So far four polls have shown double digit leads and the possibility of a Tory land slide 100 seat majority, but the seats the Tories need to take for that to happen include both Newport seats and Bishop Auckland, whilst the North East and Wakes are trending towards the Tories in the long term how likely is they will gain these seats?!
A think we need an analysis in why it is unlikely they will win a 100 seat majority considering the ones they would need to gain and as a poster said yesterday considering the different demographics of the urban vs. Rural seats.
No party will win a 100 seat Majority again Discuss.
Bishop Auckland would only require a small movement from Labour to UKIP for the Tories to sneak down the middle... Given UKIP + the conservatives only had 49% of the 2015 vote between them and 57% in County Durham as a whole voted LEAVE, I think its a possible Tory win..
The Tories had a good candidate in Bishop and he wants to stand again. Goodman isn't universally popular - including within the CLP. Don't forget the seat includes some very Tory areas in Teesdale.
Don’t be surprised by a Tory gain.
Bishop Auckland will almost certainly not exist after the boundary review , There will probadly be a new seat created from parts of Hexham and Bishop A ,
Sedgefield is likely to be the seat that would be destroyed in the boundary review - the seat already forms a doughnut shape around Darlington....
In the abortive 2013 review, Sedgefield was abolished and distributed fairly evenly among the remaining Durham seats IIRC, No guarantee the same thing would happen in the next review of course.
Interestingly enough, if recent polling was translated into a result, on current boundaries, on a uniform swing, Sedgefield would go Tory. That would be quite something.
The new electorate calculations make it much more difficult than simply eliminating and redistributing Sedgefield . The Vote2012 website has several people drawing up proposed constituencies for the North East . They are all different and most end up with 1 or 2 very bas constituencies including a Tyne Banks seat which made the previous reviews Mersey Banks seat look sensible .
That depends on what you see the purpose of the vote as being. At the worst, it'd be less wasted than the 40-50% who won't vote at all. But there does come a point when the least worst option who might win is so bad and the range of candidates who might win are relatively close in badness that sending a message of support elsewhere is more important than influencing the topline outcome.
In many ways I agree with you, it will depend on the situation, but if the range of options to vote for are all bad, then the thing to do, I would say, is to start a new party and stand for election yourself, it hard work and takes time.
That is largely what the Libertarians have been doing for some time now. if this the year when they finally brake though? I don't know, but think it is possible, (and I will make £55,000 if they do!) but if not could this also be the final stepping stone, were the party's ideas are shared with more people that ever, and ballot access is assured, so that after ether Trump or Hillary balls up in the next 4 years, the Libertarians have a shot then? also possible but who knows.
Quite apart from anything else, she was rather liberal in social matters for her time. It's a complete travesty of history to think otherwise, uncomfortable though it is for the left - so keen to demonise her - to recognise it.
That speech was made at the height of her political power and the excerpt I quoted was the precursor to the government passing Section 28 stating that LAs "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
If she didn't want to be demonised, she should have recognised how toxic and ridiculous this legislation was. In political terms it was a generational mistake which the Tories were still paying for in 2002 when Theresa May made her 'nasty party' speech.
Though for all the heat on both sides no-one was ever prosecuted under section 28.
Precisely. A toxic and ridiculous piece of legislation that should never have been drafted, let alone passed into law.
Nevertheless there is a parallel with similar recent laws in Russia, which cause much opprobrium but have no effect in the real world other than to poison the climate.
Johnson could put up a reasonable performance in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and New Hampshire and maybe Florid aand California but I don't see him winning any states
I think this states that he could do well in 9and have an out side chance in are as follows:
New Mexico, his home state and where he was governor.
Utah, where his is poling well, and normally conservative Mormons, are tacking a very dim vow of Trump.
Massachusetts, where his VP was governor. (these last to really come in to play if Mitt Romney endorses him)
Nevada and Colorado, to states that are close to his home state, have above average number of Mormons, and are known for having libertarian policies (gambling and Pot) that are popular locally.
if you add in Washington state, which is a bit tenues except for the legalising Pot I admit, then a victory in those 6 states (53 electoral collage votes) would be enough to mean that ether of the main two candidates would have to win all of their 'normal' safe seats, and all 4 big swing states, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. and I think that there is a reasonable chance that both main candidates will lose at least one of these 4 states
I agree with you that New Hampshire is also possible, with outside possibility's in Mane, Alaska, and Wyoming.
And if it goes to the House, then what? It would surely be something of an outrage to pass over both Trump and Clinton to put the third-placed candidate in the White House. It would be hard enough to pass over Hillary, who would in all probability have a clear plurality of votes - though with more GOP states, that'd probably be the outcome.
Obama won a larger margin in the EC than the popular vote in 2012
Yes, but the Electoral College always magnifies things. But in this case, if no-one reached half the ECVs but Hillary had won California, New York and Illinois, while Johnson won several states mentioned upthread, it's surely likely that she'd come out first in the popular vote?
Quite apart from anything else, she was rather liberal in social matters for her time. It's a complete travesty of history to think otherwise, uncomfortable though it is for the left - so keen to demonise her - to recognise it.
You can talk about "her time" Richard, but there is no doubt that in that speech children "being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay" is portrayed as a bad thing.
Yes, in contrast to teaching them something useful, such as reading and writing.
Poor choice of example, yes a shade of grey and not black. Clumsy.
"Apple today announced that it recently sold its one-billionth iPhone, marking a major milestone for the company. CEO Tim Cook shared the news with employees at a staff meeting this morning, as noted in a news story published by Apple. In a statement, Cook called the iPhone one of the most successful, world-changing products in history, echoing similar sentiments from yesterday's earnings call where he said believes the iPhone is becoming a device that people can't live without. "
Isis bio on him said he had fought in Syria for various Islamist groups & that the police searched his place before & missed him bomb making setup. Now I taken ISIS propaganda with pinch of salt, but yokel stated before this came out he wasn't clean.
I always wonder where Yokel gets his info. He claims not to be connected, but he gets detailed info way quicker than news outlets ...
He once said he's a working class lad from Belfast who runs a pizza joint.
On Newsnight is a Labour MP in England speaking with a strong scottish accent about how Labour need to re-connect. Why Kate Green are you not in SLAB fighting to regain Scotland?
On Newsnight is a Labour MP in England speaking with a strong scottish accent about how Labour need to re-connect. Why Kate Green are you not in SLAB fighting to regain Scotland?
She spoke for about ten minutes without saying anything. Quite a gift.
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
Can you cite any examples of this oppression?
As already mentioned arrests of visitors suspected of homosexuality, banning the adoption of children by not only gay couples but couples from nations where gay marriage is legal and the removal of children from a parent suspected to be homosexual http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
Can you cite one visitor arrested on suspicion of homosexuality?
So far four polls have shown double digit leads and the possibility of a Tory land slide 100 seat majority, but the seats the Tories need to take for that to happen include both Newport seats and Bishop Auckland, whilst the North East and Wakes are trending towards the Tories in the long term how likely is they will gain these seats?!
A think we need an analysis in why it is unlikely they will win a 100 seat majority considering the ones they would need to gain and as a poster said yesterday considering the different demographics of the urban vs. Rural seats.
No party will win a 100 seat Majority again Discuss.
Bishop Auckland would only require a small movement from Labour to UKIP for the Tories to sneak down the middle... Given UKIP + the conservatives only had 49% of the 2015 vote between them and 57% in County Durham as a whole voted LEAVE, I think its a possible Tory win..
The Tories had a good candidate in Bishop and he wants to stand again. Goodman isn't universally popular - including within the CLP. Don't forget the seat includes some very Tory areas in Teesdale.
Don’t be surprised by a Tory gain.
Bishop Auckland will almost certainly not exist after the boundary review , There will probadly be a new seat created from parts of Hexham and Bishop A ,
Sedgefield is likely to be the seat that would be destroyed in the boundary review - the seat already forms a doughnut shape around Darlington....
In the abortive 2013 review, Sedgefield was abolished and distributed fairly evenly among the remaining Durham seats IIRC, No guarantee the same thing would happen in the next review of course.
Interestingly enough, if recent polling was translated into a result, on current boundaries, on a uniform swing, Sedgefield would go Tory. That would be quite something.
The new electorate calculations make it much more difficult than simply eliminating and redistributing Sedgefield . The Vote2012 website has several people drawing up proposed constituencies for the North East . They are all different and most end up with 1 or 2 very bas constituencies including a Tyne Banks seat which made the previous reviews Mersey Banks seat look sensible .
We used to have Tyne Bridge, so a silly cross-river seat wouldn't be a first for the area.
Johnson could put up a reasonable performance in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and New Hampshire and maybe Florid aand California but I don't see him winning any states
I think this states that he could do well in 9and have an out side chance in are as follows:
New Mexico, his home state and where he was governor.
Utah, where his is poling well, and normally conservative Mormons, are tacking a very dim vow of Trump.
Massachusetts, where his VP was governor. (these last to really come in to play if Mitt Romney endorses him)
Nevada and Colorado, to states that are close to his home state, have above average number of Mormons, and are known for having libertarian policies (gambling and Pot) that are popular locally.
if you add in Washington state, which is a bit tenues except for the legalising Pot I admit, then a victory in those 6 states (53 electoral collage votes) would be enough to mean that ether of the main two candidates would have to win all of their 'normal' safe seats, and all 4 big swing states, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. and I think that there is a reasonable chance that both main candidates will lose at least one of these 4 states
I agree with you that New Hampshire is also possible, with outside possibility's in Mane, Alaska, and Wyoming.
And if it goes to the House, then what? It would surely be something of an outrage to pass over both Trump and Clinton to put the third-placed candidate in the White House. It would be hard enough to pass over Hillary, who would in all probability have a clear plurality of votes - though with more GOP states, that'd probably be the outcome.
Obama won a larger margin in the EC than the popular vote in 2012
Yes, but the Electoral College always magnifies things. But in this case, if no-one reached half the ECVs but Hillary had won California, New York and Illinois, while Johnson won several states mentioned upthread, it's surely likely that she'd come out first in the popular vote?
Arf I read that as Lyndon B Johnson and thought .. hold on - he'd wipe the floor with Hillary !
"Apple today announced that it recently sold its one-billionth iPhone, marking a major milestone for the company. CEO Tim Cook shared the news with employees at a staff meeting this morning, as noted in a news story published by Apple. In a statement, Cook called the iPhone one of the most successful, world-changing products in history, echoing similar sentiments from yesterday's earnings call where he said believes the iPhone is becoming a device that people can't live without. "
Johnson could put up a reasonable performance in Nevada, Arizona, Colorado and New Hampshire and maybe Florid aand California but I don't see him winning any states
I think this states that he could do well in 9and have an out side chance in are as follows:
New Mexico, his home state and where he was governor.
Utah, where his is poling well, and normally conservative Mormons, are tacking a very dim vow of Trump.
Massachusetts, where his VP was governor. (these last to really come in to play if Mitt Romney endorses him)
Nevada and Colorado, to states that are close to his home state, have above average number of Mormons, and are known for having libertarian policies (gambling and Pot) that are popular locally.
if you add in Washington state, which is a bit tenues except for the legalising Pot I admit, then a victory in those 6 states (53 electoral collage votes) would be enough to mean that ether of the main two candidates would have to win all of their 'normal' safe seats, and all 4 big swing states, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. and I think that there is a reasonable chance that both main candidates will lose at least one of these 4 states
I agree with you that New Hampshire is also possible, with outside possibility's in Mane, Alaska, and Wyoming.
And if it goes to the House, then what? It would surely be something of an outrage to pass over both Trump and Clinton to put the third-placed candidate in the White House. It would be hard enough to pass over Hillary, who would in all probability have a clear plurality of votes - though with more GOP states, that'd probably be the outcome.
Obama won a larger margin in the EC than the popular vote in 2012
Yes, but the Electoral College always magnifies things. But in this case, if no-one reached half the ECVs but Hillary had won California, New York and Illinois, while Johnson won several states mentioned upthread, it's surely likely that she'd come out first in the popular vote?
Perhaps, it depends what states Johnson wins, states which should be GOP like Wyoming and Utah are top of the Johnson target list too
Well that's one to watch, r/the_donald are having an AMA (ask me anything) with Donald Trump. At 7pm Eastern time he will answer the highest rated questions on the thread.
I remember Obama's, that got a ridiculous number of votes in a few minutes.
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
Can you cite any examples of this oppression?
As already mentioned arrests of visitors suspected of homosexuality, banning the adoption of children by not only gay couples but couples from nations where gay marriage is legal and the removal of children from a parent suspected to be homosexual http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
Can you cite one visitor arrested on suspicion of homosexuality?
Not a visitor and not arrested on suspicion of homosexuality but for waving a flag. (Which is appalling nonetheless but the same would happen if he tried to unveil a Ukrainian flag.)
I wonder why the security officers are disguised as cows...
So far four polls have shown double digit leads and the possibility of a Tory land slide 100 seat majority, but the seats the Tories need to take for that to happen include both Newport seats and Bishop Auckland, whilst the North East and Wakes are trending towards the Tories in the long term how likely is they will gain these seats?!
A think we need an analysis in why it is unlikely they will win a 100 seat majority considering the ones they would need to gain and as a poster said yesterday considering the different demographics of the urban vs. Rural seats.
No party will win a 100 seat Majority again Discuss.
Bishop Auckland would only require a small movement from Labour to UKIP for the Tories to sneak down the middle... Given UKIP + the conservatives only had 49% of the 2015 vote between them and 57% in County Durham as a whole voted LEAVE, I think its a possible Tory win..
The Tories had a good candidate in Bishop and he wants to stand again. Goodman isn't universally popular - including within the CLP. Don't forget the seat includes some very Tory areas in Teesdale.
Don’t be surprised by a Tory gain.
Bishop Auckland will almost certainly not exist after the boundary review , There will probadly be a new seat created from parts of Hexham and Bishop A ,
Sedgefield is likely to be the seat that would be destroyed in the boundary review - the seat already forms a doughnut shape around Darlington....
In the abortive 2013 review, Sedgefield was abolished and distributed fairly evenly among the remaining Durham seats IIRC, No guarantee the same thing would happen in the next review of course.
Interestingly enough, if recent polling was translated into a result, on current boundaries, on a uniform swing, Sedgefield would go Tory. That would be quite something.
The new electorate calculations make it much more difficult than simply eliminating and redistributing Sedgefield . The Vote2012 website has several people drawing up proposed constituencies for the North East . They are all different and most end up with 1 or 2 very bas constituencies including a Tyne Banks seat which made the previous reviews Mersey Banks seat look sensible .
We used to have Tyne Bridge, so a silly cross-river seat wouldn't be a first for the area.
I don't see a problem with cross river seats, like Cameron said its not the bloody Amazon.
So far four polls have shown double digit leads and the possibility of a Tory land slide 100 seat majority, but the seats the Tories need to take for that to happen include both Newport seats and Bishop Auckland, whilst the North East and Wakes are trending towards the Tories in the long term how likely is they will gain these seats?!
A think we need an analysis in why it is unlikely they will win a 100 seat majority considering the ones they would need to gain and as a poster said yesterday considering the different demographics of the urban vs. Rural seats.
No party will win a 100 seat Majority again Discuss.
Bishop Auckland would only require a small movement from Labour to UKIP for the Tories to sneak down the middle... Given UKIP + the conservatives only had 49% of the 2015 vote between them and 57% in County Durham as a whole voted LEAVE, I think its a possible Tory win..
The Tories had a good candidate in Bishop and he wants to stand again. Goodman isn't universally popular - including within the CLP. Don't forget the seat includes some very Tory areas in Teesdale.
Don’t be surprised by a Tory gain.
Bishop Auckland will almost certainly not exist after the boundary review , There will probadly be a new seat created from parts of Hexham and Bishop A ,
Sedgefield is likely to be the seat that would be destroyed in the boundary review - the seat already forms a doughnut shape around Darlington....
In the abortive 2013 review, Sedgefield was abolished and distributed fairly evenly among the remaining Durham seats IIRC, No guarantee the same thing would happen in the next review of course.
Interestingly enough, if recent polling was translated into a result, on current boundaries, on a uniform swing, Sedgefield would go Tory. That would be quite something.
The new electorate calculations make it much more difficult than simply eliminating and redistributing Sedgefield . The Vote2012 website has several people drawing up proposed constituencies for the North East . They are all different and most end up with 1 or 2 very bas constituencies including a Tyne Banks seat which made the previous reviews Mersey Banks seat look sensible .
Oh great. I'm going to be up all night looking at that site now!
Might save me some time when it comes to making representations on behalf of the party though...
So far four polls have shown double digit leads and the possibility of a Tory land slide 100 seat majority, but the seats the Tories need to take for that to happen include both Newport seats and Bishop Auckland, whilst the North East and Wakes are trending towards the Tories in the long term how likely is they will gain these seats?!
A think we need an analysis in why it is unlikely they will win a 100 seat majority considering the ones they would need to gain and as a poster said yesterday considering the different demographics of the urban vs. Rural seats.
No party will win a 100 seat Majority again Discuss.
Bishop Auckland would only require a small movement from Labour to UKIP for the Tories to sneak down the middle... Given UKIP + the conservatives only had 49% of the 2015 vote between them and 57% in County Durham as a whole voted LEAVE, I think its a possible Tory win..
The Tories had a good candidate in Bishop and he wants to stand again. Goodman isn't universally popular - including within the CLP. Don't forget the seat includes some very Tory areas in Teesdale.
Don’t be surprised by a Tory gain.
Bishop Auckland will almost certainly not exist after the boundary review , There will probadly be a new seat created from parts of Hexham and Bishop A ,
Sedgefield is likely to be the seat that would be destroyed in the boundary review - the seat already forms a doughnut shape around Darlington....
In the abortive 2013 review, Sedgefield was abolished and distributed fairly evenly among the remaining Durham seats IIRC, No guarantee the same thing would happen in the next review of course.
Interestingly enough, if recent polling was translated into a result, on current boundaries, on a uniform swing, Sedgefield would go Tory. That would be quite something.
The new electorate calculations make it much more difficult than simply eliminating and redistributing Sedgefield . The Vote2012 website has several people drawing up proposed constituencies for the North East . They are all different and most end up with 1 or 2 very bas constituencies including a Tyne Banks seat which made the previous reviews Mersey Banks seat look sensible .
We used to have Tyne Bridge, so a silly cross-river seat wouldn't be a first for the area.
Amongst the various proposals are bringing back the Tyne Bridge seat and an innovative Tyne Tunnel seat .
Isis bio on him said he had fought in Syria for various Islamist groups & that the police searched his place before & missed him bomb making setup. Now I taken ISIS propaganda with pinch of salt, but yokel stated before this came out he wasn't clean.
I always wonder where Yokel gets his info. He claims not to be connected, but he gets detailed info way quicker than news outlets ...
He once said he's a working class lad from Belfast who runs a pizza joint.
Personally I suspect he's retired
Possibly retired to make pizzas? Or using deep cover...
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
Can you cite any examples of this oppression?
As already mentioned arrests of visitors suspected of homosexuality, banning the adoption of children by not only gay couples but couples from nations where gay marriage is legal and the removal of children from a parent suspected to be homosexual http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
Can you cite one visitor arrested on suspicion of homosexuality?
Not a visitor and not arrested on suspicion of homosexuality but for waving a flag. (Which is appalling nonetheless but the same would happen if he tried to unveil a Ukrainian flag.)
I wonder why the security officers are disguised as cows...
Did Thatcher ever arrest people just for attending gay pride marches or for flying the rainbow flag? No, but Putin has
Perhaps, it depends what states Johnson wins, states which should be GOP like Wyoming and Utah are top of the Johnson target list too
If no candidate gets 270 ECVs then it goes to the House of representatives, who have a strange voting system, and yes some people will expect them to just vote for who ever has the largest overall number of votes. but each of Hillary and Trump are hatted by half of the contrary and Johnson is the at least the second chose of almost everybody so would make a good compromise.
In practise there are between 40 and 80 House republicans who I believe would prefer Jonson to Trump, I think that they will collectively go to the democratic leadership and say join us in voting for Johnson or we will vote for Trump! and the democrats could well go along with that.
This is, I admit, not that likely to happen, but I think the probability is above the 250-1 that you can get on betfire.
"Apple today announced that it recently sold its one-billionth iPhone, marking a major milestone for the company. CEO Tim Cook shared the news with employees at a staff meeting this morning, as noted in a news story published by Apple. In a statement, Cook called the iPhone one of the most successful, world-changing products in history, echoing similar sentiments from yesterday's earnings call where he said believes the iPhone is becoming a device that people can't live without. "
My family first bought an Apple computer in 1994, a Performa 630. At that time many people thought Apple was about to go bankrupt. Amazing how things can change in what is historically speaking a short amount of time.
Quite apart from anything else, she was rather liberal in social matters for her time. It's a complete travesty of history to think otherwise, uncomfortable though it is for the left - so keen to demonise her - to recognise it.
That speech was made at the height of her political power and the excerpt I quoted was the precursor to the government passing Section 28 stating that LAs "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality" or "promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"
If she didn't want to be demonised, she should have recognised how toxic and ridiculous this legislation was. In political terms it was a generational mistake which the Tories were still paying for in 2002 when Theresa May made her 'nasty party' speech.
Though for all the heat on both sides no-one was ever prosecuted under section 28.
Precisely. A toxic and ridiculous piece of legislation that should never have been drafted, let alone passed into law.
Nevertheless there is a parallel with similar recent laws in Russia, which cause much opprobrium but have no effect in the real world other than to poison the climate.
Very much so. The purpose in both isto stoke up an atmosphere that legitimises attacks on lbgt activists.
In both cases though better than the hangings, stonings and throwing from high buildings of active gays rather than gay activists. It is important to keep perspective on who the real persecutors are and where it occurs.
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
Can you cite any examples of this oppression?
As already mentioned arrests of visitors suspected of homosexuality, banning the adoption of children by not only gay couples but couples from nations where gay marriage is legal and the removal of children from a parent suspected to be homosexual http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
Can you cite one visitor arrested on suspicion of homosexuality?
Not a visitor and not arrested on suspicion of homosexuality but for waving a flag. (Which is appalling nonetheless but the same would happen if he tried to unveil a Ukrainian flag.)
I wonder why the security officers are disguised as cows...
Did Thatcher ever arrest people just for attending gay pride marches or for flying the rainbow flag? No, but Putin has
But it's not targeted oppression. He takes an equal opportunities approach to preventing popular movements taking to the streets in a way which could threaten his regime and ultimately lead to a 'colour revolution' in Moscow. It's paranoia rather than homophobia.
"Apple today announced that it recently sold its one-billionth iPhone, marking a major milestone for the company. CEO Tim Cook shared the news with employees at a staff meeting this morning, as noted in a news story published by Apple. In a statement, Cook called the iPhone one of the most successful, world-changing products in history, echoing similar sentiments from yesterday's earnings call where he said believes the iPhone is becoming a device that people can't live without. "
Perhaps, it depends what states Johnson wins, states which should be GOP like Wyoming and Utah are top of the Johnson target list too
If no candidate gets 270 ECVs then it goes to the House of representatives, who have a strange voting system, and yes some people will expect them to just vote for who ever has the largest overall number of votes. but each of Hillary and Trump are hatted by half of the contrary and Johnson is the at least the second chose of almost everybody so would make a good compromise.
In practise there are between 40 and 80 House republicans who I believe would prefer Jonson to Trump, I think that they will collectively go to the democratic leadership and say join us in voting for Johnson or we will vote for Trump! and the democrats could well go along with that.
This is, I admit, not that likely to happen, but I think the probability is above the 250-1 that you can get on betfire.
The probability is zero.
When was the last time a third party candidate won a state? I think it was George Wallace in 68 who won 5 states in the old confederacy.
Ross Perot got a bigger share of the national vote but no EC votes, failing to win a single state.
Wallace (despite being a Democrat) inadvertently put a Republican in power, Perot helped another Clinton by splitting the Right wing vote.
Perhaps, it depends what states Johnson wins, states which should be GOP like Wyoming and Utah are top of the Johnson target list too
If no candidate gets 270 ECVs then it goes to the House of representatives, who have a strange voting system, and yes some people will expect them to just vote for who ever has the largest overall number of votes. but each of Hillary and Trump are hatted by half of the contrary and Johnson is the at least the second chose of almost everybody so would make a good compromise.
In practise there are between 40 and 80 House republicans who I believe would prefer Jonson to Trump, I think that they will collectively go to the democratic leadership and say join us in voting for Johnson or we will vote for Trump! and the democrats could well go along with that.
This is, I admit, not that likely to happen, but I think the probability is above the 250-1 that you can get on betfire.
As Fox states there is almost no chance Johnson will win a state so it is all hypothetical anyway and Johnson would be no easy compromise, social conservatives and evangelicals would loathe his social liberalism and leftwing Berniebots his economic laissez-faire philosophy and the Trumpite white working class his support for unfettered free trade
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
Can you cite any examples of this oppression?
As already mentioned arrests of visitors suspected of homosexuality, banning the adoption of children by not only gay couples but couples from nations where gay marriage is legal and the removal of children from a parent suspected to be homosexual http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
Can you cite one visitor arrested on suspicion of homosexuality?
Not a visitor and not arrested on suspicion of homosexuality but for waving a flag. (Which is appalling nonetheless but the same would happen if he tried to unveil a Ukrainian flag.)
I wonder why the security officers are disguised as cows...
Did Thatcher ever arrest people just for attending gay pride marches or for flying the rainbow flag? No, but Putin has
But it's not targeted oppression. He takes an equal opportunities approach to preventing popular movements taking to the streets in a way which could threaten his regime and ultimately lead to a 'colour revolution' in Moscow. It's paranoia rather than homophobia.
Any expression of homosexuality or homosexual inclination in public in Russia risks an encounter with the authorities
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
Can you cite any examples of this oppression?
As already mentioned arrests of visitors suspected of homosexuality, banning the adoption of children by not only gay couples but couples from nations where gay marriage is legal and the removal of children from a parent suspected to be homosexual http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
Can you cite one visitor arrested on suspicion of homosexuality?
Not a visitor and not arrested on suspicion of homosexuality but for waving a flag. (Which is appalling nonetheless but the same would happen if he tried to unveil a Ukrainian flag.)
I wonder why the security officers are disguised as cows...
Did Thatcher ever arrest people just for attending gay pride marches or for flying the rainbow flag? No, but Putin has
But it's not targeted oppression. He takes an equal opportunities approach to preventing popular movements taking to the streets in a way which could threaten his regime and ultimately lead to a 'colour revolution' in Moscow. It's paranoia rather than homophobia.
Any expression of homosexuality or homosexual inclination in public in Russia risks an encounter with the authorities
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
Can you cite any examples of this oppression?
As already mentioned arrests of visitors suspected of homosexuality, banning the adoption of children by not only gay couples but couples from nations where gay marriage is legal and the removal of children from a parent suspected to be homosexual http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
Can you cite one visitor arrested on suspicion of homosexuality?
Not a visitor and not arrested on suspicion of homosexuality but for waving a flag. (Which is appalling nonetheless but the same would happen if he tried to unveil a Ukrainian flag.)
I wonder why the security officers are disguised as cows...
Did Thatcher ever arrest people just for attending gay pride marches or for flying the rainbow flag? No, but Putin has
But it's not targeted oppression. He takes an equal opportunities approach to preventing popular movements taking to the streets in a way which could threaten his regime and ultimately lead to a 'colour revolution' in Moscow. It's paranoia rather than homophobia.
Any expression of homosexuality or homosexual inclination in public in Russia risks an encounter with the authorities
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
Can you cite any examples of this oppression?
As already mentioned arrests of visitors suspected of homosexuality, banning the adoption of children by not only gay couples but couples from nations where gay marriage is legal and the removal of children from a parent suspected to be homosexual http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
Can you cite one visitor arrested on suspicion of homosexuality?
Not a visitor and not arrested on suspicion of homosexuality but for waving a flag. (Which is appalling nonetheless but the same would happen if he tried to unveil a Ukrainian flag.)
I wonder why the security officers are disguised as cows...
Did Thatcher ever arrest people just for attending gay pride marches or for flying the rainbow flag? No, but Putin has
But it's not targeted oppression. He takes an equal opportunities approach to preventing popular movements taking to the streets in a way which could threaten his regime and ultimately lead to a 'colour revolution' in Moscow. It's paranoia rather than homophobia.
Any expression of homosexuality or homosexual inclination in public in Russia risks an encounter with the authorities
I'll stop now at the risk of overdoing the apologia but the key point was made by foxinsox below. There are places in the world where gay people face real oppression. Singling out Russia on this issue is just virtue signalling, especially when we had similar laws on our statute book until recently.
Isis bio on him said he had fought in Syria for various Islamist groups & that the police searched his place before & missed him bomb making setup. Now I taken ISIS propaganda with pinch of salt, but yokel stated before this came out he wasn't clean.
I always wonder where Yokel gets his info. He claims not to be connected, but he gets detailed info way quicker than news outlets ...
He once said he's a working class lad from Belfast who runs a pizza joint.
Quite apart from anything else, she was rather liberal in social matters for her time. It's a complete travesty of history to think otherwise, uncomfortable though it is for the left - so keen to demonise her - to recognise it.
You can talk about "her time" Richard, but there is no doubt that in that speech children "being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay" is portrayed as a bad thing.
In the context, the implication is that they are being taught (accurately) about their right to be gay *to the exclusion of* tradtitional moral values. That would be a problem.
Perhaps, it depends what states Johnson wins, states which should be GOP like Wyoming and Utah are top of the Johnson target list too
If no candidate gets 270 ECVs then it goes to the House of representatives, who have a strange voting system, and yes some people will expect them to just vote for who ever has the largest overall number of votes. but each of Hillary and Trump are hatted by half of the contrary and Johnson is the at least the second chose of almost everybody so would make a good compromise.
In practise there are between 40 and 80 House republicans who I believe would prefer Jonson to Trump, I think that they will collectively go to the democratic leadership and say join us in voting for Johnson or we will vote for Trump! and the democrats could well go along with that.
This is, I admit, not that likely to happen, but I think the probability is above the 250-1 that you can get on betfire.
The probability is zero.
When was the last time a third party candidate won a state? I think it was George Wallace in 68 who won 5 states in the old confederacy.
Ross Perot got a bigger share of the national vote but no EC votes, failing to win a single state.
Wallace (despite being a Democrat) inadvertently put a Republican in power, Perot helped another Clinton by splitting the Right wing vote.
Johnson will help Hillary into the job.
" Perot helped another Clinton by splitting the Right wing vote." Although widely believed, most studies now conclude there was relatively little differential effect, and certainly not enough to swing the election.
The other thing to note is that Wallace aimed squarely a a handful of states: there was no national pitch. Hence why he could win in some states and not win the Presidency. Perot, and other third party candidates, are likely to win 270+ or 0.
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
Can you cite any examples of this oppression?
As already mentioned arrests of visitors suspected of homosexuality, banning the adoption of children by not only gay couples but couples from nations where gay marriage is legal and the removal of children from a parent suspected to be homosexual http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
Not a visitor and not arrsthe same would happen if he tried to unveil a Ukrainian flag.)
I wonder why the security officers are disguised as cows...
Did Thatcher ever arrest people just for attending gay pride marches or for flying the rainbow flag? No, but Putin has
But it's not targeted oppression. He takes an equal opportunities approach to preventing popular movements taking to the streets in a way which could threaten his regime and ultimately lead to a 'colour revolution' in Moscow. It's paranoia rather than homophobia.
Any expression of homosexuality or homosexual inclination in public in Russia risks an encounter with the authorities
Isis bio on him said he had fought in Syria for various Islamist groups & that the police searched his place before & missed him bomb making setup. Now I taken ISIS propaganda with pinch of salt, but yokel stated before this came out he wasn't clean.
I always wonder where Yokel gets his info. He claims not to be connected, but he gets detailed info way quicker than news outlets ...
He once said he's a working class lad from Belfast who runs a pizza joint.
Quite apart from anything else, she was rather liberal in social matters for her time. It's a complete travesty of history to think otherwise, uncomfortable though it is for the left - so keen to demonise her - to recognise it.
You can talk about "her time" Richard, but there is no doubt that in that speech children "being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay" is portrayed as a bad thing.
In the context, the implication is that they are being taught (accurately) about their right to be gay *to the exclusion of* tradtitional moral values. That would be a problem.
Which suggests that freedom of conscience is not a "traditional moral value", which is another sort of problematic.
Isis bio on him said he had fought in Syria for various Islamist groups & that the police searched his place before & missed him bomb making setup. Now I taken ISIS propaganda with pinch of salt, but yokel stated before this came out he wasn't clean.
I always wonder where Yokel gets his info. He claims not to be connected, but he gets detailed info way quicker than news outlets ...
He once said he's a working class lad from Belfast who runs a pizza joint.
Personally I suspect he's retired
Possibly retired to make pizzas? Or using deep cover...
Retired to make pizzas after a more robust part of his career. He wouldn't be posting on here if deal cover.
Perhaps, it depends what states Johnson wins, states which should be GOP like Wyoming and Utah are top of the Johnson target list too
If no candidate gets 270 ECVs then it goes to the House of representatives, who have a strange voting system, and yes some people will expect them to just vote for who ever has the largest overall number of votes. but each of Hillary and Trump are hatted by half of the contrary and Johnson is the at least the second chose of almost everybody so would make a good compromise.
In practise there are between 40 and 80 House republicans who I believe would prefer Jonson to Trump, I think that they will collectively go to the democratic leadership and say join us in voting for Johnson or we will vote for Trump! and the democrats could well go along with that.
This is, I admit, not that likely to happen, but I think the probability is above the 250-1 that you can get on betfire.
The probability is zero.
When was the last time a third party candidate won a state? I think it was George Wallace in 68 who won 5 states in the old confederacy.
Ross Perot got a bigger share of the national vote but no EC votes, failing to win a single state.
Wallace (despite being a Democrat) inadvertently put a Republican in power, Perot helped another Clinton by splitting the Right wing vote.
Johnson will help Hillary into the job.
" Perot helped another Clinton by splitting the Right wing vote." Although widely believed, most studies now conclude there was relatively little differential effect, and certainly not enough to swing the election.
The other thing to note is that Wallace aimed squarely a a handful of states: there was no national pitch. Hence why he could win in some states and not win the Presidency. Perot, and other third party candidates, are likely to win 270+ or 0.
The American systems is effectively set up to make it very difficult to 3rd parties to do anything.
If you're going 3rd party, surely Nader as a spoiler for Gore is an example?
"Apple today announced that it recently sold its one-billionth iPhone, marking a major milestone for the company. CEO Tim Cook shared the news with employees at a staff meeting this morning, as noted in a news story published by Apple. In a statement, Cook called the iPhone one of the most successful, world-changing products in history, echoing similar sentiments from yesterday's earnings call where he said believes the iPhone is becoming a device that people can't live without. "
Firstly, he has put himself at the centre of coverage, during the Democrat convention. Example: on the LA Times webpage, the Trump story is right up on the top left hand side.
Secondly, whenever the media repeat the story, they'll have to quote his comments, enabling him to spread the message about Hillary's emails.
Thirdly, he neutralises the Democrat attack lines that about a hidden conspiracy between him & Russia to release the DNC emails. If he openly calls on Russia on release Democrat emails then it's not a hidden conspiracy any more.
"Apple today announced that it recently sold its one-billionth iPhone, marking a major milestone for the company. CEO Tim Cook shared the news with employees at a staff meeting this morning, as noted in a news story published by Apple. In a statement, Cook called the iPhone one of the most successful, world-changing products in history, echoing similar sentiments from yesterday's earnings call where he said believes the iPhone is becoming a device that people can't live without. "
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted
Can you cite any examples of this oppression?
As already mentioned arrests of visitors suspected of homosexuality, banning the adoption of children by not only gay couples but couples from nations where gay marriage is legal and the removal of children from a parent suspected to be homosexual http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/opinion/russias-anti-gay-crackdown.html?_r=0
Can you cite one visitor arrested on suspicion of homosexuality?
Not a visitor and not arrested on suspicion of homosexuality but for waving a flag. (Which is appalling nonetheless but the same would happen if he tried to unveil a Ukrainian flag.)
I wonder why the security officers are disguised as cows...
Did Thatcher ever arrest people just for attending gay pride marches or for flying the rainbow flag? No, but Putin has
But it's not targeted oppression. He takes an equal opportunities approach to preventing popular movements taking to the streets in a way which could threaten his regime and ultimately lead to a 'colour revolution' in Moscow. It's paranoia rather than homophobia.
Any expression of homosexuality or homosexual inclination in public in Russia risks an encounter with the authorities
I'll stop now at the risk of overdoing the apologia but the key point was made by foxinsox below. There are places in the world where gay people face real oppression. Singling out Russia on this issue is just virtue signalling, especially when we had similar laws on our statute book until recently.
Outside of north Africa and the Middle East, Russia is now one of the worst places to be gay on the planet
"Apple today announced that it recently sold its one-billionth iPhone, marking a major milestone for the company. CEO Tim Cook shared the news with employees at a staff meeting this morning, as noted in a news story published by Apple. In a statement, Cook called the iPhone one of the most successful, world-changing products in history, echoing similar sentiments from yesterday's earnings call where he said believes the iPhone is becoming a device that people can't live without. "
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
Indeed, South Africa and much of Latin America are more liberal on homosexuality than Putin's Russia
How about India and the Muslim world and the rest of Africa?
As I said below most of the Muslim world (including north Africa) is even more oppressive, although India is not much different to Russia but with a less macho culture. However Brazil, Maxico, Argentina, South Africa, Japan let alone the west are far more tolerant than Russia is in regards to homosexuality
"Apple today announced that it recently sold its one-billionth iPhone, marking a major milestone for the company. CEO Tim Cook shared the news with employees at a staff meeting this morning, as noted in a news story published by Apple. In a statement, Cook called the iPhone one of the most successful, world-changing products in history, echoing similar sentiments from yesterday's earnings call where he said believes the iPhone is becoming a device that people can't live without. "
When was the last time a third party candidate won a state? I think it was George Wallace in 68 who won 5 states in the old confederacy.
Ross Perot got a bigger share of the national vote but no EC votes, failing to win a single state.
Wallace (despite being a Democrat) inadvertently put a Republican in power, Perot helped another Clinton by splitting the Right wing vote.
Yes.
Perot got 19% in 1992.
The last time a third party or independent candidate even won a seat in the EC was in 1972 when Libertarian nominee John Hospers and his running-mate Tonie Nathan got one vote from faithless Republican elector Roger MacBride in Virginia. That was the only time a woman has ever won a vote in the EC.
The Libertarian party has never won more than 1.1% of the vote. I doubt they will make 2% this time. Green candidate Jill Stein is the one to watch. Even if she picks up only 5% of the Democrats who voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries or otherwise favoured him as the Democratic nominee, she'll be in with a chance to beat Ralph Nader's 2.7% in 2000. And the Green convention is still to come, whereas the Libertarians have already held theirs.
"I don't think that it's safe to have Hillary Clinton --in light of what just happened and in the light of what we just found out-- I don't think it's safe to have Hillary Clinton be briefed on national security.
Perhaps, it depends what states Johnson wins, states which should be GOP like Wyoming and Utah are top of the Johnson target list too
If no candidate gets 270 ECVs then it goes to the House of representatives, who have a strange voting system, and yes some people will expect them to just vote for who ever has the largest overall number of votes. but each of Hillary and Trump are hatted by half of the contrary and Johnson is the at least the second chose of almost everybody so would make a good compromise.
In practise there are between 40 and 80 House republicans who I believe would prefer Jonson to Trump, I think that they will collectively go to the democratic leadership and say join us in voting for Johnson or we will vote for Trump! and the democrats could well go along with that.
This is, I admit, not that likely to happen, but I think the probability is above the 250-1 that you can get on betfire.
The probability is zero.
When was the last time a third party candidate won a state? I think it was George Wallace in 68 who won 5 states in the old confederacy.
Ross Perot got a bigger share of the national vote but no EC votes, failing to win a single state.
Wallace (despite being a Democrat) inadvertently put a Republican in power, Perot helped another Clinton by splitting the Right wing vote.
Johnson will help Hillary into the job.
" Perot helped another Clinton by splitting the Right wing vote." Although widely believed, most studies now conclude there was relatively little differential effect, and certainly not enough to swing the election.
The other thing to note is that Wallace aimed squarely a a handful of states: there was no national pitch. Hence why he could win in some states and not win the Presidency. Perot, and other third party candidates, are likely to win 270+ or 0.
Wallace had hoped to be the kingmaker with a sufficient block of states and thereby reverse the civil rights agenda of the national Democratic party. He failed in this, but was also instrumental in breaking the hold of the Democrats on the Old Confederacy that had held for a century.
Astonishingly by the late 1970's when I lived in Georgia, Wallace was winning black American votes. Talk about u-turns!
With Perot the fact is that he got no votes and Clinton got the White house.
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way they are under Putin, Putin may be a little less extreme than ISIS in the oppression of homosexuality and the influence of religion on state laws but it is only a matter of degree
Indeed, South Africa and much of Latin America are more liberal on homosexuality than Putin's Russia
How about India and the Muslim world and the rest of Africa?
As I said below most of the Muslim world (including north Africa) is even more oppressive, although India is not much different to Russia but with a less macho culture. However Brazil, Maxico, Argentina, South Africa, Japan let alone the west are far more tolerant than Russia is in regards to homosexuality
Firstly, he has put himself at the centre of coverage, during the Democrat convention. Example: on the LA Times webpage, the Trump story is right up on the top left hand side.
Secondly, whenever the media repeat the story, they'll have to quote his comments, enabling him to spread the message about Hillary's emails.
Thirdly, he neutralises the Democrat attack lines that about a hidden conspiracy between him & Russia to release the DNC emails. If he openly calls on Russia on release Democrat emails then it's not a hidden conspiracy any more.
I agree. Many think with horror, "He's running for president, but he's okay with a foreign power spying on the US!", but a substantial part of his target market are more likely to think "What a presidential looking guy! And isn't Hillary in awful trouble with those emails!"
Perhaps, it depends what states Johnson wins, states which should be GOP like Wyoming and Utah are top of the Johnson target list too
If no candidate gets 270 ECVs then it goes to the House of representatives, who have a strange voting system, and yes some people will expect them to just vote for who ever has the largest overall number of votes. but each of Hillary and Trump are hatted by half of the contrary and Johnson is the at least the second chose of almost everybody so would make a good compromise.
In practise there are between 40 and 80 House republicans who I believe would prefer Jonson to Trump, I think that they will collectively go to the democratic leadership and say join us in voting for Johnson or we will vote for Trump! and the democrats could well go along with that.
This is, I admit, not that likely to happen, but I think the probability is above the 250-1 that you can get on betfire.
The probability is zero.
When was the last time a third party candidate won a state? I think it was George Wallace in 68 who won 5 states in the old confederacy.
Ross Perot got a bigger share of the national vote but no EC votes, failing to win a single state.
Wallace (despite being a Democrat) inadvertently put a Republican in power, Perot helped another Clinton by splitting the Right wing vote.
Johnson will help Hillary into the job.
The Opinion poles that are bracken down by how they voted last time, are showing similar numbers coming for Romney and Obama, with slightly more coming from Obama. All very MoE stuff, and final votes may not be reflective of opinion poles! as we have seen. but I don't accept that there is evidence that it will defiantly help Hillary.
I'll stop now at the risk of overdoing the apologia but the key point was made by foxinsox below. There are places in the world where gay people face real oppression. Singling out Russia on this issue is just virtue signalling, especially when we had similar laws on our statute book until recently.
Outside of north Africa and the Middle East, Russia is now one of the worst places to be gay on the planet
Putin is not averse to handing out awards to openly gay celebrities and the Russian elite is full of gay people.
I'll stop now at the risk of overdoing the apologia but the key point was made by foxinsox below. There are places in the world where gay people face real oppression. Singling out Russia on this issue is just virtue signalling, especially when we had similar laws on our statute book until recently.
Outside of north Africa and the Middle East, Russia is now one of the worst places to be gay on the planet
Putin is not averse to handing out awards to openly gay celebrities and the Russian elite is full of gay people.
I'll stop now at the risk of overdoing the apologia but the key point was made by foxinsox below. There are places in the world where gay people face real oppression. Singling out Russia on this issue is just virtue signalling, especially when we had similar laws on our statute book until recently.
Outside of north Africa and the Middle East, Russia is now one of the worst places to be gay on the planet
Putin is not averse to handing out awards to openly gay celebrities and the Russian elite is full of gay people.
I'll stop now at the risk of overdoing the apologia but the key point was made by foxinsox below. There are places in the world where gay people face real oppression. Singling out Russia on this issue is just virtue signalling, especially when we had similar laws on our statute book until recently.
Outside of north Africa and the Middle East, Russia is now one of the worst places to be gay on the planet
Putin is not averse to handing out awards to openly gay celebrities and the Russian elite is full of gay people.
Yeaah right, I man Kippers wouldn't like to be caught off-guard saying what they really think. I hear it every day, and YOU know what I mean
As long as there are other producers commissioned to interview Labour members with increasingly Momentum-popular Labour proposals - but I bet there won't be.
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way thegree
Indeed, South Africa and much of Latin America are more liberal on homosexuality than Putin's Russia
How about India and the Muslim world and the rest of Africa?
As I said below most of the Muslim world (including north Africa) is even more oppressive, although India is not much different to Russia but with a less macho culture. However Brazil, Maxico, Argentina, South Africa, Japan let alone the west are far more tolerant than Russia is in regards to homosexuality
In India, homosexuality is illegal!
Only recently because of a court ruling, in practice it is little enforced and you see transsexuals in India in a way you would never do in Russia
I'll stop now at the risk of overdoing the apologia but the key point was made by foxinsox below. There are places in the world where gay people face real oppression. Singling out Russia on this issue is just virtue signalling, especially when we had similar laws on our statute book until recently.
Outside of north Africa and the Middle East, Russia is now one of the worst places to be gay on the planet
Putin is not averse to handing out awards to openly gay celebrities and the Russian elite is full of gay people.
I'll stop now at the risk of overdoing the apologia but the key point was made by foxinsox below. There are places in the world where gay people face real oppression. Singling out Russia on this issue is just virtue signalling, especially when we had similar laws on our statute book until recently.
Outside of north Africa and the Middle East, Russia is now one of the worst places to be gay on the planet
Putin is not averse to handing out awards to openly gay celebrities and the Russian elite is full of gay people.
I'll stop now at the risk of overdoing the apologia but the key point was made by foxinsox below. There are places in the world where gay people face real oppression. Singling out Russia on this issue is just virtue signalling, especially when we had similar laws on our statute book until recently.
Outside of north Africa and the Middle East, Russia is now one of the worst places to be gay on the planet
Putin is not averse to handing out awards to openly gay celebrities and the Russian elite is full of gay people.
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way thegree
Indeed, South Africa and much of Latin America are more liberal on homosexuality than Putin's Russia
How about India and the Muslim world and the rest of Africa?
As I said below most of the Muslim world (including north Africa) is even more oppressive, although India is not much different to Russia but with a less macho culture. However Brazil, Maxico, Argentina, South Africa, Japan let alone the west are far more tolerant than Russia is in regards to homosexuality
In India, homosexuality is illegal!
Only recently because of a court ruling, in practice it is little enforced and you see transsexuals in India in a way you would never do in Russia
Not "only recently"!
That court ruling upheld that "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" is illegal, a law dating back to Colonial times!
When was the last time a third party candidate won a state? I think it was George Wallace in 68 who won 5 states in the old confederacy.
Ross Perot got a bigger share of the national vote but no EC votes, failing to win a single state.
Wallace (despite being a Democrat) inadvertently put a Republican in power, Perot helped another Clinton by splitting the Right wing vote.
Yes.
Perot got 19% in 1992.
The last time a third party or independent candidate even won a seat in the EC was in 1972 when Libertarian nominee John Hospers and his running-mate Tonie Nathan got one vote from faithless Republican elector Roger MacBride in Virginia. That was the only time a woman has ever won a vote in the EC.
The Libertarian party has never won more than 1.1% of the vote. I doubt they will make 2% this time. Green candidate Jill Stein is the one to watch. Even if she picks up only 5% of the Democrats who voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries or otherwise favoured him as the Democratic nominee, she'll be in with a chance to beat Ralph Nader's 2.7% in 2000. And the Green convention is still to come, whereas the Libertarians have already held theirs.
Gill Stein, may do better than expected, and Gary Johnson also has a legal challenge to the Debates committion on anti-monopoly grounds that includes the green party, so its possible she will get on stage even if she does not get to 15% in the poles. But she is not going to be on the ballot in all states, probably around 40 I understand, which will denier her the level of credibility that Johnson has, she will also be taking almost all her votes from Hillary, leaving her more open to charges of being a spoiler, especially as hard left democrats still remember/belief that Ralf Nader, 'let bush in' and this year she will be splitting the 'Pro-Pot Anti-War' vote Johnson who at the moment at least is getting the lions share of the media attention on 3rd party's.
You may have a point about the green party convention, we will see.
That's ok then... Putin only has to criminalise gum and introduce the death penalty for drugs and all will be right with the world.
Singapore bans a lot of things. The point remains Russia is now far behind much of the developing world, from Brazil and Argentina and Mexico to South Africa where gay marriage or civil unions are legal let alone the developed world on homosexual rights. The fact Russia does a little better than Saudi Arabia and a few others is not much of an argument
That's ok then... Putin only has to criminalise gum and introduce the death penalty for drugs and all will be right with the world.
Singapore bans a lot of things. The point remains Russia is now far behind much of the developing world, from Brazil and Argentina and Mexico to South Africa where gay marriage or civil unions are legal let alone the developed world on homosexual rights. The fact Russia does a little better than Saudi Arabia and a few others is not much of an argument
Homosexuality is not illegal in Russia, merely restrictions on freedom of expression.
There are 73 countries which have laws criminalizing homosexuality, with most of them located in Asia and Africa.
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way thegree
That's nonsense. Putin takes no more of a hard line on homosexuality than Thatcher who was also vilified for Section 28.
That's the Thatcher who legalised homosexuality in Scotland as one of her first acts on coming into power, right?
And the Thatcher who used a conference keynote speech to decry the fact that 'children are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay'.
Homosexuals were never persecuted under Thatcher the way thegree
Next story Re Trump/Putin (and those saying that his comments help him really are crazed) is how Putin's troll army is working to eiect Trump. I've crossed swords with them before over Ukraine, they really hate you pointing out how pathetically they are being paid and, connected to above, lose their cool when you ask them about their sexuality.
It's the far right who like Putin and who are from the west. Very little support from elsewhere. Anyone on a western comments thread for a newspaper and such who goes on about how impressive Putin is is very suspect.
These comments from security bods about fearing Trump being given briefings are really not going to help him, same with the tax returns. Is there value in Pence as next prez? Worth a speculative flutter, definitely.
Comments
In many ways I agree with you, it will depend on the situation, but if the range of options to vote for are all bad, then the thing to do, I would say, is to start a new party and stand for election yourself, it hard work and takes time.
That is largely what the Libertarians have been doing for some time now. if this the year when they finally brake though? I don't know, but think it is possible, (and I will make £55,000 if they do!) but if not could this also be the final stepping stone, were the party's ideas are shared with more people that ever, and ballot access is assured, so that after ether Trump or Hillary balls up in the next 4 years, the Libertarians have a shot then? also possible but who knows.
Nevertheless there is a parallel with similar recent laws in Russia, which cause much opprobrium but have no effect in the real world other than to poison the climate.
Personally I suspect he's retired
I wonder why the security officers are disguised as cows...
Oh great. I'm going to be up all night looking at that site now!
Might save me some time when it comes to making representations on behalf of the party though...
I have been reloo-ably unformed that 'Ello, 'Ello is on the Yosterday Choonel right nee!
(Skoo 537, Fryview 19)
In practise there are between 40 and 80 House republicans who I believe would prefer Jonson to Trump, I think that they will collectively go to the democratic leadership and say join us in voting for Johnson or we will vote for Trump! and the democrats could well go along with that.
This is, I admit, not that likely to happen, but I think the probability is above the 250-1 that you can get on betfire.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBma82g3Uag
In both cases though better than the hangings, stonings and throwing from high buildings of active gays rather than gay activists. It is important to keep perspective on who the real persecutors are and where it occurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory
"Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." - Proverbs, 16:18
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaJp66ArJVI
When was the last time a third party candidate won a state? I think it was George Wallace in 68 who won 5 states in the old confederacy.
Ross Perot got a bigger share of the national vote but no EC votes, failing to win a single state.
Wallace (despite being a Democrat) inadvertently put a Republican in power, Perot helped another Clinton by splitting the Right wing vote.
Johnson will help Hillary into the job.
Personally I suspect he's retired In the context, the implication is that they are being taught (accurately) about their right to be gay *to the exclusion of* tradtitional moral values. That would be a problem.
The other thing to note is that Wallace aimed squarely a a handful of states: there was no national pitch. Hence why he could win in some states and not win the Presidency. Perot, and other third party candidates, are likely to win 270+ or 0.
As I said to Richard, it is clumsy.
If you're going 3rd party, surely Nader as a spoiler for Gore is an example?
The iPhone is just one of many smartphones available now.
Firstly, he has put himself at the centre of coverage, during the Democrat convention. Example: on the LA Times webpage, the Trump story is right up on the top left hand side.
Secondly, whenever the media repeat the story, they'll have to quote his comments, enabling him to spread the message about Hillary's emails.
Thirdly, he neutralises the Democrat attack lines that about a hidden conspiracy between him & Russia to release the DNC emails. If he openly calls on Russia on release Democrat emails then it's not a hidden conspiracy any more.
(Personally I find most kind of spirits go before falls, but that's equally true of other types of alcohol).
"From Russia with Love (But no Gay Stuff)"
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/155uge/the-colbert-report-sport-report---from-russia-with-love--but-no-gay-stuff-
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ow2caa/the-colbert-report-sport-report---from-russia-with-love--but-no-gay-stuff----u-s--speedskating-team
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/i1zitj/the-colbert-report-sport-report---from-russian-with-love--but-no-gay-stuff----buddy-cole-undercover
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/z8viri/the-colbert-report-sport-report---from-russia-with-love--but-no-gay-stuff----buddy-cole-in-sochi
And this one too:
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/affj6c/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-jason-jones-live-from-sochi-ish---commie-dearest
They are very entertaining and illuminating.
Perot got 19% in 1992.
The last time a third party or independent candidate even won a seat in the EC was in 1972 when Libertarian nominee John Hospers and his running-mate Tonie Nathan got one vote from faithless Republican elector Roger MacBride in Virginia. That was the only time a woman has ever won a vote in the EC. The Libertarian party has never won more than 1.1% of the vote. I doubt they will make 2% this time. Green candidate Jill Stein is the one to watch. Even if she picks up only 5% of the Democrats who voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries or otherwise favoured him as the Democratic nominee, she'll be in with a chance to beat Ralph Nader's 2.7% in 2000. And the Green convention is still to come, whereas the Libertarians have already held theirs.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/27/_trump_not_safe_to_give_hillary_clinton_national_security_classified_briefings_the_word_will_get_out.html
"I don't think that it's safe to have Hillary Clinton --in light of what just happened and in the light of what we just found out-- I don't think it's safe to have Hillary Clinton be briefed on national security.
Because the word will get out."
Astonishingly by the late 1970's when I lived in Georgia, Wallace was winning black American votes. Talk about u-turns!
With Perot the fact is that he got no votes and Clinton got the White house.
http://www.mediastorehouse.com/p/617/russian-president-vladimir-putin-left-presents-a-state-9664683.jpg
Is your comment based on any direct experience?
racisthomophobic?John Birch -Lib Dem 812 votes
Alan White - Green 499 votes
Alex Mockridge - Ind 391 votes
Conservative - 137 votes
The losing party was Labour.
https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/758429599881625600
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/758439730208006144
That court ruling upheld that "carnal intercourse against the order of nature" is illegal, a law dating back to Colonial times!
You may have a point about the green party convention, we will see.
There are 73 countries which have laws criminalizing homosexuality, with most of them located in Asia and Africa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5055458029001/krauthammer-trumps-russia-reference-set-a-trap-for-clinton/?#sp=show-clips
It's the far right who like Putin and who are from the west. Very little support from elsewhere. Anyone on a western comments thread for a newspaper and such who goes on about how impressive Putin is is very suspect.
These comments from security bods about fearing Trump being given briefings are really not going to help him, same with the tax returns. Is there value in Pence as next prez? Worth a speculative flutter, definitely.