politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trump: grinding his way to victory?
Comments
-
Edward Heath took Britain into the EEC. Whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing, it surely outweighs Mrs Thatcher's achievements in Europe? Certainly, she signed the Single European Act to deepen the EU but she did not originate it.david_herdson said:
You jest, I assume?DecrepitJohnL said:
Margaret Thatcher? Surely Edward Heath.david_herdson said:
That's confusing cause and effect. Farage is an effect; an effective politician riding a tide flowing in his direction. That tide had little to nothing to do with him. The reaction against the EU across the continent suggests that it's far from a uniquely British phenomenon and Britain has always been the most Eurosceptic of the EU's members. Both points were always going to make Brexit more likely, all the more so when the Lib Dems' entry into government and Labour's ineptitude opened the door for UKIP domestically.Black_Rook said:
Absolutely. The centrist political consensus in Europe - first the Western half and then, post-1990 - in the East as well - has been towards the construction of common institutions and the pooling of sovereignty, a process that has accelerated as liberal economic and social orthodoxy has become entrenched. Brexit has stalled this seemingly inevitable process, and it is most unlikely that we would've got so far without Farage.corporeal said:
Pardon? The most influential in Europe since the war?Black_Rook said:
Nigel Farage has a good claim to be the single most influential political leader to have emerged in Europe since the War. Whatever your personal view of that which he has wrought, he has changed the course of history.Jonathan said:
2016 annusPaul_Bedfordshire said:I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:
https://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgYhorribillisclusterfuckus
Now, just imagine what Trump might do were he to pull this one off. And I'm beginning to think that he probably will, in fact, do it. Like the fall of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet communism, 2016 has the feeling of the end of an era to it.
The rest of the edifice is now looking shaky - the big question is whether, as I suspect, it eventually falls, or if the Governments of the rest of the EU somehow manage to shore it back up again. Next, attention must turn to Italy.
Suggestions I'd put forward for ten post-war European politicians more influential than Nigel Farage, in no particular order:
Jean Monnet
Michael Gorbachev
Helmut Kohl
Charles de Gaulle
Jacques Delors
Konrad Adenauer
Margaret Thatcher
Lech Walensa
Joseph Stalin
Angela Merkel0 -
Dredging up the birther thing looks terribly desperate and trivial right now. Last week it was Supremacist Frog, now Birthers? And that's backfiring all over her - my timeline is full of Trumpers sharing Hillary 2008 campaign leaflets saying Obama was born in Kenya/TV intv from 2008 ditto/even a handful of journalists saying Yup, I Was Told That By Her Campaign.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
If she'd something to say - she'd be doing that rather than this crappy defence of name-calling.0 -
What are the odds of 8 people from the same country in 9 Months?
British winner scoops £34m EuroMillions jackpot
The lucky person is the eighth from the UK to claim the top prize this year
http://news.sky.com/story/british-winner-scoops-16334m-euromillions-jackpot-105812670 -
Her time at State was a bit of a disaster. She had very serious illnesses which meant she was part time for a significant period, she had the server, she had Benghazi and she had a President who wasn't much interested in world affairs and gave her little to do. Inevitably in his second term Obama has looked overseas more, as pretty much all American Presidents tend to do, giving Kerry a higher profile but even he seems to look behind himself anxiously to make sure Obama is really there.JosiasJessop said:
One of Clinton's problems is that she has a history, and has made no attempts to hide the fact that she wants the top job. It's given her opponents every opportunity to attack her before she had even thrown her hat into the ring. It's much better to be a 'fresh' candidate.david_herdson said:
Except she doesn't. Obama's favourability rating is +9; Hillary's is -14. If the true 'more of the same' candidate were running, he'd be very well set to win. What she represents is 'the same, but worse'.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
The thing is that Clinton = more of the same just as Remain diddavid_herdson said:
Show some passion for something other than herself and her ambition would be a start. What are her key policies? What does she have top positively attract people? What is her equivalent of Trump's wall, or immigration / entry-control reform - or of Obama's healthcare?Jonathan said:So what does Clinton need to do to stop the catastrophe of a Trump presidency? Given everyone who could be put off my his craziness has been. Obviously she needs to GOTV but some fresh angle is also needed.
Perhaps Obama is the card to play.,
If she loses, I'd put it down to her time as SoS. She was too visible. I wonder if she regrets having done that role, which is much worse than being a VP as you actually have to make decisions.
(I know Trump isn't fresh either, but his is a very different type of candidature).
Interestingly, the last Secretary of State to become a President was Buchanan in 1856. It has not been a natural stepping stone.0 -
A fairly damning indictment of our politics over the last 16 years that a man who has never been elected in his own strength, held no official post, has three times resigned the party leadership and cannot point to a single achievement that is indisputably his own can be described as 'one of the more important 21st century politicians'.david_herdson said:While I wouldn't underplay Farage's significance - he's one of the more important British 21st century politicians.
He wouldn't even measure up to Joseph Chamberlain. Not even to Milner c.1911. Good grief, Goderich or Harrowby would be embarrassed to be compared to him.
Although I suppose it could also reflect the stagnation/stability in government- four Prime Ministers, four chancellors - has anyone else noted that so far no PM has replaced a chancellor since Major? - along with the emasculation of the Foreign Office and a bunch of pygmies like Corbyn and Duncan Smith do not make for long lists of political Giants.0 -
Whether you place Farage in the top one, the top ten or the top hundred politicians, that 2010 plane crash feels like an important event.
If we look at the footage, I wonder if, in the background, we will see Dr Sam Beckett or a mysterious tall man with a scarf.0 -
Some good news for Clinton as Ipsos puts her 4% ahead, although 4% leads are consistent with a very close race.
WRT Pennsylvania, we really need more up to date polling, as most of it is from a fortnight ago.
There is evidence that Trump is under-performing in some Red States (Texas, Utah, Arizona, Kansas) so he must be over-performing elsewhere to be so close.0 -
Who knows? He gave a convincing indication to the contrary in the nomination speech: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/27/opinions/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-marriage-drexler/index.htmlMaxPB said:
There's been very little rubbing of any kind between those two for a while.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
But then he is a genuine master at building an argument.0 -
Here we go again.....
"Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing criticism after appearing to hint at the assassination of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for a second time. Mr Trump suggested Mrs Clinton's security detail should give up their guns and "see what happens to her".
He told supporters his rival wanted to "destroy your second amendment" - referring to the right to own guns. Mrs Clinton's team has accused Mr Trump of "inciting people to violence"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-373948830 -
"never been elected in his own strength, held no official post, has three times resigned the party leadership and cannot point to a single achievement that is indisputably his own"ydoethur said:
A fairly damning indictment of our politics over the last 16 years that a man who has never been elected in his own strength, held no official post, has three times resigned the party leadership and cannot point to a single achievement that is indisputably his own can be described as 'one of the more important 21st century politicians'.david_herdson said:While I wouldn't underplay Farage's significance - he's one of the more important British 21st century politicians.
He wouldn't even measure up to Joseph Chamberlain. Not even to Milner c.1911. Good grief, Goderich or Harrowby would be embarrassed to be compared to him.
Although I suppose it could also reflect the stagnation/stability in government- four Prime Ministers, four chancellors - has anyone else noted that so far no PM has replaced a chancellor since Major? - along with the emasculation of the Foreign Office and a bunch of pygmies like Corbyn and Duncan Smith do not make for long lists of political Giants.
You could say much the same of Ghandi or (pre-1991) Mandela. You don't necessarily need office to affect major decisions. And his leadership of UKIP from a trivial fringe party to the third-most supported at a general election and the most-supported at a national election the year before (the first new party to achieve either feat since 1918 or before) can't be ignored, particularly given the knock-on effect it had.0 -
With a list such as this, it should be possible to describe in a sentence the historical contribution each has made. Kohl, 'mapped the path toward German unification', Thatcher, 'sowed the seeds of the collapse of capitalism', Walensa 'organised opposition to Polish communism' etc.DecrepitJohnL said:
Edward Heath took Britain into the EEC. Whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing, it surely outweighs Mrs Thatcher's achievements in Europe? Certainly, she signed the Single European Act to deepen the EU but she did not originate it.david_herdson said:
You jest, I assume?DecrepitJohnL said:
Margaret Thatcher? Surely Edward Heath.david_herdson said:
That's confusing cause and effect. Farage is an effect; an effective politician riding a tide flowing in his direction. That tide had little to nothing to do with him. The reaction against the EU across the continent suggests that it's far from a uniquely British phenomenon and Britain has always been the most Eurosceptic of the EU's members. Both points were always going to make Brexit more likely, all the more so when the Lib Dems' entry into government and Labour's ineptitude opened the door for UKIP domestically.Black_Rook said:corporeal said:
Pardon? The most influential in Europe since the war?Black_Rook said:
, just imagine what Trump might do were he to pull this one off. And I'm beginning to think that he probably will, in fact, do it. it.Jonathan said:
2016 annusPaul_Bedfordshire said:I think come the end of the year, this short video will sum the year up politically:
https://youtu.be/oj4K9fr_WgYhorribillisclusterfuckus
The rest of the edifice is now looking shaky - the big question is whether, as I suspect, it eventually falls, or if the Governments of the rest of the EU somehow manage to shore it back up again. Next, attention must turn to Italy.
Suggestions I'd put forward for ten post-war European politicians more influential than Nigel Farage, in no particular order:
Jean Monnet
Michael Gorbachev
Helmut Kohl
Charles de Gaulle
Jacques Delors
Konrad Adenauer
Margaret Thatcher
Lech Walensa
Joseph Stalin
Angela Merkel
With Farage, like the French Revolution, it is too early to say. If Brexit leads to the disintegration of the EU then maybe he deserves a place on the list as the principal first mover. Brexit alone isn't significant enough, however it turns out.
I would like to see Havel in the list as well, for having inspired principled non-violent resistance to communism for many years and then steering his country peacefully into the post-communist era.0 -
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.0 -
I think we can all agree that there are moods of anti-politics and Euroscepticism abroad, and I further concede that the British populace has always been less willing to embrace political Europe than most nations on the continent. However, I still reckon firstly that the EU would be more stable and have a better chance of rescuing itself if its second largest member were actively engaged and functioning as a balancing power in the European Council, rather than being absent having just voted to leave; secondly, that we would be nowhere close to the exit door without Ukip; and thirdly, that Ukip would be nowhere without Nigel Farage.david_herdson said:That's confusing cause and effect. Farage is an effect; an effective politician riding a tide flowing in his direction. That tide had little to nothing to do with him. The reaction against the EU across the continent suggests that it's far from a uniquely British phenomenon and Britain has always been the most Eurosceptic of the EU's members. Both points were always going to make Brexit more likely, all the more so when the Lib Dems' entry into government and Labour's ineptitude opened the door for UKIP domestically.
Suggestions I'd put forward for ten post-war European politicians more influential than Nigel Farage, in no particular order:
Jean Monnet
Michael Gorbachev
Helmut Kohl
Charles de Gaulle
Jacques Delors
Konrad Adenauer
Margaret Thatcher
Lech Walensa
Joseph Stalin
Angela Merkel
If Brexit is the first domino in the collapse of the EU, then Farage will have been largely responsible for changing the geopolitics of an entire region of the globe. Regarding your list, this would also have the logical consequence of ending the strategic vision of all of those important European figures who were committed to the European unification project. Thatcher was an influential figure in the ending of the Cold War, but necessarily played a supporting role to Ronald Reagan. I was careful to talk of leaders who emerged since the War, thus excluding Stalin, de Gaulle (and Churchill, of course.) I do agree with you on Gorbachev though: the collapse of the Soviet Union was arguably an economic inevitability, but his leadership prevented events from unfolding in a far more dangerous fashion than they actually did.0 -
What happens in the unlikely but certainly possible event that Clinton dies between filing deadline and the Electoral College vote? Like the West Wing death of Vice Presidential candidate Leo McGarry following the actor's death.
Does Hillary get elected and then the 25th Amendment kick in and Kaine becomes President? Or something else?0 -
So President Buchanan, do you think you left the Union in a better place than you found it?ydoethur said:
An unhappy precedent of an a very unhappy President!DavidL said:Interestingly, the last Secretary of State to become a President was Buchanan in 1856. It has not been a natural stepping stone.
I doubt even a President Trump would prove quite as calamitous.0 -
Arguably Jimmy Goldsmith was at least as influential: it was the Referendum Party that forced Major and then Blair into accepting that further integration such as joining the euro required a referendum, and if he'd lived longer the Referendum Party might have swallowed UKIP (having trounced it at the 1997 election) rather than vice versa.david_herdson said:
Yes, that was why I phrased it as 'ten post-war European politicians more influential than Nigel Farage', rather than the top 10.ydoethur said:
Karl Wojtyla and Angelo Roncalli as well (for a given value of 'politician').david_herdson said:
That's confusing cause and effect. Farage is an effect; an effective politician riding a tide flowing in his direction. That tide had little to nothing to do with him. The reaction against the EU across the continent suggests that it's far from a uniquely British phenomenon and Britain has always been the most Eurosceptic of the EU's members. Both points were always going to make Brexit more likely, all the more so when the Lib Dems' entry into government and Labour's ineptitude opened the door for UKIP domestically.Black_Rook said:
Absolutely. The centrist political consensus in Europe - first the Western half and then, post-1990 - in the East as well - has been towards the construction of common institutions and the pooling of sovereignty, a process that has accelerated as liberal economic and social orthodoxy has become entrenched. Brexit has stalled this seemingly inevitable process, and it is most unlikely that we would've got so far without Farage.corporeal said:
Pardon? The most influential in Europe since the war?
The rest of the edifice is now looking shaky - the big question is whether, as I suspect, it eventually falls, or if the Governments of the rest of the EU somehow manage to shore it back up again. Next, attention must turn to Italy.
Suggestions I'd put forward for ten post-war European politicians more influential than Nigel Farage, in no particular order:
Jean Monnet
Michael Gorbachev
Helmut Kohl
Charles de Gaulle
Jacques Delors
Konrad Adenauer
Margaret Thatcher
Lech Walensa
Joseph Stalin
Angela Merkel
Heck, even Edith Chretien or however you spell it should surely rank ahead of Farage. He talked about the issues in Europe, she helped create them.
But the point you make is right: all those listed changed Europe in major ways through their decisions, and were absolutely instrumental in affecting that direction change. While I wouldn't underplay Farage's significance - he's one of the more important British 21st century politicians - he was already swimming with the tide. Those listed had such gravity that changed the tides.0 -
Bugger - I read some Texas polling late yesterday and it was looking good for Trump. No idea where so can't find it again.Sean_F said:Some good news for Clinton as Ipsos puts her 4% ahead, although 4% leads are consistent with a very close race.
WRT Pennsylvania, we really need more up to date polling, as most of it is from a fortnight ago.
There is evidence that Trump is under-performing in some Red States (Texas, Utah, Arizona, Kansas) so he must be over-performing elsewhere to be so close.0 -
Betfair settles for Hillary.Philip_Thompson said:What happens in the unlikely but certainly possible event that Clinton dies between filing deadline and the Electoral College vote? Like the West Wing death of Vice Presidential candidate Leo McGarry following the actor's death.
Does Hillary get elected and then the 25th Amendment kick in and Kaine becomes President? Or something else?0 -
Your constant trolling for Trump is bizarre.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
As woman with an independent opinion, you are exactly the type of person Trump dislikes the most. Heck, the only way it could be worse for you, would be if you wore a sombrero.
0 -
She is toastPlatoSaid said:
Dredging up the birther thing looks terribly desperate and trivial right now. Last week it was Supremacist Frog, now Birthers? And that's backfiring all over her - my timeline is full of Trumpers sharing Hillary 2008 campaign leaflets saying Obama was born in Kenya/TV intv from 2008 ditto/even a handful of journalists saying Yup, I Was Told That By Her Campaign.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
If she'd something to say - she'd be doing that rather than this crappy defence of name-calling.0 -
The point about birthers, leaving aside the questionable motives of those on Twitter, and that it was Trump who resurrected the issue when seeking to bury it last week, is that it confirms the worst impressions of both candidates. Clinton the cynical opportunist for spreading false rumours against Obama; Trump the crazy conspiracy theorist who actually believed them.PlatoSaid said:
Dredging up the birther thing looks terribly desperate and trivial right now. Last week it was Supremacist Frog, now Birthers? And that's backfiring all over her - my timeline is full of Trumpers sharing Hillary 2008 campaign leaflets saying Obama was born in Kenya/TV intv from 2008 ditto/even a handful of journalists saying Yup, I Was Told That By Her Campaign.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
If she'd something to say - she'd be doing that rather than this crappy defence of name-calling.0 -
An interesting reply to a post which didn't mention Trump at all.Jonathan said:
Your constant trolling for Trump is bizarre.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
As woman with an independent opinion, you are exactly the type of person Trump dislikes the most. Heck, the only way it could be worse for you, would be if you wore a sombrero.0 -
That's a very parochial view. The EU has taken on 22 new members since founding. Arguably, Britain was the most significant (it's certainly the biggest) but Heath only completed the policy of Macmillan and Wilson so while it happened to be very much his personal mission, it wasn't one that he was critical to. The important factor was the change of president in France (hence one reason for my inclusion of de Gaulle).DecrepitJohnL said:
Edward Heath took Britain into the EEC. Whether you regard that as a good or a bad thing, it surely outweighs Mrs Thatcher's achievements in Europe? Certainly, she signed the Single European Act to deepen the EU but she did not originate it.david_herdson said:
You jest, I assume?DecrepitJohnL said:
Margaret Thatcher? Surely Edward Heath.david_herdson said:
That's confusing cause and effect. Farage is an effect; an effective politician riding a tide flowing in his direction. That tide had little to nothing to do with him. The reaction against the EU across the continent suggests that it's far from a uniquely British phenomenon and Britain has always been the most Eurosceptic of the EU's members. Both points were always going to make Brexit more likely, all the more so when the Lib Dems' entry into government and Labour's ineptitude opened the door for UKIP domestically.
Suggestions I'd put forward for ten post-war European politicians more influential than Nigel Farage, in no particular order:
Jean Monnet
Michael Gorbachev
Helmut Kohl
Charles de Gaulle
Jacques Delors
Konrad Adenauer
Margaret Thatcher
Lech Walensa
Joseph Stalin
Angela Merkel
By contrast, Thatcher's government was the driving force behind the (near-)completion of the Single Market and that, combined with Delors' leadership of the Commission, sparked off the practical federalising impulse that has never really lost momentum since but which has done dreadful damage to the EU's popular support. But more, Thatcher was crucial in two other ways to Europe's history. Firstly, she was instrumental in bringing Gorbachev and Reagan together and so played an important if indirect role in the ending of the Cold War, and secondly, her domestic politics signalled a new practical and workable option for Europe (and beyond); 'Thatcherism' still has a meaning politically which is itself a good measure of lasting influence.0 -
-
Depends I suppose on the number of tickets bought in that country. In 9 months we have presumably had 39 weeks of winners = 78. UK GDP is about 1/12 of the EU so the mean is 6.5 and the variance is 5.96- giving standard deviation of 2.44. Thus 8 winners are 0.615 standard deviations out - which gives a value of about 27%Moses_ said:What are the odds of 8 people from the same country in 9 Months?
British winner scoops £34m EuroMillions jackpot
The lucky person is the eighth from the UK to claim the top prize this year
http://news.sky.com/story/british-winner-scoops-16334m-euromillions-jackpot-10581267
(This assumes there will be 2 winner each week and that ticket sales are proportional to GDP, I don't have exact numbers)0 -
Various thoughts:
I've been receiving multiple unrequested credit card application forms in the post.
Together with the surging consumer spending it really does have echoes of 2006-7.
But what is different is that government debt is over a trillion pounds higher and the current account deficit is five times as high as it was ten years ago.
'Over promised and under delivered on reform' is Osborne's political epitaph.
0 -
Bill was on The Daily Show earlier this week. Very good interview, undoubtedly one of the greatest living politicians.DavidL said:
Who knows? He gave a convincing indication to the contrary in the nomination speech: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/27/opinions/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-marriage-drexler/index.htmlMaxPB said:
There's been very little rubbing of any kind between those two for a while.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
But then he is a genuine master at building an argument.0 -
The multi way cluster-f**ks that were the Republican 'debates' are going to be nothing like a 1-on-1.DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything? Trump also got a lot more practice at debating in the GOP race than she did.foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.0 -
Re Justine Greening and her possible resignation.
Hasn't she always been in disagreement with government policy as it relates to her department ? Whether that was Transport, International Development or now Education.
She even managed to miss the 'Bomb Assad' vote on spurious grounds.
0 -
Quick search trawls up following from Washington Post:Philip_Thompson said:What happens in the unlikely but certainly possible event that Clinton dies between filing deadline and the Electoral College vote? Like the West Wing death of Vice Presidential candidate Leo McGarry following the actor's death.
Does Hillary get elected and then the 25th Amendment kick in and Kaine becomes President? Or something else?
"So how about if the winner of the November election dies or withdraws before the electoral college meets in December?
Now things become even messier.
The issue is how an elector should or can cast their vote. Should the elector vote for the dead winner of the election, if the elector otherwise would be obligated to do so? Should he or she vote for the vice-presidential candidate of that party instead? How would these votes be tallied in Congress?
In addition, there are questions about what various state laws would permit. Do they permit, for example, an electoral-college representative to vote for the vice-presidential winner in this circumstance?
And beyond that, there are serious questions about whether it is even constitutional for state laws to purport to bind their state electors to vote in a certain way, which would also come into play at this point."
In other words, God alone knows what would happen in the Electoral College. One has to wonder whether, in such circumstances, a President-Elect could even be chosen in time for the inauguration: if the Electoral College vote gets bogged down in court cases then the College might not be able to produce a result, and my understanding is that the College has to at least get as far as producing a list of nominees - even if no single one of them commands a majority - before the House can step in and elect a President.
There would, however, have to be a replacement for Obama when his term ends. I would assume that the Speaker of the House would become Acting President during the interregnum.0 -
Which is the only thing that matters! She has to stay alive until 9th November!Pulpstar said:
Betfair settles for Hillary.Philip_Thompson said:What happens in the unlikely but certainly possible event that Clinton dies between filing deadline and the Electoral College vote? Like the West Wing death of Vice Presidential candidate Leo McGarry following the actor's death.
Does Hillary get elected and then the 25th Amendment kick in and Kaine becomes President? Or something else?0 -
Mr. P, I'm still waiting for the promised collapse of Western civilisation.0
-
Farage has certainly left his mark, but is not that different to a lot of populist politicians of the near decade since the GFC. In times of economic stagnation facile populists with their easy solutions to complex problems tend to get support. It is a worldwide issue rather than a specifically EU one.
Trump, Pauline Hanson, Tony Abbott, Jacob Zuma, Wilders, LePen, are all manifestations of the same populism as Farage. All are reacting to issues of globalism and migration, of which the EU is just a part.
We see in Trump that not being in the EU is no protection against these things.0 -
It really is odd. Odder still is why the lefties constantly defend and talk up a Clinton a millionaire snollygoster from a political dynasty while deriding someone who is obviously a fool but still had the acumen to make a lot of money in business.ThreeQuidder said:
An interesting reply to a post which didn't mention Trump at all.Jonathan said:
Your constant trolling for Trump is bizarre.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
As woman with an independent opinion, you are exactly the type of person Trump dislikes the most. Heck, the only way it could be worse for you, would be if you wore a sombrero.
We are in "red rose on a donkey" country here...0 -
Trump's position on this seems nonsensical. By pointing out that it would be easy to assassinate Hilary without armed security, he's highlighting the insanity of US gun laws.Moses_ said:Here we go again.....
"Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing criticism after appearing to hint at the assassination of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for a second time. Mr Trump suggested Mrs Clinton's security detail should give up their guns and "see what happens to her".
He told supporters his rival wanted to "destroy your second amendment" - referring to the right to own guns. Mrs Clinton's team has accused Mr Trump of "inciting people to violence"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37394883
The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.
It's also really nasty, but it will appeal to those he is targeting.0 -
The left of centre have a paranoia about Trump as he isn't one of them. What is worse, he doesn't come across as a raving lunatic when they see him directly rather than through the eyes of CNN - so they can't cope with the discrepancy.ThreeQuidder said:
An interesting reply to a post which didn't mention Trump at all.Jonathan said:
Your constant trolling for Trump is bizarre.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
As woman with an independent opinion, you are exactly the type of person Trump dislikes the most. Heck, the only way it could be worse for you, would be if you wore a sombrero.0 -
She's just as likely to be triggered into saying something tin-eared. Trump repeatedly calling her 'Mrs Clinton' might set off a rant about her accomplishments as Senator and Secretary of State.edmundintokyo said:
Some psychologist somewhere has a fun job of diagnosing Trump from video clips and working out what will set him off.foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.0 -
I'm curious as to whether the PB Tories who oppose new grammar schools are in favour of shutting the present grammar schools. And if not why not ?
Also, I don't recall them being opposed to Free Schools. Are state funded vanity schools for the metro-posh somehow different ?
0 -
I think I've been deleted.0
-
He is calling out her hypocracy. She wants to ban the little people from having guns while people like her get to keep their squadrons of armed gun toting guards.JosiasJessop said:
Trump's position on this seems nonsensical. By pointing out that it would be easy to assassinate Hilary without armed security, he's highlighting the insanity of US gun laws.Moses_ said:Here we go again.....
"Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing criticism after appearing to hint at the assassination of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for a second time. Mr Trump suggested Mrs Clinton's security detail should give up their guns and "see what happens to her".
He told supporters his rival wanted to "destroy your second amendment" - referring to the right to own guns. Mrs Clinton's team has accused Mr Trump of "inciting people to violence"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37394883
The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.
It's also really nasty, but it will appeal to those he is targeting.
Canada is also awash with guns but is less violent than the uk where only criminals and the state agencies have them.0 -
The Birther stuff is not aimed at Trump supporters, the majority of them think Obama was born in Kenya and is a Muslim. It's aimed at people thinking of voting Republican who hate the Birther stuff.PlatoSaid said:
Dredging up the birther thing looks terribly desperate and trivial right now. Last week it was Supremacist Frog, now Birthers? And that's backfiring all over her - my timeline is full of Trumpers sharing Hillary 2008 campaign leaflets saying Obama was born in Kenya/TV intv from 2008 ditto/even a handful of journalists saying Yup, I Was Told That By Her Campaign.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
If she'd something to say - she'd be doing that rather than this crappy defence of name-calling.
If you look away from the Trump twitter feeds the Newspapers and networks are using the word "lie" which they are loathe to do normally and posting tweets from trump well after the Birth Certificate was produced where he questioned Obama birth and posted further conspiracy theories.0 -
I'm waiting for a Republican PAC to produce a spoof House of Cards trailer featuring Bill and Hillary, to show in the marginal states. That comparison wouldn't go down well with floating voters.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.0 -
He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen.Moses_ said:
It really is odd. Odder still is why the lefties constantly defend and talk up a Clinton a millionaire snollygoster from a political dynasty while deriding someone who is obviously a fool but still had the acumen to make a lot of money in business.ThreeQuidder said:
An interesting reply to a post which didn't mention Trump at all.Jonathan said:
Your constant trolling for Trump is bizarre.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
As woman with an independent opinion, you are exactly the type of person Trump dislikes the most. Heck, the only way it could be worse for you, would be if you wore a sombrero.
We are in "red rose on a donkey" country here...0 -
Oi! None of your cultural apropriation here please. This is a safe space.Jonathan said:
Your constant trolling for Trump is bizarre.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
As woman with an independent opinion, you are exactly the type of person Trump dislikes the most. Heck, the only way it could be worse for you, would be if you wore a sombrero.
I haven't much staked on the US election. I haven't seen any value for a long time. I think Clinton will win on a low turnout.
From the UK point of view a Trump Presidency looks pretty bad. He is no friend of the UK and his statements about pulling out of one sided trade areangements are not good for us. Brexit and Trump escalating worldwide trade wars is not what the world needs now. Trump is an old fashioned American Isolationist Populist.0 -
This is a must-read piece on why Hillary is who she is.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-media-transparency-214250
Twenty-three years ago, when The New York Times’ Kelly asked why she, as an unelected presidential spouse, should set herself the task of attempting to remake society, she jumped “hard on the point,” as he put it.
The question is “irrelevant to me,” Clinton said then. “I know that no matter what I did—if I did nothing, if I spent my entire day totally disengaged from what was going on around me—I’d be criticized for that. I mean, it’s a no-win deal, no matter what I do, or try to do.”
Such fatalism predicts only one possible result: A plentiful lack of transparency, no matter what happens on Nov. 8. If Clinton loses the race to Trump, she’ll really learn what a “no-win deal” is, and she’d doubtless spend the rest of her days blaming a cynical media and partisan enemies, rather than her own personal judgment. If she wins, on the other hand, the victory will vindicate, in her mind, the stonewalling approach she’s taken for years. And the rest of us will no doubt bear witness to one of the least transparent administrations in American history.0 -
Its coming on Nov 9th......Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, I'm still waiting for the promised collapse of Western civilisation.
0 -
Rot. We will be front of the Queue.foxinsoxuk said:
Oi! None of your cultural apropriation here please. This is a safe space.Jonathan said:
Your constant trolling for Trump is bizarre.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
As woman with an independent opinion, you are exactly the type of person Trump dislikes the most. Heck, the only way it could be worse for you, would be if you wore a sombrero.
I haven't much staked on the US election. I haven't seen any value for a long time. I think Clinton will win on a low turnout.
From the UK point of view a Trump Presidency looks pretty bad. He is no friend of the UK and his statements about pulling out of one sided trade areangements are not good for us. Brexit and Trump escalating worldwide trade wars is not what the world needs now. Trump is an old fashioned American Isolationist Populist.
If that imperious Liberal clinton wins it will be bad news for the UK0 -
One thing for sure is that the debates are going to be must-watch television. Can anyone confirm what time they are on, I have a feeling it will be about 4-6am for me?williamglenn said:
She's just as likely to be triggered into saying something tin-eared. Trump repeatedly calling her 'Mrs Clinton' might set off a rant about her accomplishments as Senator and Secretary of State.edmundintokyo said:
Some psychologist somewhere has a fun job of diagnosing Trump from video clips and working out what will set him off.foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.0 -
Mentioned this previously . When I worked in the States I asked my American colleague why this second amendment was so important to them?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
He is calling out her hypocracy. She wants to ban the little people from having guns while people like her get to keep their squadrons of armed gun toting guards.JosiasJessop said:
Trump's position on this seems nonsensical. By pointing out that it would be easy to assassinate Hilary without armed security, he's highlighting the insanity of US gun laws.Moses_ said:Here we go again.....
"Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing criticism after appearing to hint at the assassination of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for a second time. Mr Trump suggested Mrs Clinton's security detail should give up their guns and "see what happens to her".
He told supporters his rival wanted to "destroy your second amendment" - referring to the right to own guns. Mrs Clinton's team has accused Mr Trump of "inciting people to violence"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37394883
The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.
It's also really nasty, but it will appeal to those he is targeting.
Canada is also awash with guns but is less violent than the uk where only criminals and the state agencies have them.
He simply said "to remind the government who is boss"
I was in the rebel south though........0 -
Lol.Scott_P said:
The blair regime from May 1997 effectively carried on until June 24th.
They are out now and they dont like it one little bit.
It is fascinating how remainers almost to a man are outraged by the idea of bringing back grammar schools and the royal yaught0 -
Mr. Nunu, hopefully in the afternoon, so I can still watch the Japanese Grand Prix.0
-
Of course Free Schools are different. They permit children to be selected on the basis of whose parents have the education, time, energy and money to ensure that the little Henrys and Jacintas get their diet of mindfulness and Mandarin (free from the presence of unwashed oiks from the local sink estate, needless to say. Exhausted minimum wage parents working two jobs to scrape together enough to pay the rent lack any of the resources to set up their own schools from scratch.)another_richard said:I'm curious as to whether the PB Tories who oppose new grammar schools are in favour of shutting the present grammar schools. And if not why not ?
Also, I don't recall them being opposed to Free Schools. Are state funded vanity schools for the metro-posh somehow different ?
This is obviously a wonderful thing. Selecting the children on the basis of their own ability, on the other hand, is to be resisted at all costs.0 -
I too mourn the day a sound Europhile chancellor was replaced by Gordon Brown.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Lol.Scott_P said:
The blair regime from May 1997 effectively carried on until June 24th.
They are out now and they dont like it one little bit0 -
Not so long ago you repeatedly predicted Hilary would be an excellent president.foxinsoxuk said:
Oi! None of your cultural apropriation here please. This is a safe space.Jonathan said:
Your constant trolling for Trump is bizarre.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
As woman with an independent opinion, you are exactly the type of person Trump dislikes the most. Heck, the only way it could be worse for you, would be if you wore a sombrero.
I haven't much staked on the US election. I haven't seen any value for a long time. I think Clinton will win on a low turnout.
From the UK point of view a Trump Presidency looks pretty bad. He is no friend of the UK and his statements about pulling out of one sided trade areangements are not good for us. Brexit and Trump escalating worldwide trade wars is not what the world needs now. Trump is an old fashioned American Isolationist Populist.
I always wondered on what basis you thought that as I've never seen any excellence in anything she has done.
Indeed her only achievement of note was in marrying someone far more talented than she was (and she wasn't even a very good wife).
Were you expecting a reverse Peter Principle to apply in Hilary's case ?
0 -
I came across a poster today with a 'les Miserables' style design of ragged people rising up with a torn US flag
It had 'les Deplorables' on it.
With simple, emotional, powerful messages like that, I think Trump will crush Clinton. I read he was even in touch in deep blue states like Michigan.
Clinton fans like to ignore the shy Trump factor, but I am betting it is not only there, but there in a much bigger way than anyone is prepared to admit.
If I'm wrong I'll be cutting some dosh, but that's my strong hunch.0 -
Trump became a normal politician yesterday, that's why it was so important it's not to do with the brother stuff.Alistair said:
The Birther stuff is not aimed at Trump supporters, the majority of them think Obama was born in Kenya and is a Muslim. It's aimed at people thinking of voting Republican who hate the Birther stuff.PlatoSaid said:
Dredging up the birther thing looks terribly desperate and trivial right now. Last week it was Supremacist Frog, now Birthers? And that's backfiring all over her - my timeline is full of Trumpers sharing Hillary 2008 campaign leaflets saying Obama was born in Kenya/TV intv from 2008 ditto/even a handful of journalists saying Yup, I Was Told That By Her Campaign.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
If she'd something to say - she'd be doing that rather than this crappy defence of name-calling.
If you look away from the Trump twitter feeds the Newspapers and networks are using the word "lie" which they are loathe to do normally and posting tweets from trump well after the Birth Certificate was produced where he questioned Obama birth and posted further conspiracy theories.0 -
@foxinsoxuk
'Farage has certainly left his mark, but is not that different to a lot of populist politicians of the near decade since the GFC. In times of economic stagnation facile populists with their easy solutions to complex problems tend to get support.'
Farage has achieved more with minimal parliamentary representation than the Lib Dems did in 5 years of coalition government.0 -
There's an interesting piece in the NYT - the writer has trouble accepting she's really a crappy candidate.weejonnie said:
The left of centre have a paranoia about Trump as he isn't one of them. What is worse, he doesn't come across as a raving lunatic when they see him directly rather than through the eyes of CNN - so they can't cope with the discrepancy.ThreeQuidder said:
An interesting reply to a post which didn't mention Trump at all.Jonathan said:
Your constant trolling for Trump is bizarre.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
As woman with an independent opinion, you are exactly the type of person Trump dislikes the most. Heck, the only way it could be worse for you, would be if you wore a sombrero.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/15/opinion/when-a-crackpot-runs-for-president.html?_r=0
"So I wonder if journalistic efforts at fairness don’t risk normalizing Trump, without fully acknowledging what an abnormal candidate he is. Historically we in the news media have sometimes fallen into the traps of glib narratives or false equivalencies, and we should try hard to ensure that doesn’t happen again.
We should be guard dogs, not lap dogs, and when the public sees Trump as more honest than Clinton, something has gone wrong."0 -
Trump is pretty clear that he is interested in ripping up trade deals and increasing tariffs. That is probably do-able for the USA as the internal market is much bigger than ours, but does look very much look like a trade war. His comments on NATO and ASEAN are all pretty clear too. His Nativism is designed to appeal to the Flyover States , not to the seaboards that look outwards.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Rot. We will be front of the Queue.foxinsoxuk said:
Oi! None of your cultural apropriation here please. This is a safe space.Jonathan said:
Your constant trolling for Trump is bizarre.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
As woman with an independent opinion, you are exactly the type of person Trump dislikes the most. Heck, the only way it could be worse for you, would be if you wore a sombrero.
If that imperious Liberal clinton wins it will be bad news for the UK
Maybe you hope that he is lying when he says things like this: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/296182-trump-vows-sweeping-changes-to-us-trade-policy
0 -
''The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.''
Would US politicians stop having heavily armed guards if the gun laws were tightened? No.
Trump is merely pointing out its one law for Hillary, another for you.
If America banned guns it would be chaos in that country. It would be open season on the millions of Americans who live in small towns or isolated communities where it takes the sheriff two hours to get there.
0 -
It's not hypocrisy. I daresay May, Cameron, Brown, Blair etc all had armed guards most (all?) of the time, even if the guns were concealed. That doesn't make them hypocrites for wanting gun control: it's an indication of threat.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
He is calling out her hypocracy. She wants to ban the little people from having guns while people like her get to keep their squadrons of armed gun toting guards.JosiasJessop said:
Trump's position on this seems nonsensical. By pointing out that it would be easy to assassinate Hilary without armed security, he's highlighting the insanity of US gun laws.Moses_ said:Here we go again.....
"Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing criticism after appearing to hint at the assassination of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for a second time. Mr Trump suggested Mrs Clinton's security detail should give up their guns and "see what happens to her".
He told supporters his rival wanted to "destroy your second amendment" - referring to the right to own guns. Mrs Clinton's team has accused Mr Trump of "inciting people to violence"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37394883
The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.
It's also really nasty, but it will appeal to those he is targeting.
Canada is also awash with guns but is less violent than the uk where only criminals and the state agencies have them.
As for your second point, these tables are instructive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country#List_of_countries_by_estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate0 -
Weirdly, those in the Highlands seem to manage. The American obsession with guns is pathological.taffys said:''The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.''
Would US politicians stop having heavily armed guards if the gun laws were tightened? No.
Trump is merely pointing out its one law for Hillary, another for you.
If America banned guns it would be chaos in that country. It would be open season on the millions of Americans who live in small towns or isolated communities where it takes the sheriff two hours to get there.0 -
A pleasing conjunction of reactionary yearning for old fashioned educational values, and really execrable spelling.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
It is fascinating how remainers almost to a man are outraged by the idea of bringing back grammar schools and the royal yaught0 -
Trump adopted it himself at a rally yesterday.taffys said:I came across a poster today with a 'les Miserables' style design of ragged people rising up with a torn US flag
It had 'les Deplorables' on it.
With simple, emotional, powerful messages like that, I think Trump will crush Clinton. I read he was even in touch in deep blue states like Michigan.
0 -
"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)0 -
I think Hillary will be an excellent President, from a British perspective.another_richard said:
Not so long ago you repeatedly predicted Hilary would be an excellent president.foxinsoxuk said:
Oi! None of your cultural apropriation here please. This is a safe .Jonathan said:
Your constant trolling for Trump is bizarre.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
As woman with an independent opinion, you are exactly the type of person Trump dislikes the most. Heck, the only way it could be worse for you, would be if you wore a sombrero.
I always wondered on what basis you thought that as I've never seen any excellence in anything she has done.
Indeed her only achievement of note was in marrying someone far more talented than she was (and she wasn't even a very good wife).
Were you expecting a reverse Peter Principle to apply in Hilary's case ?
Trump will not be good news for us. The combination of his protectionism and antagonism to our major financial services industry, as well as his pulling back from NATO and Putin-loving is not a good one for us.0 -
Trump spent the last 7 years banging on about the birther stuff like a crazy person. He is 100% lying by trying to pretend its all on clinton. Im glad he being called a liar. Thats what he is.0
-
Selling Clinton and selling the EU are similarly tricky sells. As with the EU, those who love Hillary are few, those who despise her are many. As with the EU, the only argument to run against Trump is Project Fear. The same people who sneered at anyone making a case for voting to leave the EU are the same ones who still don't get the attraction of Trump for a sizeable swathe of folks - folks who don't see the achievements of the recent Democratic Presidents as anything to cheer about.taffys said:I came across a poster today with a 'les Miserables' style design of ragged people rising up with a torn US flag
It had 'les Deplorables' on it.
With simple, emotional, powerful messages like that, I think Trump will crush Clinton. I read he was even in touch in deep blue states like Michigan.
Clinton fans like to ignore the shy Trump factor, but I am betting it is not only there, but there in a much bigger way than anyone is prepared to admit.
If I'm wrong I'll be cutting some dosh, but that's my strong hunch.
And whoever urged Hillary to run "The Deplorables" line has no place in a political campaign.0 -
No you fail to understand the logic of what he is saying, it is a common American argument.JosiasJessop said:
Trump's position on this seems nonsensical. By pointing out that it would be easy to assassinate Hilary without armed security, he's highlighting the insanity of US gun laws.Moses_ said:Here we go again.....
"Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing criticism after appearing to hint at the assassination of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for a second time. Mr Trump suggested Mrs Clinton's security detail should give up their guns and "see what happens to her".
He told supporters his rival wanted to "destroy your second amendment" - referring to the right to own guns. Mrs Clinton's team has accused Mr Trump of "inciting people to violence"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37394883
The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.
It's also really nasty, but it will appeal to those he is targeting.
The idea the Americans have is that the second amendment provides Americans the right to self-defence. He is suggesting that Clinton will not lose her own right to self-defence (via her armed guards), so why should any other regular American citizen lose their own right to self-defence (via their own guns). Its a routine argument over there.
Not one I agree with but given the millions of guns prevalent there and the porous borders with Mexico and Canada which are both also heavily armed, it makes some sense. Disarming yourself merely weakens you unless everyone gets disarmed and there is no realistic chance of that happening there any time soon.0 -
It's pathetic of Trump to say that, and wrong, because the situations are very different.taffys said:''The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.''
Would US politicians stop having heavily armed guards if the gun laws were tightened? No.
Trump is merely pointing out its one law for Hillary, another for you.
If America banned guns it would be chaos in that country. It would be open season on the millions of Americans who live in small towns or isolated communities where it takes the sheriff two hours to get there.
Banning all guns in the US would be impossible for the reasons you give. But that doesn't mean that some of the more egregious situations cannot be tamed. Few people have a genuine reason to carry an assault weapon.
Believe it or not, I'm not anti-gun. I'm also pro-car, yet I don't want people to be able to drive without licences.0 -
There's a Trump campaign video based on HoC for the pay-to-play ambassadors list - my Google Fu is failing to find it. But it is excellent ammo.Sandpit said:
I'm waiting for a Republican PAC to produce a spoof House of Cards trailer featuring Bill and Hillary, to show in the marginal states. That comparison wouldn't go down well with floating voters.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.0 -
Mr Glenn I don;t know about you, but I think that's f'cking genius.williamglenn said:
Trump adopted it himself at a rally yesterday.taffys said:I came across a poster today with a 'les Miserables' style design of ragged people rising up with a torn US flag
It had 'les Deplorables' on it.
With simple, emotional, powerful messages like that, I think Trump will crush Clinton. I read he was even in touch in deep blue states like Michigan.0 -
That's a more common view than is often thought, and it's completely ingrained in the American psyche outside the major coastal cities. The government is "Of the people and for the people", it's not for the chosen few politicians to get themselves filthy rich at the expense of the ordinary American.Moses_ said:
Mentioned this previously . When I worked in the States I asked my American colleague why this second amendment was so important to them?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
He is calling out her hypocracy. She wants to ban the little people from having guns while people like her get to keep their squadrons of armed gun toting guards.JosiasJessop said:
Trump's position on this seems nonsensical. By pointing out that it would be easy to assassinate Hilary without armed security, he's highlighting the insanity of US gun laws.Moses_ said:Here we go again.....
"Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing criticism after appearing to hint at the assassination of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for a second time. Mr Trump suggested Mrs Clinton's security detail should give up their guns and "see what happens to her".
He told supporters his rival wanted to "destroy your second amendment" - referring to the right to own guns. Mrs Clinton's team has accused Mr Trump of "inciting people to violence"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37394883
The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.
It's also really nasty, but it will appeal to those he is targeting.
Canada is also awash with guns but is less violent than the uk where only criminals and the state agencies have them.
He simply said "to remind the government who is boss"
I was in the rebel south though........
This is why the election is closer that we ever thought possible.0 -
I don't fail to understand the logic: I'm saying the 'logic' is utterly fallacious.Philip_Thompson said:
No you fail to understand the logic of what he is saying, it is a common American argument.JosiasJessop said:
Trump's position on this seems nonsensical. By pointing out that it would be easy to assassinate Hilary without armed security, he's highlighting the insanity of US gun laws.Moses_ said:Here we go again.....
"Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing criticism after appearing to hint at the assassination of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for a second time. Mr Trump suggested Mrs Clinton's security detail should give up their guns and "see what happens to her".
He told supporters his rival wanted to "destroy your second amendment" - referring to the right to own guns. Mrs Clinton's team has accused Mr Trump of "inciting people to violence"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37394883
The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.
It's also really nasty, but it will appeal to those he is targeting.
The idea the Americans have is that the second amendment provides Americans the right to self-defence. He is suggesting that Clinton will not lose her own right to self-defence (via her armed guards), so why should any other regular American citizen lose their own right to self-defence (via their own guns). Its a routine argument over there.
Not one I agree with but given the millions of guns prevalent there and the porous borders with Mexico and Canada which are both also heavily armed, it makes some sense. Disarming yourself merely weakens you unless everyone gets disarmed and there is no realistic chance of that happening there any time soon.0 -
No wonder Hillary is sinking fast...619 said:Trump spent the last 7 years banging on about the birther stuff like a crazy person. He is 100% lying by trying to pretend its all on clinton. Im glad he being called a liar. Thats what he is.
0 -
That is indeed the purpose of the Second Ammendment. An armed populace is a restraint on tyranny. It derives from the 1689 UK Bill of Rights, though that did restrict arms for self defence to Protestants!Philip_Thompson said:
No you fail to understand the logic of what he is saying, it is a common American argument.JosiasJessop said:
Trump's position on this seems nonsensical. By pointing out that it would be easy to assassinate Hilary without armed security, he's highlighting the insanity of US gun laws.Moses_ said:Here we go again.....
"Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing criticism after appearing to hint at the assassination of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for a second time. Mr Trump suggested Mrs Clinton's security detail should give up their guns and "see what happens to her".
He told supporters his rival wanted to "destroy your second amendment" - referring to the right to own guns. Mrs Clinton's team has accused Mr Trump of "inciting people to violence"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37394883
The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.
It's also really nasty, but it will appeal to those he is targeting.
The idea the Americans have is that the second amendment provides Americans the right to self-defence. He is suggesting that Clinton will not lose her own right to self-defence (via her armed guards), so why should any other regular American citizen lose their own right to self-defence (via their own guns). Its a routine argument over there.
Not one I agree with but given the millions of guns prevalent there and the porous borders with Mexico and Canada which are both also heavily armed, it makes some sense. Disarming yourself merely weakens you unless everyone gets disarmed and there is no realistic chance of that happening there any time soon.0 -
Should bring back the Royal Tournament while they are at it. Alas there was no money according to Labour to keep it running due to the terrible fiscal situation bequeathed them by the Tories in 1997. Oddly though the Edinburgh Tattoo continued untouched ( I am very glad about that so don't take it the wrong way)Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Lol.Scott_P said:
The blair regime from May 1997 effectively carried on until June 24th.
They are out now and they dont like it one little bit.
It is fascinating how remainers almost to a man are outraged by the idea of bringing back grammar schools and the royal yaught
Meanwhile despite said lack of funds to run a publicly loved annual and historical event they went away and had a gazillion pound war or two .....0 -
''Trump will not be good news for us. The combination of his protectionism and antagonism to our major financial services industry, as well as his pulling back from NATO and Putin-loving is not a good one for us.''
Yes and no. If he pulls back from Nato, continental Europe is going to need all the well armed democratic western help it can get. Alarmed East European states will be clamouring to give Britain exactly what is wants in the EU negotiations.
0 -
I posted a tweet link to The Deplorables poster with lyrics - beginning of this thread from Deplorable Elizabeth. It's going everywhere. Trump came out to it in Fort Worth last night.taffys said:I came across a poster today with a 'les Miserables' style design of ragged people rising up with a torn US flag
It had 'les Deplorables' on it.
With simple, emotional, powerful messages like that, I think Trump will crush Clinton. I read he was even in touch in deep blue states like Michigan.
Clinton fans like to ignore the shy Trump factor, but I am betting it is not only there, but there in a much bigger way than anyone is prepared to admit.
If I'm wrong I'll be cutting some dosh, but that's my strong hunch.0 -
My guess is that a typical blue-collar worker in the US expects to get dumped on, economically, by both Republicans and Democrats, but that the Democrats associate themselves with causes like safe spaces in universities, or illegal immigration, that he or she detests.MarqueeMark said:
Selling Clinton and selling the EU are similarly tricky sells. As with the EU, those who love Hillary are few, those who despise her are many. As with the EU, the only argument to run against Trump is Project Fear. The same people who sneered at anyone making a case for voting to leave the EU are the same ones who still don't get the attraction of Trump for a sizeable swathe of folks - folks who don't see the achievements of the recent Democratic Presidents as anything to cheer about.taffys said:I came across a poster today with a 'les Miserables' style design of ragged people rising up with a torn US flag
It had 'les Deplorables' on it.
With simple, emotional, powerful messages like that, I think Trump will crush Clinton. I read he was even in touch in deep blue states like Michigan.
Clinton fans like to ignore the shy Trump factor, but I am betting it is not only there, but there in a much bigger way than anyone is prepared to admit.
If I'm wrong I'll be cutting some dosh, but that's my strong hunch.
And whoever urged Hillary to run "The Deplorables" line has no place in a political campaign.0 -
Not sure that having it in the language of the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys works!taffys said:
Mr Glenn I don;t know about you, but I think that's f'cking genius.williamglenn said:
Trump adopted it himself at a rally yesterday.taffys said:I came across a poster today with a 'les Miserables' style design of ragged people rising up with a torn US flag
It had 'les Deplorables' on it.
With simple, emotional, powerful messages like that, I think Trump will crush Clinton. I read he was even in touch in deep blue states like Michigan.
And of course Trump deplores (or worse) African Americans, Hispanics and many others. His is not a unifying vision.0 -
If he'd taken the vast sum of money he got from his dad and stuck it in a Tracker then he'd have comparable returns, assuming we trust his self reported valuation.Moses_ said:"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)0 -
Twenty years ago, all we would have seen of the Farage speech at the trump rally would be a few seconds on bbc news, chosen to make him as unflattering as possible, with snidey comments from the reporter, and then lots about how hilary had monstered him as a far right loon or whatever.Sandpit said:
That's a more common view than is often thought, and it's completely ingrained in the American psyche outside the major coastal cities. The government is "Of the people and for the people", it's not for the chosen few politicians to get themselves filthy rich at the expense of the ordinary American.Moses_ said:
Mentioned this previously . When I worked in the States I asked my American colleague why this second amendment was so important to them?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
He is calling out her hypocracy. She wants to ban the little people from having guns while people like her get to keep their squadrons of armed gun toting guards.JosiasJessop said:
Trump's position on this seems nonsensical. By pointing out that it would be easy to assassinate Hilary without armed security, he's highlighting the insanity of US gun laws.Moses_ said:Here we go again.....
"Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing criticism after appearing to hint at the assassination of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for a second time. Mr Trump suggested Mrs Clinton's security detail should give up their guns and "see what happens to her".
He told supporters his rival wanted to "destroy your second amendment" - referring to the right to own guns. Mrs Clinton's team has accused Mr Trump of "inciting people to violence"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37394883
The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.
It's also really nasty, but it will appeal to those he is targeting.
Canada is also awash with guns but is less violent than the uk where only criminals and the state agencies have them.
He simply said "to remind the government who is boss"
I was in the rebel south though........
This is why the election is closer that we ever thought possible.
Now we can watch the whole thing whenever we want by keying in trump farage speech into a search engine on a £50 smartphone.
That is why the election is close. The establishment have lost control of broadcast media.0 -
Nothing new. American ambassadorships have always gone to donors and celebrities, not career diplomats as with most countries. It didn't start and end with Shirley Temple. It is like the second amendment arguments that sound crazy here but are normal in America.PlatoSaid said:
There's a Trump campaign video based on HoC for the pay-to-play ambassadors list - my Google Fu is failing to find it. But it is excellent ammo.Sandpit said:
I'm waiting for a Republican PAC to produce a spoof House of Cards trailer featuring Bill and Hillary, to show in the marginal states. That comparison wouldn't go down well with floating voters.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.DavidL said:
Trump wins if he loses Penn but gains Colorado. At the moment that is looking a slightly more likely path. He obviously needs Fl and Ohio but both of them are currently on track.JackW said:FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP ** FOP
FLORIDA .. OHIO .. PENNSYLVANIA
RINSE AND REPEAT
........................................................................
The path to the White House runs through these three states. Trump needs all three and Clinton one.
http://www.270towin.com/maps/gG9nG
Hillary needs to change the momentum of this fairly urgently. And she is not the world's best debater.
If you don't believe me, look around. The current American ambassador is an Obama donor and fundraiser. The US Embassy has even made a tongue-in-cheek video about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gZnYZLurKM0 -
"remainers almost to a man ..."Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Lol.Scott_P said:
The blair regime from May 1997 effectively carried on until June 24th.
They are out now and they dont like it one little bit.
It is fascinating how remainers almost to a man are outraged by the idea of bringing back grammar schools and the royal yaught
Yeah, right. I was a remainer, and I think something like the Royal Yacht would be a good idea: from what I recall of the 'debate' when it was taken out of service, it was generally a net-positive for the economy.
It's also 'flyng the flag', and a lot more effectively than sending warships on a trip.
I'm against the current grammar school proposals for the reasons I've given before. I could be persuaded to agree with them if it was actually part of an 'education' policy.
And BTW, I wouldn't be so sure of that June 24 date: we still don't know what form of government May will invoke. It might well not be to your liking ...0 -
The full circle of teenage rebelliousness: today's kids are turning conservative.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2016/09/17/how-modern-teenagers-are-rebelling-against-their-parents-by-bein/
But then I realised. That’s exactly what today’s teenagers are doing. The established social norms are now liberal. Which makes conservatism a form of rebellion. If you want to shock your liberal parents, you need to be straitlaced.
0 -
Ooh, tbats a good idea. Can we have state opening in November, a speaker dressed properly and the supreme court renamed the final court of appeal with only members of the house of lords allowed to judge in it because parliament is the supreme court too?Moses_ said:
Should bring back the Royal Tournament while they are at it. Alas there was no money according to Labour to keep it running due to the terrible fiscal situation bequeathed them by the Tories in 1997. Oddly though the Edinburgh Tattoo continued untouched ( I am very glad about that so don't take it the wrong way)Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Lol.Scott_P said:
The blair regime from May 1997 effectively carried on until June 24th.
They are out now and they dont like it one little bit.
It is fascinating how remainers almost to a man are outraged by the idea of bringing back grammar schools and the royal yaught
Meanwhile despite said lack of funds to run a publicly loved annual and historical event they went away and had a gazillion pound war or two .....0 -
And of course Trump deplores (or worse) African Americans, Hispanics and many others. His is not a unifying vision.
And yet that has not stopped him appealing to these communities on a 'what the f8ck have you got to lose? basis.
Trump thinks there are plenty of black Americans who can't stand Black Lives Matter and the rioters who appear every time a black person gets shot by the cops. They can't stand the run down community democrat vote farms they have lived in for decades, whatever the president.
0 -
But its not, its the same logic as to why people oppose unilateral nuclear disarmament. We are about as likely to live in a nuclear-free world as a weapon-free America, even if gun control laws were passed.JosiasJessop said:
I don't fail to understand the logic: I'm saying the 'logic' is utterly fallacious.Philip_Thompson said:
No you fail to understand the logic of what he is saying, it is a common American argument.JosiasJessop said:
Trump's position on this seems nonsensical. By pointing out that it would be easy to assassinate Hilary without armed security, he's highlighting the insanity of US gun laws.Moses_ said:Here we go again.....
"Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing criticism after appearing to hint at the assassination of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for a second time. Mr Trump suggested Mrs Clinton's security detail should give up their guns and "see what happens to her".
He told supporters his rival wanted to "destroy your second amendment" - referring to the right to own guns. Mrs Clinton's team has accused Mr Trump of "inciting people to violence"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37394883
The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.
It's also really nasty, but it will appeal to those he is targeting.
The idea the Americans have is that the second amendment provides Americans the right to self-defence. He is suggesting that Clinton will not lose her own right to self-defence (via her armed guards), so why should any other regular American citizen lose their own right to self-defence (via their own guns). Its a routine argument over there.
Not one I agree with but given the millions of guns prevalent there and the porous borders with Mexico and Canada which are both also heavily armed, it makes some sense. Disarming yourself merely weakens you unless everyone gets disarmed and there is no realistic chance of that happening there any time soon.0 -
Thanks for the response.foxinsoxuk said:
I think Hillary will be an excellent President, from a British perspective.another_richard said:
Not so long ago you repeatedly predicted Hilary would be an excellent president.foxinsoxuk said:
Oi! None of your cultural apropriation here please. This is a safe .Jonathan said:
Your constant trolling for Trump is bizarre.PlatoSaid said:
Bill had that warm, folksy charm too - he seemed like ordinary nice guy from Hope, Arkansas. Hillary comes across as a hard-faced very ambitious lawyer.DavidL said:
Yeah, maybe she should just avoid the sound bites. What is weird is that her husband was a brilliant debater. You'd think some of it would have rubbed off over the years.williamglenn said:
'Basket of deplorables'?DavidL said:
But which of these two is most likely to produce a memorable sound bite? When has Clinton last said anything interesting about anything?foxinsoxuk said:
In debates anything could happen. Her best chance is to provoke Trump into a major gaffe. Perhaps talking about his penis size again.
As woman with an independent opinion, you are exactly the type of person Trump dislikes the most. Heck, the only way it could be worse for you, would be if you wore a sombrero.
I always wondered on what basis you thought that as I've never seen any excellence in anything she has done.
Indeed her only achievement of note was in marrying someone far more talented than she was (and she wasn't even a very good wife).
Were you expecting a reverse Peter Principle to apply in Hilary's case ?
Trump will not be good news for us. The combination of his protectionism and antagonism to our major financial services industry, as well as his pulling back from NATO and Putin-loving is not a good one for us.
What you say is logical but I rather suspect we're more into a situation of a lesser of two evils.
Certainly Obama was no friend to Britain.
0 -
Translation - rich right wing bad ......rich left wing ( oh look Squirrel)Alistair said:
If he'd taken the vast sum of money he got from his dad and stuck it in a Tracker then he'd have comparable returns, assuming we trust his self reported valuation.Moses_ said:"He would have made more just investing in the stock market, some accumen"
My sincere apologies. I bow to your obvious stock market acumen as I didn't realise we had a Wall St guru here . Prey do tell, which investments did you make on the stock market that has built you a worldwide empire and got you that lovely yacht with a helipad?
You do have an business empire of course?.....worldwide? ....Ok an ocean going yacht then.......?
You don't ?......oh?
( I have no idea but perhaps he just preferred the life challenge rather than the easy route who knows and probably he doesn't either but either way he did actually build something and was successful)0 -
It's a bit like the Brexiters who voted out because they had sod all to lose. There's always something to lose as we lurch into rightwing, nihilistic, populist politics.taffys said:And of course Trump deplores (or worse) African Americans, Hispanics and many others. His is not a unifying vision.
And yet that has not stopped him appealing to these communities on a 'what the f8ck have you got to lose? basis.
Trump thinks there are plenty of black Americans who can't stand Black Lives Matter and the rioters who appear every time a black person gets shot by the cops. They can't stand the run down community democrat vote farms they have lived in for decades, whatever the president.
0 -
No, that's an incorrect analogy. The protection of the POTUS and other senior politicians is unrelated, although driven by, the Second amendment. Which is why senior politicians in other countries also have armed guards.Philip_Thompson said:
But its not, its the same logic as to why people oppose unilateral nuclear disarmament. We are about as likely to live in a nuclear-free world as a weapon-free America, even if gun control laws were passed.JosiasJessop said:
I don't fail to understand the logic: I'm saying the 'logic' is utterly fallacious.Philip_Thompson said:
No you fail to understand the logic of what he is saying, it is a common American argument.JosiasJessop said:
Trump's position on this seems nonsensical. By pointing out that it would be easy to assassinate Hilary without armed security, he's highlighting the insanity of US gun laws.Moses_ said:Here we go again.....
"Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump is facing criticism after appearing to hint at the assassination of his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for a second time. Mr Trump suggested Mrs Clinton's security detail should give up their guns and "see what happens to her".
He told supporters his rival wanted to "destroy your second amendment" - referring to the right to own guns. Mrs Clinton's team has accused Mr Trump of "inciting people to violence"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37394883
The fact that senior US politicians require heavy security is a symptom of their gun laws, not a reason to continue or even slacken those laws.
It's also really nasty, but it will appeal to those he is targeting.
The idea the Americans have is that the second amendment provides Americans the right to self-defence. He is suggesting that Clinton will not lose her own right to self-defence (via her armed guards), so why should any other regular American citizen lose their own right to self-defence (via their own guns). Its a routine argument over there.
Not one I agree with but given the millions of guns prevalent there and the porous borders with Mexico and Canada which are both also heavily armed, it makes some sense. Disarming yourself merely weakens you unless everyone gets disarmed and there is no realistic chance of that happening there any time soon.0 -
Reminds me of Ukip making 'cranks and gadflies' ties and proudly adopting the label in response to Michael Howard's comments. Embracing your opponents' insults is an excellent way of neutralising them.PlatoSaid said:
I posted a tweet link to The Deplorables poster with lyrics - beginning of this thread from Deplorable Elizabeth. It's going everywhere. Trump came out to it in Fort Worth last night.taffys said:I came across a poster today with a 'les Miserables' style design of ragged people rising up with a torn US flag
It had 'les Deplorables' on it.
With simple, emotional, powerful messages like that, I think Trump will crush Clinton. I read he was even in touch in deep blue states like Michigan.
Clinton fans like to ignore the shy Trump factor, but I am betting it is not only there, but there in a much bigger way than anyone is prepared to admit.
If I'm wrong I'll be cutting some dosh, but that's my strong hunch.0 -
Mr Tyson,
It's interesting that "populist" is now used an insult by some. So people should vote for unpopular things to prove how noble they are? That's fine for SJWs, but I think you'll find it will go down like a cup of cold sick with most people.
Obviously superior people are above such considerations. We plebs don't deserve democracy, do we?0 -
he is not appealing to them. they know he is a racist whi hates them. he is appealing to the better educated white republicans he needstaffys said:And of course Trump deplores (or worse) African Americans, Hispanics and many others. His is not a unifying vision.
And yet that has not stopped him appealing to these communities on a 'what the f8ck have you got to lose? basis.
Trump thinks there are plenty of black Americans who can't stand Black Lives Matter and the rioters who appear every time a black person gets shot by the cops. They can't stand the run down community democrat vote farms they have lived in for decades, whatever the president.0 -
Mr. CD13, I thought 'populist' was always the insulting other-side of 'popular' (as per abnormal and extraordinary).
0 -
What powers are there within the American Constitution to stop bonkers Presidents doing bonkers things?0
-
Oh?tyson said:
It's a bit like the Brexiters who voted out because they had sod all to lose. There's always something to lose as we lurch into rightwing, nihilistic, populist politics.taffys said:And of course Trump deplores (or worse) African Americans, Hispanics and many others. His is not a unifying vision.
And yet that has not stopped him appealing to these communities on a 'what the f8ck have you got to lose? basis.
Trump thinks there are plenty of black Americans who can't stand Black Lives Matter and the rioters who appear every time a black person gets shot by the cops. They can't stand the run down community democrat vote farms they have lived in for decades, whatever the president.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/16/eu-bratislava-summit-donald-tusk-calls-for-sober-and-brutally-ho1/
"Mr Renzi, who is fighting for his political life after promising he would resign if he failed to win a referendum on Italian governance reforms later this year, is angry with Germany’s refusal to cut him more slack on his domestic budgets ahead of elections in 2018."
That's a lot of the problem.... It's always what Germany wants or will allow. The Italians, the Greeks even the Hungarians have now openly identified it and are forming the EU awkward squad. As the report said ......
"attempts to choreograph a picture of unity against the backdrop of Bratislava’s chocolate-box castle, descended into a full-blown European farce"
Quite! And not a Brit in sight to blame it all on.
Off out it is a beautiful day.0
