Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Irrespective of whether there’s an impeachment move it’s going

SystemSystem Posts: 12,173
edited August 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Irrespective of whether there’s an impeachment move it’s going to be harder for Trump to win again at WH2020

Three points about Trump:1) Virtually no one who didn't vote for Trump in 2016 is for him today;2) About 37% of Trump's 2016 voters are ambivalent about him and are far from hard core;3) Cohen's implication of Trump will have a corrosive effect on those ambivalent Trump voters

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • I don’t know.

    I’d expect him to face a serious primary challenge and win.

    He’s got Corbynite levels of support from his own supporters.
  • Was that a primus inter pares?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Was that a primus inter pares?

    I came before you on the previous thread...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728
    Scott_P said:

    Was that a primus inter pares?

    I came before you on the previous thread...
    Most of us are still hard at it over there.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,015
    Teeny Trump connection, but funny nontheless.

    https://twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/1032634313194393601
  • FPT

    Mr. Eagles, I stand corrected. On that narrow point. You'll have to forgive me for being less well-informed than I'd like, I had to get the news from the internet because the state broadcaster didn't bother providing it.

    You sound like a Corbynite.

    Demanding news you only approve of, which must appeal to your incorrect understanding of the facts.

    As for the stabbing story it appears to be not the usual modus operandi.

    He’s reportedly killed family members.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    I agree. Whilst he will retain, most likely, strong support from his base, swing voters will swing away and the Democrat candidate in 2020 is unlikely to repeat Clinton's mistakes of insulting half the electorate and not marshalling sufficient resources in swing states.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Mr. Eagles, aye. He murdered some people in public, with a knife, after shouting "Allahu Akbar".

    Corbyn backs state regulation of the press. I don't.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Anazina said:

    Brilliant.

    "If they got rid of me then everyone would be very poor."

    The reporter then allows him to completely go off on a tangent and talk about trade with China (her involvement in this 'interview' being statistically zero).
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Mr. Eagles, aye. He murdered some people in public, with a knife, after shouting "Allahu Akbar".

    Given the details, I think this is one such case which is far from clear cut. Some might say you jumped on it to suit your own agenda, and have now come somewhat unstuck.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I’ve by and large steered clear of Trump markets, but I quite like this way of playing. By laying Donald Trump for the nomination you win if he is impeached, chooses not to stand again or is defeated in the nomination process.

    One big drawback for the Republicans about this week’s news is that every candidate is going to have to take a view on the appropriateness of the impeachment process before the mid term elections. That’s easy for Democrats, who need only find some form of words along the lines of “it looks like there’s a case to answer”, but Republicans will have to decide whether to cut him loose, look weaselly or give hostages to fortune. Looking weaselly isn’t usually a vote-winner.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Scott_P said:
    All about the hills the hosts of Mordor are gearing up to rage.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    Ah, thanks for letting me know.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631
    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.

    A Special Prosecutor’s enquiry, surely?
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.

    A Special Prosecutor’s enquiry, surely?
    This is the kind of thing we'll have to get used to when TSE is the Peoples' Website Administrator 1st class.
  • How can we judge the prospects for Trump without knowing the Democrat opponent?

    Seems likely Trump's opponent could have little name recognition.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728
    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
  • BBC News says "GCSE results rise despite tougher exams".

    Oxymoron or just moron?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    edited August 2018
    A factor to consider in the nomination market is whether California's decision to move their primaries to Super Tuesday (1st Monday in March) rather than in June will have an effect. It's a lot of delegates from a state which for the last couple of elections has been too late to have much impact.

    Admittedly, Trump's ratings amongst Republicans in CA aren't too bad (they're dire amongst Californian voters in general, of course), but I would have thought the state wouldn't be as reliable for Trump as some of the other early ones.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/early-2020-california-primary-could-affect-republicans-too.html

    A lot may depend on the exact rules for the primaries, which haven't been decided yet.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,389

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    £125 I'm pleased to say.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    COTN (curse of the new thread):

    Sandpit said:


    That’s like the friend who was running late for an interview and had a massive row with someone in the office car park over the last available space. You can guess the rest.

    I had the opposite experience. Went for a job at a start-up and bumped into this young guy with a massive green mohawk scuffy clothes outside, presumed he was also there for the job and we had a nice chat for 10-15 mins.

    Half an hour later, the HR lady took me through to be introduced to the owner of the company, mr green mohawk. Suffice to say I got the job.
    I once fell asleep in the interview process. The IT project had run into deep trouble and the CEO asked me to go to a project team meeting to understand the position. The (departing) project leader was incredibly bureaucratic and we spent four hours discussing trivia - was the issue on column headers raised under point 5 or point 6? I'd had a late night the day before and I dozed off twice.

    Next day, the CEO invited me to discuss it, and said "You didn't seem very interested, frankly." Nothing to lose, I thought, so I said irritably, "Do you want someone to fix your project or do you want someone who likes long meetings?"

    I got the job.
    I started my career in pressing random keys on computers and seeing what worked through a graduate entry programme for the IT department of a large county council in the south of England. This being back in the day before every university and college down to and including the University of Bolton churned out thousands of CompSci graduates every year, the council was willing to consider candidates of any degree background and there was a full-day assessment to get in. One of the other candidates really stood out: confident, personable, well qualified (he had a master's in IT). A bit full of himself but whatevs. I chatted with him at the station afterwards while waiting for my train back to the Grim North. As his train to that London came in I wished him luck, and he replied "I won't wish you luck. I really need a job and haven't been able to get one." "Knob" I thought to myself but I let it go.

    Somewhat to my surprise I got on the programme, and Mr Knob didn't. I had a chance to talk to one of the selectors not long after I started and I mentioned that I thought Mr Knob would have been a shoe-in. "Oh yes, him." came the reply. "After lunch, he was in the gents and was saying to one of the other candidates something along the lines of how we're a noddy outfit and as soon as he'd done a couple of years here he'd be off to the private sector. What he didn't know was that [one of the IT dept's senior managers] was there as well and immediately after went to tell us not to select him!"
  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    One thing that is worth bearing in mind is that a POTUS can serve for a maximum of 10 years. If Trump is removed from office before 20th January 2019, then President Pence would be eligible to be re-elected in 2020 for a full term from 2021-25. If Trump is removed after 20th January 2019, Pence could be re-elected for 2 full terms from 2021-2029.
  • John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.

    A Special Prosecutor’s enquiry, surely?
    This is the kind of thing we'll have to get used to when TSE is the Peoples' Website Administrator 1st class.
    You will be exiled to Glasgow for misuse of an apostrophe.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Not 3.9 million EU citizens - 30 million:

    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1032628559423188992
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,752

    Scott_P said:
    All about the hills the hosts of Mordor are gearing up to rage.
    Clear evidence of collusion between Hammond and Morgan.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    Not 3.9 million EU citizens - 30 million:

    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1032628559423188992

    Does HMG really want to tout for runs on banks?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Mr. Loony, cheers for posting that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426

    BBC News says "GCSE results rise despite tougher exams".

    Oxymoron or just moron?

    It's a nonsensical sentence anyway. I think they mean 'average grades rise despite tougher exams.'

    In case anyone is wondering that doesn't seem to have been true for History or at any rate not with the board I work with. The marks are shockingly low across the country. Something to do with a failed civil servant now head of OFSTED having comprehensively buggered up the markscheme.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    I dare say that those who supported his election are too embarrassed to admit it now, if that's what you are driving at.

    P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories.

    Yes, that accounts for Trump's success over Clinton but my question was about whether those who *supported* him still do so.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,389
    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    I dare say that those who supported his election are too embarrassed to admit it now, if that's what you are driving at.

    P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories.

    Yes, that accounts for Trump's success over Clinton but my question was about whether those who *supported* him still do so.
    As far as one can tell, the large majority do. He won 46% of the vote, and his approval rating is 43%.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Scott_P said:
    7.7% lower in 15 years time.........in other words 'we'll never know'......

    How good were treasury forecasts for - oh I dunno - 2 years out from the referendum?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    edited August 2018
    Re Trumptons, we went out with some friends last night (ELO at Madison Square Garden - brilliant, go see them when their tour hits the UK). He's a standard NY liberal, but she's a Trumpista, even though she really despises Trump as a man. She's all about trying to overthrow the "Deep State" though which is why she still supports him in that at least. To be honest, I think she just likes being a contrarian.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    Not 3.9 million EU citizens - 30 million:

    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1032628559423188992

    Does HMG really want to tout for runs on banks?
    Or encourage the EU to get its act together?
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    rpjs said:

    COTN (curse of the new thread):

    Sandpit said:


    That’s like the friend who was running late for an interview and had a massive row with someone in the office car park over the last available space. You can guess the rest.

    I had the opposite experience. Went for a job at a start-up and bumped into this young guy with a massive green mohawk scuffy clothes outside, presumed he was also there for the job and we had a nice chat for 10-15 mins.

    Half an hour later, the HR lady took me through to be introduced to the owner of the company, mr green mohawk. Suffice to say I got the job.
    I once fell asleep in the interview process. The IT project had run into deep trouble and the CEO asked me to go to a project team meeting to understand the position. The (departing) project leader was incredibly bureaucratic and we spent four hours discussing trivia - was the issue on column headers raised under point 5 or point 6? I'd had a late night the day before and I dozed off twice.

    Next day, the CEO invited me to discuss it, and said "You didn't seem very interested, frankly." Nothing to lose, I thought, so I said irritably, "Do you want someone to fix your project or do you want someone who likes long meetings?"

    I got the job.
    snip

    Somewhat to my surprise I got on the programme, and Mr Knob didn't. I had a chance to talk to one of the selectors not long after I started and I mentioned that I thought Mr Knob would have been a shoe-in. "Oh yes, him." came the reply. "After lunch, he was in the gents and was saying to one of the other candidates something along the lines of how we're a noddy outfit and as soon as he'd done a couple of years here he'd be off to the private sector. What he didn't know was that [one of the IT dept's senior managers] was there as well and immediately after went to tell us not to select him!"
    That's a great story. Two of the best pieces of advice I ever had on job interviews came from the same postgrad tutor:

    1. Always chat to the receptionist as the person interviewing you is 90% certain to ask her what she thought of the candidates.

    2. Never comment upon or discuss the interview in person or by telephone until at least one full mile away from the place in which the interview took place.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728
    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    I dare say that those who supported his election are too embarrassed to admit it now, if that's what you are driving at.

    P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories.

    Yes, that accounts for Trump's success over Clinton but my question was about whether those who *supported* him still do so.
    No. It's that I don't think there were many supporters of Trump on here - at least in the wild-eyed, non-betting 'Trumpton' way. But this is a betting website, and it is sometimes wise to consider what the chances of something happening are, even if you don't want it to.

    And by 'Plato' I was referring to a poster who loved cats and was, at one time, poster of the year. She became a rather strong Trump fan.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Australia headed for 'ugly' election based on race, warns Julia Gillard

    Former Labor PM says Liberal leadership crisis is part of worrying trend in global politics"

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/23/australia-headed-for-ugly-election-based-on-race-warns-julia-gillard
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    I dare say that those who supported his election are too embarrassed to admit it now, if that's what you are driving at.

    P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories.

    Yes, that accounts for Trump's success over Clinton but my question was about whether those who *supported* him still do so.
    There are, as far as I am aware, no Trump supporters here. This is a decent board, for decent people. There are quite a few who can explain why his support is so robust, but that hardly counts as endorsement of the orangey philanderer.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,751
    "A key factor in the primary process is that in many states voters can choose which party primary election to take part in. That’s the rule that applies in New Hampshire and you could see independents and Democrats voting for the most likely stop-Trump contender."

    I agree, but only in the sense that the most likely stop-Trump contender will be a Democrat.

    Trump's base is big and solid. It's not big enough to deliver him a general election but it is big enough to deliver him the nomination in a primary process which is traditionally low-turnout. Would independents and Democrats really forego the chance to vote in the Democrat primaries - which are likely to be much more closely contested - to vote in the GOP race for an as-yet unknown alternative? i doubt it. I'd expect that Trump's core will be more than formidable enough to deter alternatives, unless there is a lot of impeachable evidence floating about.

    We've also got to remember the precedents that challenges to sitting presidents are rare and successful challenges are even rarer.

    No sitting president has faced any meaningful challenge since Bush-41, and that's pushing the definitions (Buchanan won no states but did come within 16 points in New Hampshire, before slowly fading).

    You have to go back to Johnson in 1968 to find the last time a president was forced out by a primary challenge (though Johnson might still have won had he not withdrawn), and - I think - back to the 19th century for the last case of a president who fought through being ousted (though Harding might have been had he not died, as might Theodore Roosevelt, had Hanna not died - but they were not contests governed by primaries).

    To my mind, by far the best strategy for independents and Democrats is making sure the Democrat candidate is the strongest possible. It would be a tragedy if sensible centrist voters eschewed the Democrat race to vote against Trump, who then not only won the nomination anyway but then went on to defeat Sanders, who was let in on the other side by accident.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    I dare say that those who supported his election are too embarrassed to admit it now, if that's what you are driving at.

    P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories.

    Yes, that accounts for Trump's success over Clinton but my question was about whether those who *supported* him still do so.
    No. It's that I don't think there were many supporters of Trump on here - at least in the wild-eyed, non-betting 'Trumpton' way. But this is a betting website, and it is sometimes wise to consider what the chances of something happening are, even if you don't want it to.

    And by 'Plato' I was referring to a poster who loved cats and was, at one time, poster of the year. She became a rather strong Trump fan.
    Well you are preaching to the converted there as I made my biggest betting wins ever by backing Trump and Brexit. Indeed I only ever back outcomes I don't personally favour – whether that be in sport or politics.

    However, I demur from your view that there aren't Trump supporters (as opposed to backers) on here. There are. They might not admit it now, but that is a different matter.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    "A key factor in the primary process is that in many states voters can choose which party primary election to take part in. That’s the rule that applies in New Hampshire and you could see independents and Democrats voting for the most likely stop-Trump contender."

    I agree, but only in the sense that the most likely stop-Trump contender will be a Democrat.

    Trump's base is big and solid. It's not big enough to deliver him a general election but it is big enough to deliver him the nomination in a primary process which is traditionally low-turnout. Would independents and Democrats really forego the chance to vote in the Democrat primaries - which are likely to be much more closely contested - to vote in the GOP race for an as-yet unknown alternative? i doubt it. I'd expect that Trump's core will be more than formidable enough to deter alternatives, unless there is a lot of impeachable evidence floating about.

    We've also got to remember the precedents that challenges to sitting presidents are rare and successful challenges are even rarer.

    No sitting president has faced any meaningful challenge since Bush-41, and that's pushing the definitions (Buchanan won no states but did come within 16 points in New Hampshire, before slowly fading).

    You have to go back to Johnson in 1968 to find the last time a president was forced out by a primary challenge (though Johnson might still have won had he not withdrawn), and - I think - back to the 19th century for the last case of a president who fought through being ousted (though Harding might have been had he not died, as might Theodore Roosevelt, had Hanna not died - but they were not contests governed by primaries).

    To my mind, by far the best strategy for independents and Democrats is making sure the Democrat candidate is the strongest possible. It would be a tragedy if sensible centrist voters eschewed the Democrat race to vote against Trump, who then not only won the nomination anyway but then went on to defeat Sanders, who was let in on the other side by accident.

    Another thing to throw into the mix is that some liberal states have passed or are considering laws requiring Presidential candidates to release their tax returns in order to get on the ballot. As the states have a lot of leeway about how they conduct their elections, that could get very interesting.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Anazina said:

    However, I demur from your view that there aren't Trump supporters (as opposed to backers) on here. There are. They might not admit it now, but that is a different matter.

    Why shouldn't there be? This is not a site for Democratic Party supporters only. We have a wide range of views here, a few quite extreme. We even have some who admit to supporting Corbyn.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728

    Anazina said:

    However, I demur from your view that there aren't Trump supporters (as opposed to backers) on here. There are. They might not admit it now, but that is a different matter.

    Why shouldn't there be? This is not a site for Democratic Party supporters only. We have a wide range of views here, a few quite extreme. We even have some who admit to supporting Corbyn.
    BURN THEM!
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    However, I demur from your view that there aren't Trump supporters (as opposed to backers) on here. There are. They might not admit it now, but that is a different matter.

    Why shouldn't there be? This is not a site for Democratic Party supporters only. We have a wide range of views here, a few quite extreme. We even have some who admit to supporting Corbyn.
    Where did I say there shouldn't be?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,936
    edited August 2018

    Anazina said:

    However, I demur from your view that there aren't Trump supporters (as opposed to backers) on here. There are. They might not admit it now, but that is a different matter.

    Why shouldn't there be? This is not a site for Democratic Party supporters only. We have a wide range of views here, a few quite extreme. We even have some who admit to supporting Corbyn.
    Just don't ask about their views on pineapple pizza... or AV....
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728
    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    I dare say that those who supported his election are too embarrassed to admit it now, if that's what you are driving at.

    P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories.

    Yes, that accounts for Trump's success over Clinton but my question was about whether those who *supported* him still do so.
    No. It's that I don't think there were many supporters of Trump on here - at least in the wild-eyed, non-betting 'Trumpton' way. But this is a betting website, and it is sometimes wise to consider what the chances of something happening are, even if you don't want it to.

    And by 'Plato' I was referring to a poster who loved cats and was, at one time, poster of the year. She became a rather strong Trump fan.
    (Snip)

    However, I demur from your view that there aren't Trump supporters (as opposed to backers) on here. There are. They might not admit it now, but that is a different matter.
    You should re-read what I wrote.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Mr. Jessop, will you not think of the carbon emissions?

    The solar death ray was perfected for just such eventualities.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487
    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    I dare say that those who supported his election are too embarrassed to admit it now, if that's what you are driving at.

    P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories.

    Yes, that accounts for Trump's success over Clinton but my question was about whether those who *supported* him still do so.
    As far as one can tell, the large majority do. He won 46% of the vote, and his approval rating is 43%.
    Indeed. Hence why I am fielding views from such people on PB.

    I am being assured that there are no Trump supporters on here, which I am fairly sure is complete rubbish, but there we are.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,015
    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    I dare say that those who supported his election are too embarrassed to admit it now, if that's what you are driving at.

    P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories.

    Yes, that accounts for Trump's success over Clinton but my question was about whether those who *supported* him still do so.
    I rather think the effusions on here over Tessy holding Trump's hand were more embarrassing.
  • David_EvershedDavid_Evershed Posts: 6,506
    edited August 2018
    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    I dare say that those who supported his election are too embarrassed to admit it now, if that's what you are driving at.

    P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories.

    Yes, that accounts for Trump's success over Clinton but my question was about whether those who *supported* him still do so.
    No. It's that I don't think there were many supporters of Trump on here - at least in the wild-eyed, non-betting 'Trumpton' way. But this is a betting website, and it is sometimes wise to consider what the chances of something happening are, even if you don't want it to.

    And by 'Plato' I was referring to a poster who loved cats and was, at one time, poster of the year. She became a rather strong Trump fan.
    Well you are preaching to the converted there as I made my biggest betting wins ever by backing Trump and Brexit. Indeed I only ever back outcomes I don't personally favour – whether that be in sport or politics.

    However, I demur from your view that there aren't Trump supporters (as opposed to backers) on here. There are. They might not admit it now, but that is a different matter.

    My investments are mostly in US equities, which have prospered under Trump.

    So I back Trump - but don't live in the USA.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    "A key factor in the primary process is that in many states voters can choose which party primary election to take part in. That’s the rule that applies in New Hampshire and you could see independents and Democrats voting for the most likely stop-Trump contender."

    I agree, but only in the sense that the most likely stop-Trump contender will be a Democrat.

    Trump's base is big and solid. It's not big enough to deliver him a general election but it is big enough to deliver him the nomination in a primary process which is traditionally low-turnout. Would independents and Democrats really forego the chance to vote in the Democrat primaries - which are likely to be much more closely contested - to vote in the GOP race for an as-yet unknown alternative? i doubt it. I'd expect that Trump's core will be more than formidable enough to deter alternatives, unless there is a lot of impeachable evidence floating about.

    We've also got to remember the precedents that challenges to sitting presidents are rare and successful challenges are even rarer.

    No sitting president has faced any meaningful challenge since Bush-41, and that's pushing the definitions (Buchanan won no states but did come within 16 points in New Hampshire, before slowly fading).

    You have to go back to Johnson in 1968 to find the last time a president was forced out by a primary challenge (though Johnson might still have won had he not withdrawn), and - I think - back to the 19th century for the last case of a president who fought through being ousted (though Harding might have been had he not died, as might Theodore Roosevelt, had Hanna not died - but they were not contests governed by primaries).

    To my mind, by far the best strategy for independents and Democrats is making sure the Democrat candidate is the strongest possible. It would be a tragedy if sensible centrist voters eschewed the Democrat race to vote against Trump, who then not only won the nomination anyway but then went on to defeat Sanders, who was let in on the other side by accident.

    Spot on.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,015

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.

    A Special Prosecutor’s enquiry, surely?
    This is the kind of thing we'll have to get used to when TSE is the Peoples' Website Administrator 1st class.
    You will be exiled to Glasgow for misuse of an apostrophe.
    There's a Hobbs in Glasgow so not quite the Gulag.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    I dare say that those who supported his election are too embarrassed to admit it now, if that's what you are driving at.

    P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories.

    Yes, that accounts for Trump's success over Clinton but my question was about whether those who *supported* him still do so.
    No. It's that I don't think there were many supporters of Trump on here - at least in the wild-eyed, non-betting 'Trumpton' way. But this is a betting website, and it is sometimes wise to consider what the chances of something happening are, even if you don't want it to.

    And by 'Plato' I was referring to a poster who loved cats and was, at one time, poster of the year. She became a rather strong Trump fan.
    Well you are preaching to the converted there as I made my biggest betting wins ever by backing Trump and Brexit. Indeed I only ever back outcomes I don't personally favour – whether that be in sport or politics.

    However, I demur from your view that there aren't Trump supporters (as opposed to backers) on here. There are. They might not admit it now, but that is a different matter.

    My investments are mostly in US equities, which have prospered under Trump.

    So I back Trump - but don't live in the USA.
    Fair enough.

    I didn't specify that the poster had to live in the US.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728
    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    I dare say that those who supported his election are too embarrassed to admit it now, if that's what you are driving at.

    P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories.

    Yes, that accounts for Trump's success over Clinton but my question was about whether those who *supported* him still do so.
    As far as one can tell, the large majority do. He won 46% of the vote, and his approval rating is 43%.
    Indeed. Hence why I am fielding views from such people on PB.

    I am being assured that there are no Trump supporters on here, which I am fairly sure is complete rubbish, but there we are.
    I didn't say that:

    "As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm"

    By Trumptons, I mean the wild-eyed followers of the orange one, who think they can do little wrong.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,752
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    Jewish humour. Famously short on irony.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.

    A Special Prosecutor’s enquiry, surely?
    This is the kind of thing we'll have to get used to when TSE is the Peoples' Website Administrator 1st class.
    You will be exiled to Glasgow for misuse of an apostrophe.
    There's a Hobbs in Glasgow so not quite the Gulag.
    I like Glasgow.

    They gave me a free pudding last time I was there.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    I dare say that those who supported his election are too embarrassed to admit it now, if that's what you are driving at.

    P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories.

    Yes, that accounts for Trump's success over Clinton but my question was about whether those who *supported* him still do so.
    As far as one can tell, the large majority do. He won 46% of the vote, and his approval rating is 43%.
    Indeed. Hence why I am fielding views from such people on PB.

    I am being assured that there are no Trump supporters on here, which I am fairly sure is complete rubbish, but there we are.
    I didn't say that:

    "As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm"

    By Trumptons, I mean the wild-eyed followers of the orange one, who think they can do little wrong.

    Fair enough – even so it's perhaps telling that only one poster will admit to still supporting this guy.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
    That is shocking even by Corbyn's standards.
  • Jewish humour. Famously short on irony.

    You are being ironic of course.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728
    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    Sean_F said:

    Anazina said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    Anazina said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.


    What do Trumptons like you think of Trumpton currently? Still supporting him?
    What? I'm a Trumpton?
    You are a supporter of Trump.
    I think you're a little off target there.

    As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm - Plato was one, but most people seem to be looking at the betting implications rather than slavish followers of the orange one.

    (and it should be remembered that Plato was right - even if I doubt she was right for the right reasons. People on here made money from Trump's win.)
    I dare say that those who supported his election are too embarrassed to admit it now, if that's what you are driving at.

    P.S. I assume you refer to Plato's teaching that only a small proportion of human beings are engaged by reasoned discourse, but that the multitude are attracted by the telling of stories.

    Yes, that accounts for Trump's success over Clinton but my question was about whether those who *supported* him still do so.
    As far as one can tell, the large majority do. He won 46% of the vote, and his approval rating is 43%.
    Indeed. Hence why I am fielding views from such people on PB.

    I am being assured that there are no Trump supporters on here, which I am fairly sure is complete rubbish, but there we are.
    I didn't say that:

    "As it happens, I'm unsure there are many (any?) 'Trumptons' on the site atm"

    By Trumptons, I mean the wild-eyed followers of the orange one, who think they can do little wrong.

    Fair enough – even so it's perhaps telling that only one poster will admit to still supporting this guy.
    Are you the Trumpsmeller pursuivant ? :)
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
    That is shocking even by Corbyn's standards.
    I’m being dense but what is he alluding to?
  • ydoethur said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.

    A Special Prosecutor’s enquiry, surely?
    This is the kind of thing we'll have to get used to when TSE is the Peoples' Website Administrator 1st class.
    You will be exiled to Glasgow for misuse of an apostrophe.
    There's a Hobbs in Glasgow so not quite the Gulag.
    I like Glasgow.

    They gave me a free pudding last time I was there.
    With or without a Glasgow kiss?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728
    Hmmm. It looks as though it's going to be easier to discuss Corbyn from now on.

    I won't have to add 'passive' in front of 'anti-Semite' when discussing him.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    edited August 2018

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
    That is shocking even by Corbyn's standards.
    Pah all water off a duck's back.

    It is absolutely bizarre - what other senior politician, let alone leader of a mainstream Party has taken such a sustained and profound interest in the situation of another country?

    For me looking at him in front of the conference logo (Palestinian something plus the same in arabic) is as telling as anything he said which, as you note, is shocking even by his standards.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773
    Thats pretty sickening from Corbyn.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
    That is shocking even by Corbyn's standards.
    I’m being dense but what is he alluding to?
    Irony and history, I think.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,631

    Scott_P said:
    7.7% lower in 15 years time.........in other words 'we'll never know'......

    How good were treasury forecasts for - oh I dunno - 2 years out from the referendum?
    Given that they can’t get forecasts close to right from one month to the next in recent times, how anyone believes forecasts fifteen years ahead I have no idea.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
    That is shocking even by Corbyn's standards.
    I’m being dense but what is he alluding to?
    He is alluding to the fact that Zionists (what race/religion they?) are not proper Englishmen, despite having lived here, some of them, their whole lives.

    I wonder if he would prefer it if they all were sent back whence they came?
  • TOPPING said:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
    That is shocking even by Corbyn's standards.
    I’m being dense but what is he alluding to?
    He is alluding to the fact that Zionists (what race/religion they?) are not proper Englishmen, despite having lived here, some of them, their whole lives.

    I wonder if he would prefer it if they all were sent back whence they came?
    Brilliant.
  • John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.

    A Special Prosecutor’s enquiry, surely?
    This is the kind of thing we'll have to get used to when TSE is the Peoples' Website Administrator 1st class.
    You will be exiled to Glasgow for misuse of an apostrophe.
    There's a Hobbs in Glasgow so not quite the Gulag.
    Due to a scheduling SNAFU I ended up in Glasgow for an hour whilst en route to Edinburgh.

    It was a culture shock for me.

    I can understand a Glaswegian accent, but Lord, I cannot understand when two or more Glaswegians start talking to each other.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773
    edited August 2018

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
    That is shocking even by Corbyn's standards.
    I’m being dense but what is he alluding to?
    Presumably, although not certain is he is refering to the holocaust in both cases, that 'zionists' didnt study what happened in WW2 and the irony of them (zionist, doing to the palastinians what the nazis did to Jews). At least thats how I read it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,871
    Anazina said:

    "A key factor in the primary process is that in many states voters can choose which party primary election to take part in. That’s the rule that applies in New Hampshire and you could see independents and Democrats voting for the most likely stop-Trump contender."

    I agree, but only in the sense that the most likely stop-Trump contender will be a Democrat.

    Trump's base is big and solid. It's not big enough to deliver him a general election but it is big enough to deliver him the nomination in a primary process which is traditionally low-turnout. Would independents and Democrats really forego the chance to vote in the Democrat primaries - which are likely to be much more closely contested - to vote in the GOP race for an as-yet unknown alternative? i doubt it. I'd expect that Trump's core will be more than formidable enough to deter alternatives, unless there is a lot of impeachable evidence floating about.

    We've also got to remember the precedents that challenges to sitting presidents are rare and successful challenges are even rarer.

    No sitting president has faced any meaningful challenge since Bush-41, and that's pushing the definitions (Buchanan won no states but did come within 16 points in New Hampshire, before slowly fading).

    You have to go back to Johnson in 1968 to find the last time a president was forced out by a primary challenge (though Johnson might still have won had he not withdrawn), and - I think - back to the 19th century for the last case of a president who fought through being ousted (though Harding might have been had he not died, as might Theodore Roosevelt, had Hanna not died - but they were not contests governed by primaries).

    To my mind, by far the best strategy for independents and Democrats is making sure the Democrat candidate is the strongest possible. It would be a tragedy if sensible centrist voters eschewed the Democrat race to vote against Trump, who then not only won the nomination anyway but then went on to defeat Sanders, who was let in on the other side by accident.

    Spot on.
    It will be interesting to see how the pressure from the upcoming generation for radical change plays out against the electoral need to play to the centre to beat Trump.
  • http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
    That is shocking even by Corbyn's standards.
    I’m being dense but what is he alluding to?
    Jews/Zionists cannot have a loyalty to England/The UK because their real loyalty is to Israel.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426

    ydoethur said:

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.

    A Special Prosecutor’s enquiry, surely?
    This is the kind of thing we'll have to get used to when TSE is the Peoples' Website Administrator 1st class.
    You will be exiled to Glasgow for misuse of an apostrophe.
    There's a Hobbs in Glasgow so not quite the Gulag.
    I like Glasgow.

    They gave me a free pudding last time I was there.
    With or without a Glasgow kiss?
    No kisses of any description were offered.

    Just sticky toffee pudding.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    TOPPING said:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
    That is shocking even by Corbyn's standards.
    Pah all water off a duck's back.

    It is absolutely bizarre - what other senior politician, let alone leader of a mainstream Party has taken such a sustained and profound interest in the situation of another country?

    For me looking at him in front of the conference logo (Palestinian something plus the same in arabic) is as telling as anything he said which, as you note, is shocking even by his standards.
    What is even more interesting is that one of the speakers at that conference was someone even the Palestinians subsequently chose to disassociate from, a woman, because of her links to white supremacists. It would seem that Palestinians have higher standards than Corbyn.

    Corbyn - and people like him - were nailed by Albert Camus many decades ago -

    "Mistaken ideas always end in bloodshed but in every case it is someone else's blood . That is why some of our thinkers feel free to say just about anything."

    (Though one should perhaps add the phrase “and support” after “say” in that quote.

    The late Tony Judt also had the measure of people like Corbyn and Milne and McDonnell:

    "Totalitarianism of the Left, much like an earlier totalitarianism of the Right, was about violence and power and control, and it appealed because of these features, not in spite of them."

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,752
    TOPPING said:

    For me looking at him in front of the conference logo (Palestinian something plus the same in arabic) is as telling as anything he said which, as you note, is shocking even by his standards.

    The logo is the "Palestinian Return Centre" which is dedicated to "securing the restoration of usurped Palestinian national rights".

    https://prc.org.uk/en/page/3920/our-values
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426

    TOPPING said:

    For me looking at him in front of the conference logo (Palestinian something plus the same in arabic) is as telling as anything he said which, as you note, is shocking even by his standards.

    The logo is the "Palestinian Return Centre" which is dedicated to "securing the restoration of usurped Palestinian national rights".

    https://prc.org.uk/en/page/3920/our-values
    Perhaps he thought it was being ironic and actually it was an organisation devoted to the restoration of the Jews to the land they were driven from in antiquity?

    Maybe that's what his remarks were a reference to.

    Or maybe he's just as thick as pigshit.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the British-Iranian woman sentenced to five years in jail in Iran for spying, has been temporarily released from prison for the first time in more than two years.

    Zaghari-Ratcliffe, whose plight touched the nation and left a shadow hanging over Iran-UK relations, was given a three-day furlough on Thursday morning in a move that took her and her family by surprise.

    She has since been reunited with her four-year-old daughter, Gabriella, who has been in the care of her Iranian family since she was 22-months-old.


    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/aug/23/nazanin-zaghari-ratcliffe-freed-temporarily-from-iran-jail
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,728

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.

    A Special Prosecutor’s enquiry, surely?
    This is the kind of thing we'll have to get used to when TSE is the Peoples' Website Administrator 1st class.
    You will be exiled to Glasgow for misuse of an apostrophe.
    There's a Hobbs in Glasgow so not quite the Gulag.
    Due to a scheduling SNAFU I ended up in Glasgow for an hour whilst en route to Edinburgh.

    It was a culture shock for me.

    I can understand a Glaswegian accent, but Lord, I cannot understand when two or more Glaswegians start talking to each other.
    A couple of weeks ago I did two walks through Glasgow, and really enjoyed it. The Kelvin Walkway is superb, and it's hard to believe it's in the heart of the city.

    As for the accent: I once had a Glaswegian colleague (whose name was 'Scott'). His accent was so thick that none of our foreign customers could understand him, so I had to be in on the conference call to translate. It was hard enough for me at times, especially if he got animated.

    He was a great bloke.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited August 2018
    Apols if already posted but its adieu to the Sunday Herald
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotlan
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
    That is shocking even by Corbyn's standards.
    I’m being dense but what is he alluding to?
    Jews/Zionists cannot have a loyalty to England/The UK because their real loyalty is to Israel.
    What’s worse I think is the assumption that many British Zionists may not have been born here and, even if they have, they are somehow not properly British.

    Imagine if someone were to say that about black people who had come here from the West Indies as children - that they didn’t somehow understand some bit of the British character - despite living here most of their lives.

    And to accuse Jews of not wanting to study history is utterly bizarre. If anything, it is precisely because Jews have a very acute sense of history that they are so simultaneously defensive about what they have and, In Israel, so aggressive towards others who also have a claim.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,426
    Cyclefree said:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
    That is shocking even by Corbyn's standards.
    I’m being dense but what is he alluding to?
    Jews/Zionists cannot have a loyalty to England/The UK because their real loyalty is to Israel.
    What’s worse I think is the assumption that many British Zionists may not have been born here and, even if they have, they are somehow not properly British.

    Imagine if someone were to say that about black people who had come here from the West Indies as children - that they didn’t somehow understand some bit of the British character - despite living here most of their lives.

    And to accuse Jews of not wanting to study history is utterly bizarre. If anything, it is precisely because Jews have a very acute sense of history that they are so simultaneously defensive about what they have and, In Israel, so aggressive towards others who also have a claim.
    It's also somewhat ironic given Corbyn has employed a notorious Irving-style falsifier of history as his press secretary.
  • AnazinaAnazina Posts: 3,487

    Apols if already posted but its adieu to the Sunday Herald.

    To be replaced by the Herald on Sunday.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,389
    You might encounter them at a party function.
  • Am I missing something here?

    I thought donations/subs were free from tax?

    https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/1032507732820221952
  • Sean_F said:
    Am fairly certain Mrs May will expel them when they do something stupid/offensive.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,773

    Am I missing something here?

    I thought donations/subs were free from tax?

    https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/1032507732820221952

    Yes, but they goaded LabourHQ in using the exact same line as Amazon do on their tax affairs.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    John_M said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    TSE first? I’m calling for a full judge-led inquiry.

    A Special Prosecutor’s enquiry, surely?
    This is the kind of thing we'll have to get used to when TSE is the Peoples' Website Administrator 1st class.
    You will be exiled to Glasgow for misuse of an apostrophe.
    There's a Hobbs in Glasgow so not quite the Gulag.
    Due to a scheduling SNAFU I ended up in Glasgow for an hour whilst en route to Edinburgh.

    It was a culture shock for me.

    I can understand a Glaswegian accent, but Lord, I cannot understand when two or more Glaswegians start talking to each other.
    Oh mister porter
    What shall I do?
    I want to go to Birmingham and they've taken me onto Crewe.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,814
    Mr. Eagles, I wonder if Banks' endorsement for a candidate might prove to be unhelpful for that individual.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    Cyclefree said:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
    That is shocking even by Corbyn's standards.
    I’m being dense but what is he alluding to?
    Jews/Zionists cannot have a loyalty to England/The UK because their real loyalty is to Israel.
    What’s worse I think is the assumption that many British Zionists may not have been born here and, even if they have, they are somehow not properly British.

    Imagine if someone were to say that about black people who had come here from the West Indies as children - that they didn’t somehow understand some bit of the British character - despite living here most of their lives.

    And to accuse Jews of not wanting to study history is utterly bizarre. If anything, it is precisely because Jews have a very acute sense of history that they are so simultaneously defensive about what they have and, In Israel, so aggressive towards others who also have a claim.
    Yep
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    ydoethur said:

    Cyclefree said:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6087783/Jeremy-Corbyn-said-British-Zionists-no-sense-English-irony.html

    Corbyn: '[Zionists] clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study history, and secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand English irony either.'

    you missed the best bit!

    'They needed two lessons, which we could perhaps help them with.'
    That is shocking even by Corbyn's standards.
    I’m being dense but what is he alluding to?
    Jews/Zionists cannot have a loyalty to England/The UK because their real loyalty is to Israel.
    What’s worse I think is the assumption that many British Zionists may not have been born here and, even if they have, they are somehow not properly British.

    Imagine if someone were to say that about black people who had come here from the West Indies as children - that they didn’t somehow understand some bit of the British character - despite living here most of their lives.

    And to accuse Jews of not wanting to study history is utterly bizarre. If anything, it is precisely because Jews have a very acute sense of history that they are so simultaneously defensive about what they have and, In Israel, so aggressive towards others who also have a claim.
    It's also somewhat ironic given Corbyn has employed a notorious Irving-style falsifier of history as his press secretary.
    Ah, yes: the man who boasted that he spent time in one of the PLO’s terror training camps after leaving his expensive and exclusive public school. Twat.
This discussion has been closed.