, the President issued Executive Order 13094, amending Executive Order 12938, to respond more effectively to the worldwide threat of weapons of mass destruction proliferation activities. On June 28, 2005, the President issued Executive Order 13382, which further amended Executive Order 12938, to improve our ability to combat proliferation.

    But in this case there will be legal challenges and probably some sort of vote on a law, and thus why I am guessing Team Trump put these initial time limits on it.
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    At some point you have to question the immigration officials.......are they mad?
  • Options
    GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071

    Ken Livingstone ain't working for Trump is he?

    When Ken does it, it's bad; when Trump does it, silence. Go figure.

    To be fair, again I missed this. The immigration ban stuff is totally overwhelming all the other Trump related stuff.

    I don't see this as a left/right thing at all. Things like the ban, the Bannon appointment and the holocaust statements will disturb all decent people of whatever political persuasion. The point I have been trying to make - perhaps inexpertly - is this is not really the time for point scoring. Serious and very worrying stuff is happening. That should be the focus.

    It must be very cold that far up on your high horse of righteousness.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    nunu said:

    At some point you have to question the immigration officials.......are they mad?
    Only following orders is the usual defence.
  • Options
    justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    midwinter said:

    HYUFD said:

    I don't agree May is more easily beatable than Cameron. I think the reverse.

    Cameron always suffered from his poshness. He was easy to portray as an arrogant, swaggering bully.

    May is a curious person. Her angularity and gawkiness contribute to a sense of vulnerability, ordinariness & even fragility. She can evoke sympathy, whereas Cameron never could.

    I think both Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon have found it harder to make progress against Theresa May than they would have done against David Cameron.

    May's rather odd personality seems to have wrong-footed them.

    Cameron looks more like a PM than May and is more charismatic and self confident but May is more personable, less posh and more hard working. In short there has been a mild shift of centrist upper middle-class voters from the Tories to the LDs matched by a slight shift of working class and lower middle-class voters from UKIP and Labour to the Tories
    There's been a shift from Labour because of Corbyn and a shift from UKIP because the referendum has made ukip pointless. To say May comes over as more personable than Cameron seems laughable. She barely beats Brown on that score.
    She's already dropped a couple of almighty bollocks..grammar schools and Trump so I'd say the jury is still out on her election prospects against anyone more electable than Jezza.
    Grammar schools has firmed up her base, it was Cameron's comments on them which annoyed the base prior to 2010. Of course Brown would likely have won the 2005 election by a wider margin than Blair did
    Cameron was simply great at thinking on his feet .... it was almost as if PMQs had been invented especially for him. On the heavyweight political issues, so not so impressive I'm afraid.
    Cameron was better at PMQs than May yes, though not as good as Hague was
    Not as good as Harold Wilson either.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,291
    edited January 2017

    nunu said:

    At some point you have to question the immigration officials.......are they mad?
    Only following orders is the usual defence.
    I believe it is a federal offense to ignore the order, hence why I haven't seen any US media criticism of those having to actually enact this.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,151
    nunu said:

    At some point you have to question the immigration officials.......are they mad?
    They're following orders.
  • Options
    rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    nunu said:

    At some point you have to question the immigration officials.......are they mad?
    Only following orders is the usual defence.
    I believe it is a federal offense to ignore the order.
    The usual qualifiers in US oaths of office is "lawful" orders. Whether these are remains to be seen.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,291
    edited January 2017
    rpjs said:

    nunu said:

    At some point you have to question the immigration officials.......are they mad?
    Only following orders is the usual defence.
    I believe it is a federal offense to ignore the order.
    The usual qualifiers in US oaths of office is "lawful" orders. Whether these are remains to be seen.
    Well yes, but if you were somebody working in that job and you know there is a possibly if you don't comply, that not only will you be sacked but could be locked up, puts you in a very difficult position.

    I would think most just hope that all this gets sorted out asap. I highly doubt any are jumping up and down with excitement at the prospect of having to detain a small kid with a valid visa.
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    edited January 2017
    isam said:
    Is this the first time you've seen that, Isam? Trump's election campaign can't be understood without reference to wrestling. He has now chosen the wife of Vince McMahon, whom he pretends to punch in that clip, as the head of his Small Business Administration.

    There's also this. Watch how Trump swaggers, holds himself, and speaks:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVxVDDYwNvU

    And this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFGTfJ4g9AQ
  • Options
    DromedaryDromedary Posts: 1,194
    DanSmith said:

    Plenty on the right are going to be furious about that.
    What a non-story!
  • Options
    AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    I assume the National Review is pro-Trump given their take on the immigrant ban ?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria

    So, what did Trump do? Did he implement his promised Muslim ban? No, far from it. He backed down dramatically from his campaign promises and instead signed an executive order dominated mainly by moderate refugee restrictions and temporary provisions aimed directly at limiting immigration from jihadist conflict zones.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    Ken Livingstone ain't working for Trump is he?

    When Ken does it, it's bad; when Trump does it, silence. Go figure.

    To be fair, again I missed this. The immigration ban stuff is totally overwhelming all the other Trump related stuff.

    I don't see this as a left/right thing at all. Things like the ban, the Bannon appointment and the holocaust statements will disturb all decent people of whatever political persuasion. The point I have been trying to make - perhaps inexpertly - is this is not really the time for point scoring. Serious and very worrying stuff is happening. That should be the focus.

    Don't disagree. As I say the NSC thing totally passed me by and that is seriously worrying (not that the other stuff isn't). Perhaps that is part of the plan of Team Trump.

    While eventually his ban will get seriously revised / overturned, he sneaks through a lot of other stuff e.g. Supreme Court nomination reveal has been brought forward to Tuesday.
    As they say, there is method to his madness. People simply don't get that - they get so invested in their violent emotional responses to his repulsive statements and actions that they cannot attribute anything intelligent (albeit amoral or immoral) to him.

    I do doubt the sustainability of his strategy. Eventually people work out how the magician diverts your attention.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034

    I assume the National Review is pro-Trump given their take on the immigrant ban ?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria

    So, what did Trump do? Did he implement his promised Muslim ban? No, far from it. He backed down dramatically from his campaign promises and instead signed an executive order dominated mainly by moderate refugee restrictions and temporary provisions aimed directly at limiting immigration from jihadist conflict zones.

    The National Review was founded by William Buckley to bring intellectual respectability to conservative policies and ideologies at a time when 'right-thinking people' just knew that conservatives weren't thinkers or respectable. As a publication, I don't think it seeks to take positions on individuals, rather it is a conduit for thinkers on the right to push their ideas.
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    This looks interesting

    http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15D14L

    Saudi Arabia's King Salman, in a phone call on Sunday with U.S. President Donald Trump, agreed to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen, a White House statement said.

    Trump, during his presidential campaign last year, had called for Gulf states to pay for establishing safe zones to protect Syrian refugees.

    A statement after the phone call said the two leaders agreed on the importance of strengthening joint efforts to fight the spread of Islamic State militants.

    "The president requested and the King agreed to support safe zones in Syria and Yemen, as well as supporting other ideas to help the many refugees who are displaced by the ongoing conflicts," the statement said....
  • Options
    PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    Uh oh

    Shooting at a mosque in Ste-Foy, Quebec. Police won't confirm fatalities, but witnesses saying between 3-10 dead: https://t.co/8bXNPtOHdm
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,022
    Sandpit said:

    dr_spyn said:

    Paul Waugh on that flight back from Turkey.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trump-refugee-ban-how-theresa-mays-us-and-turkey-trip-ended-in-political-firestorm_uk_588e503be4b077309837c96b?o45bemajuifmeu3di

    Too many people assuming that something could be said from the plane?

    The PM’s plane is a specially-adapted Airbus A330 which spends most of its time as a mid-air fuel tanker for fighter jets. Its stripped-down nature, with no onboard TVs or hi-tech gadgets seen on a commercial airliner, is a far cry from the round-the-clock communications of Trump’s Air Force One. It has just one satellite phone, and no wifi or means of monitoring what’s happening online.

    In this day and age, that's a bit shit to put it mildly. And I presume this is the Dave Force One that they spent a load of money adapting only a year or so ago.

    No need for the old journos to be able to enjoy 4k movies while they fly, but the PM and her team to have the old interwebs access might be kinder useful...
    Yes, it's one of the RAF Voyager A330-based refullers, with a business class section at the front for the VIPs. It's been operational in that role for a year or so.

    Either it's a massive extravagance in the era of defence cuts, or a huge cut down from the proposed "Blair Force One" of a few years back, depending on your point of view. I'm not surprised it doesn't look like Emirates or Singapore inside, without satellite wifi for a dozen hacks in the cheap seats. I bet they can patch the PM to the President if required though ;)

    Govt VIP long haul flights used to be chartered from BA or Virgin, but the commercial airlines were finding it increasingly difficult to get aircraft available, often at the short notice required - they spend millions on fleet management to avoid having spare planes they don't need!
    The should re-equip 32(TR) squadron with a pair of Global 8000s for May/HMtQ/Royals and their associated retinues. Crew them with otherwise under-employed Sentinel crews from 5(AC) and let the pissed hacks find their own way to wherever.
This discussion has been closed.