politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Tonight’s the big one in WH2016 and the betting could be tu
Options
Comments
-
it is time.....0
-
Trump voters cant complain about being called racist when they voted for such an openly racist candidate
its like being a BNP voter in this country0 -
Some of us who grew up in Lambeth in the 80s saw said hate mob 1.0 turn itself into New Labour in the biggest act of deception since the arrival of a large wooden horse in Troy and have long wondered how any decent person could remain in Labour.RochdalePioneers said:
That only happens if they're taking the party name and organisation with them.Sandpit said:
Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?ydoethur said:If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).
Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.
I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
Let's be clear. The majority of pre-2015 members feel like the party has been stolen from us and been replaced by this democratic hate mob of chanting ideologues. To up and leave - to abandon this 116 year old movement to the kind of scum handing out anti-semitic leaflets at a merting discussing anti-semitism would be screaming cowardice. We can't leave. They will have to leave.0 -
After a majority have voted in a BNP government.619 said:Trump voters cant complain about being called racist when they voted for such an openly racist candidate
its like being a BNP voter in this country0 -
They don't have to take the party name. The Speaker will recognise the largest body of MPs who accept their whip as the official opposition. 117 is the magic number.RochdalePioneers said:
That only happens if they're taking the party name and organisation with them.Sandpit said:
Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?ydoethur said:If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).
Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.
I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
Let's be clear. The majority of pre-2015 members feel like the party has been stolen from us and been replaced by this democratic hate mob of chanting ideologues. To up and leave - to abandon this 116 year old movement to the kind of scum handing out anti-semitic leaflets at a merting discussing anti-semitism would be screaming cowardice. We can't leave. They will have to leave.0 -
And whatever is about to happen, that certainly isn't. Which is why I was talking about 57. That's just about realistic.surbiton said:
They don't have to take the party name. The Speaker will recognise the largest body of MPs who accept their whip as the official opposition. 117 is the magic number.RochdalePioneers said:
That only happens if they're taking the party name and organisation with them.Sandpit said:
Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?ydoethur said:If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).
Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.
I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
Let's be clear. The majority of pre-2015 members feel like the party has been stolen from us and been replaced by this democratic hate mob of chanting ideologues. To up and leave - to abandon this 116 year old movement to the kind of scum handing out anti-semitic leaflets at a merting discussing anti-semitism would be screaming cowardice. We can't leave. They will have to leave.0 -
Jessica Parker
Calls for a new breakaway party from @John_Ferrett as the #Portsmouth #Labour group leader quits @UKLabour. Here's his resignation letter https://t.co/xRLUvhM3zN0 -
Let's wait and see. Sometimes the bark is worse than the bite.ydoethur said:
And whatever is about to happen, that certainly isn't. Which is why I was talking about 57. That's just about realistic.surbiton said:
They don't have to take the party name. The Speaker will recognise the largest body of MPs who accept their whip as the official opposition. 117 is the magic number.RochdalePioneers said:
That only happens if they're taking the party name and organisation with them.Sandpit said:
Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?ydoethur said:If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).
Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.
I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
Let's be clear. The majority of pre-2015 members feel like the party has been stolen from us and been replaced by this democratic hate mob of chanting ideologues. To up and leave - to abandon this 116 year old movement to the kind of scum handing out anti-semitic leaflets at a merting discussing anti-semitism would be screaming cowardice. We can't leave. They will have to leave.0 -
The problem with that is that the elected representatives are dealing with the real world, where internationalism and global corporatism not only exist, but are here to stay.Casino_Royale said:
I think the trouble is that for at least twenty years centrist parties in the US and UK, of both left and right, have clustered around a consensus that has become so axiomatic that it brooks no criticism. They have been far too willing to dismiss those who disagree and plenty of warning signs. That includes immigration but also elected representatives not being seen to be putting the interests of their own nation/people first, above internationalism and those of global corporatism.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Rhodesia 2.0SouthamObserver said:
It will not be pleasant.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.SouthamObserver said:
It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.JennyFreeman said:
I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:SouthamObserver said:Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6
(actually the US is Rhodesia 1.0 and Rhodesia is 2.0 but thats bye the bye. )
This is the eqiuvalent of the 1962 Rhodesian election when the pro UDI Rhodesian Front, later to be led by Smith unexpectedly beat the establishment United Federal Party.
The eatablishment always wins in Rhodesia it was said. However liberal Prime Minister Sir Garfield Todd was seen to gave given too many concessions to Joshua Nkomo and suffered a shock defeat.
Three years later in the 1965 election, the Rhodesia Front under Smith won every single seat.
The liberal left have made the same mistake only worse by smearing all whites as racist and now electorates are going all Rhodesian.
In short: voters feeling their representatives are on their side.
What we're seeing now is a political storm to make that sentiment fully felt. Saying that Trump is repugnant fuels it, IMHO, because the thing many voters want the most is to annoy/offend the established political players as much as possible.
Look at Venezuela as an example of where attempts to stop these forces have not ended well.0 -
So it is just random councillors, not MPsPlatoSaid said:Jessica Parker
Calls for a new breakaway party from @John_Ferrett as the #Portsmouth #Labour group leader quits @UKLabour. Here's his resignation letter https://t.co/xRLUvhM3zN0 -
The third south of England 2015 candidate to go. I think it is as I suggested below - some relatively senior members resigning the party and calling on MPs to do the same.PlatoSaid said:Jessica Parker
Calls for a new breakaway party from @John_Ferrett as the #Portsmouth #Labour group leader quits @UKLabour. Here's his resignation letter https://t.co/xRLUvhM3zN0 -
The real risk for Labour now is that this will be a dog that doesn't bark, which would certainly make this a curious incident.surbiton said:
Let's wait and see. Sometimes the bark is worse than the bite.ydoethur said:
And whatever is about to happen, that certainly isn't. Which is why I was talking about 57. That's just about realistic.surbiton said:
They don't have to take the party name. The Speaker will recognise the largest body of MPs who accept their whip as the official opposition. 117 is the magic number.RochdalePioneers said:
That only happens if they're taking the party name and organisation with them.Sandpit said:
Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?ydoethur said:If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).
Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.
I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
Let's be clear. The majority of pre-2015 members feel like the party has been stolen from us and been replaced by this democratic hate mob of chanting ideologues. To up and leave - to abandon this 116 year old movement to the kind of scum handing out anti-semitic leaflets at a merting discussing anti-semitism would be screaming cowardice. We can't leave. They will have to leave.
I'm still trying to think of any mistake that Labour could have made and hasn't.0 -
Okay, so she's a nobody from Portsmouth (significant), but this is quite damning:PlatoSaid said:Jessica Parker
Calls for a new breakaway party from @John_Ferrett as the #Portsmouth #Labour group leader quits @UKLabour. Here's his resignation letter https://t.co/xRLUvhM3zN
I cannot advocate to voters that they elect a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Indeed, I would be morally obliged to campaign against any administration that included Corbyn and John McDonnell, given my belief that they would seriously imperil our nation's national security if ever given the reins of power.0 -
Both Sky and BBC South now on the story0
-
It is from John Ferrett, Leader of Portsmouth Council Labour Group.tlg86 said:
Okay, so she's a nobody from Portsmouth (significant), but this is quite damning:PlatoSaid said:Jessica Parker
Calls for a new breakaway party from @John_Ferrett as the #Portsmouth #Labour group leader quits @UKLabour. Here's his resignation letter https://t.co/xRLUvhM3zN
I cannot advocate to voters that they elect a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Indeed, I would be morally obliged to campaign against any administration that included Corbyn and John McDonnell, given my belief that they would seriously imperil our nation's national security if ever given the reins of power.0 -
Senior councillors going though is going to screw up that awesome Labour ground game we heard so much about.ydoethur said:
The real risk for Labour now is that this will be a dog that doesn't bark, which would certainly make this a curious incident.surbiton said:
Let's wait and see. Sometimes the bark is worse than the bite.ydoethur said:
And whatever is about to happen, that certainly isn't. Which is why I was talking about 57. That's just about realistic.surbiton said:
They don't have to take the party name. The Speaker will recognise the largest body of MPs who accept their whip as the official opposition. 117 is the magic number.RochdalePioneers said:
That only happens if they're taking the party name and organisation with them.Sandpit said:
Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?ydoethur said:If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).
Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.
I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
Let's be clear. The majority of pre-2015 members feel like the party has been stolen from us and been replaced by this democratic hate mob of chanting ideologues. To up and leave - to abandon this 116 year old movement to the kind of scum handing out anti-semitic leaflets at a merting discussing anti-semitism would be screaming cowardice. We can't leave. They will have to leave.
I'm still trying to think of any mistake that Labour could have made and hasn't.0 -
I'm struggling to recall the last time Labour didn't do something, that in other times I'd presume was a joke or parody tweet.ydoethur said:
The real risk for Labour now is that this will be a dog that doesn't bark, which would certainly make this a curious incident.surbiton said:
Let's wait and see. Sometimes the bark is worse than the bite.ydoethur said:
And whatever is about to happen, that certainly isn't. Which is why I was talking about 57. That's just about realistic.surbiton said:
They don't have to take the party name. The Speaker will recognise the largest body of MPs who accept their whip as the official opposition. 117 is the magic number.RochdalePioneers said:
That only happens if they're taking the party name and organisation with them.Sandpit said:
Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?ydoethur said:If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).
Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.
I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
Let's be clear. The majority of pre-2015 members feel like the party has been stolen from us and been replaced by this democratic hate mob of chanting ideologues. To up and leave - to abandon this 116 year old movement to the kind of scum handing out anti-semitic leaflets at a merting discussing anti-semitism would be screaming cowardice. We can't leave. They will have to leave.
I'm still trying to think of any mistake that Labour could have made and hasn't.
Just watched McIRA on Sky - he's totally unapologetic for calling Ester McVey a stain on humanity. Now whatever one's opinion of HMG policy - that's quite an insult.0 -
And a parly candidate 2010 and 2015surbiton said:
It is from John Ferrett, Leader of Portsmouth Council Labour Group.tlg86 said:
Okay, so she's a nobody from Portsmouth (significant), but this is quite damning:PlatoSaid said:Jessica Parker
Calls for a new breakaway party from @John_Ferrett as the #Portsmouth #Labour group leader quits @UKLabour. Here's his resignation letter https://t.co/xRLUvhM3zN
I cannot advocate to voters that they elect a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Indeed, I would be morally obliged to campaign against any administration that included Corbyn and John McDonnell, given my belief that they would seriously imperil our nation's national security if ever given the reins of power.0 -
There are just not going to be enough poster boards for the Tories at the next election.tlg86 said:
Okay, so she's a nobody from Portsmouth (significant), but this is quite damning:PlatoSaid said:Jessica Parker
Calls for a new breakaway party from @John_Ferrett as the #Portsmouth #Labour group leader quits @UKLabour. Here's his resignation letter https://t.co/xRLUvhM3zN
I cannot advocate to voters that they elect a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Indeed, I would be morally obliged to campaign against any administration that included Corbyn and John McDonnell, given my belief that they would seriously imperil our nation's national security if ever given the reins of power.0 -
Lol Dave Nellist interviewed on LBC. There's a name for politics watchers of a certain age to remember...0
-
Good morning, everyone.
Not a word on the BBC front page about the gun and bomb attacks in Malmo, Sweden. Didn't see it on the main Europe page either. Top reporting there.
On-topic: does the debate start at 11pm? Think I saw that time on Sky, although that might be the start of preamble coverage.0 -
In Portsmouth this will be a gift for the LibDems, who will probably recover the council in MayMoses_ said:
There are just not going to be enough poster boards for the Tories at the next election.tlg86 said:
Okay, so she's a nobody from Portsmouth (significant), but this is quite damning:PlatoSaid said:Jessica Parker
Calls for a new breakaway party from @John_Ferrett as the #Portsmouth #Labour group leader quits @UKLabour. Here's his resignation letter https://t.co/xRLUvhM3zN
I cannot advocate to voters that they elect a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Indeed, I would be morally obliged to campaign against any administration that included Corbyn and John McDonnell, given my belief that they would seriously imperil our nation's national security if ever given the reins of power.0 -
I'd be amazed if George wasn't allowed back - he's such a bum chum of Corbyn. I tripped across him on RT over the weekend.Moses_ said:0 -
2 am I believeMorris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Not a word on the BBC front page about the gun and bomb attacks in Malmo, Sweden. Didn't see it on the main Europe page either. Top reporting there.
On-topic: does the debate start at 11pm? Think I saw that time on Sky, although that might be the start of preamble coverage.0 -
Far from Trump causing world war 3, his legacy may be civil war 2. The problem is so would Hilarys, so people are taking sides. Hitchens article describing the sudden lack of posters in peoples houses before the election when previously they were ubiquitous and people fearing to say who they support is as ominous as an approaching thunderstorm.JosiasJessop said:
The problem with that is that the elected representatives are dealing with the real world, where internationalism and global corporatism not only exist, but are here to stay.Casino_Royale said:
I think the trouble is that for at least twenty years centrist parties in the US and UK, of both left and right, have clustered around a consensus that has become so axiomatic that it brooks no criticism. They have been far too willing to dismiss those who disagree and plenty of warning signs. That includes immigration but also elected representatives not being seen to be putting the interests of their own nation/people first, above internationalism and those of global corporatism.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
.SouthamObserver said:
It will not be pleasant.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.SouthamObserver said:
It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.JennyFreeman said:
I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:SouthamObserver said:Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6
In short: voters feeling their representatives are on their side.
What we're seeing now is a political storm to make that sentiment fully felt. Saying that Trump is repugnant fuels it, IMHO, because the thing many voters want the most is to annoy/offend the established political players as much as possible.
Look at Venezuela as an example of where attempts to stop these forces have not ended well.0 -
I don't know what Esther McVey has done to incur the manic loathing of the hard left. But, then, the hard left is viciously misogynistic as well as viciously anti-Semitic.PlatoSaid said:
I'm struggling to recall the last time Labour didn't do something, that in other times I'd presume was a joke or parody tweet.ydoethur said:
The real risk for Labour now is that this will be a dog that doesn't bark, which would certainly make this a curious incident.surbiton said:
Let's wait and see. Sometimes the bark is worse than the bite.ydoethur said:
And whatever is about to happen, that certainly isn't. Which is why I was talking about 57. That's just about realistic.surbiton said:
They don't have to take the party name. The Speaker will recognise the largest body of MPs who accept their whip as the official opposition. 117 is the magic number.RochdalePioneers said:
That only happens if they're taking the party name and organisation with them.Sandpit said:
Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?ydoethur said:If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).
Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.
I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
Let's be clear. The majority of pre-2015 members feel like the party has been stolen from us and been replaced by this democratic hate mob of chanting ideologues. To up and leave - to abandon this 116 year old movement to the kind of scum handing out anti-semitic leaflets at a merting discussing anti-semitism would be screaming cowardice. We can't leave. They will have to leave.
I'm still trying to think of any mistake that Labour could have made and hasn't.
Just watched McIRA on Sky - he's totally unapologetic for calling Ester McVey a stain on humanity. Now whatever one's opinion of HMG policy - that's quite an insult.0 -
But you admit it on this website. Why wouldn't you admit it to a pollster?JennyFreeman said:
Absolutely agree.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
I said this was Brexit 2.0 months ago. I still think it is.peter_from_putney said:OGH : " I can’t decide whether to take my profits now or risk things changing post debate"
I would vote for Trump but I wouldn't dare admit it to any pollster or anyone I know.
0 -
So with Mcdonnells extra funding pledges today, whats the total figure labour now expect to borrow ( i make it 600 billion)0
-
Isn't it always that the bark is worse?surbiton said:
Let's wait and see. Sometimes the bark is worse than the bite.ydoethur said:
And whatever is about to happen, that certainly isn't. Which is why I was talking about 57. That's just about realistic.surbiton said:
They don't have to take the party name. The Speaker will recognise the largest body of MPs who accept their whip as the official opposition. 117 is the magic number.RochdalePioneers said:
That only happens if they're taking the party name and organisation with them.Sandpit said:
Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?ydoethur said:If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).
Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.
I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
Let's be clear. The majority of pre-2015 members feel like the party has been stolen from us and been replaced by this democratic hate mob of chanting ideologues. To up and leave - to abandon this 116 year old movement to the kind of scum handing out anti-semitic leaflets at a merting discussing anti-semitism would be screaming cowardice. We can't leave. They will have to leave.0 -
<
The Nellist - wow.IanB2 said:Lol Dave Nellist interviewed on LBC. There's a name for politics watchers of a certain age to remember...
Having -ist as the end of your surname is winning the lottery of life if you are a leftie.0 -
Ed was put there by Unite. So was Jeremy.SouthamObserver said:
No, it was the election of Ed Miliband - the politician with the worst political judgement of any politician who has ever lived - that did for Labour. Ed enabled all that has followed. I said on the day he was elected that it would be an absolute disaster and, sadly, I have been proved correct.JennyFreeman said:It's incredible to think how 120 seconds finished the Labour party.
At 11.58 on the 15th June 2015 Jeremy Corbyn crept over the line of the required 35 nominations: two minutes before nominations closed. Some of those came from people who disagreed with his policies but 'felt he should be on the ballot.' The rest, as they say, is history.
Those two minutes brought the death of Labour.
0 -
So much for all the calls for unity then.. Never mind not enough poster boards, there is never going to be enough popcorn.0
-
Because you don't have my address and contact detailsDromedary said:
But you admit it on this website. Why wouldn't you admit it to a pollster?JennyFreeman said:
Absolutely agree.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
I said this was Brexit 2.0 months ago. I still think it is.peter_from_putney said:OGH : " I can’t decide whether to take my profits now or risk things changing post debate"
I would vote for Trump but I wouldn't dare admit it to any pollster or anyone I know.
0 -
Mr. Abode, it's going to be like the Doctor Evil inflation problem. Only instead of confusing millions for billions, they'll end up borrowing trillions.
Mr. B2, cheers. Not staying up for that.
0 -
Oops, I was thinking it was the poster. So it's more senior than I realized. Poor person is a representative for Paulsgrove.surbiton said:
It is from John Ferrett, Leader of Portsmouth Council Labour Group.tlg86 said:
Okay, so she's a nobody from Portsmouth (significant), but this is quite damning:PlatoSaid said:Jessica Parker
Calls for a new breakaway party from @John_Ferrett as the #Portsmouth #Labour group leader quits @UKLabour. Here's his resignation letter https://t.co/xRLUvhM3zN
I cannot advocate to voters that they elect a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Indeed, I would be morally obliged to campaign against any administration that included Corbyn and John McDonnell, given my belief that they would seriously imperil our nation's national security if ever given the reins of power.0 -
After reading a US website, I'm beginning to wonder if most Republicans and Democrats now regard the other side as sub-human.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Far from Trump causing world war 3, his legacy may be civil war 2. The problem is so would Hilarys, so people are taking sides. Hitchens article describing the sudden lack of posters in peoples houses before the election when previously they were ubiquitous and people fearing to say who they support is as ominous as an approaching thunderstorm.JosiasJessop said:
The problem with that is that the elected representatives are dealing with the real world, where internationalism and global corporatism not only exist, but are here to stay.Casino_Royale said:
I think the trouble is that for at least twenty years centrist parties in the US and UK, of both left and right, have clustered around a consensus that has become so axiomatic that it brooks no criticism. They have been far too willing to dismiss those who disagree and plenty of warning signs. That includes immigration but also elected representatives not being seen to be putting the interests of their own nation/people first, above internationalism and those of global corporatism.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
.SouthamObserver said:
It will not be pleasant.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.SouthamObserver said:
It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.JennyFreeman said:
I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:SouthamObserver said:Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6
In short: voters feeling their representatives are on their side.
What we're seeing now is a political storm to make that sentiment fully felt. Saying that Trump is repugnant fuels it, IMHO, because the thing many voters want the most is to annoy/offend the established political players as much as possible.
Look at Venezuela as an example of where attempts to stop these forces have not ended well.0 -
It would still be my choice of the two, neverthelesskle4 said:
Isn't it always that the bark is worse?surbiton said:
Let's wait and see. Sometimes the bark is worse than the bite.ydoethur said:
And whatever is about to happen, that certainly isn't. Which is why I was talking about 57. That's just about realistic.surbiton said:
They don't have to take the party name. The Speaker will recognise the largest body of MPs who accept their whip as the official opposition. 117 is the magic number.RochdalePioneers said:
That only happens if they're taking the party name and organisation with them.Sandpit said:
Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?ydoethur said:If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).
Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.
I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
Let's be clear. The majority of pre-2015 members feel like the party has been stolen from us and been replaced by this democratic hate mob of chanting ideologues. To up and leave - to abandon this 116 year old movement to the kind of scum handing out anti-semitic leaflets at a merting discussing anti-semitism would be screaming cowardice. We can't leave. They will have to leave.0 -
Channel 4 is also listed as showing the debate live in the TV schedules. I think I will have an early night and then try and wake up for it0
-
Well, at least they cannot readmit Luftur Rahman and have him stand for them, as he's still barred from elections. So that's something, as we know Ken was a fan of his.Scott_P said:
Readmit George Galloway...ydoethur said:I'm still trying to think of any mistake that Labour could have made and hasn't.
0 -
Lester is the moderator IIRC. He's going to be watched like a hawk given his previous donations to HRC - along with Hillary's eyes.IanB2 said:
2 am I believeMorris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Not a word on the BBC front page about the gun and bomb attacks in Malmo, Sweden. Didn't see it on the main Europe page either. Top reporting there.
On-topic: does the debate start at 11pm? Think I saw that time on Sky, although that might be the start of preamble coverage.
I've totally ignored the 'eyes' thing until it was mentioned on Sky earlier - by Dr Linda their US psychology pundit. That she's picked up on the meme...0 -
Labour seem to be intent on turbo charging the policy failures of the last election. Crazy.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Abode, it's going to be like the Doctor Evil inflation problem. Only instead of confusing millions for billions, they'll end up borrowing trillions.
Mr. B2, cheers. Not staying up for that.0 -
In the UK house posters seem to be history.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Far from Trump causing world war 3, his legacy may be civil war 2. The problem is so would Hilarys, so people are taking sides. Hitchens article describing the sudden lack of posters in peoples houses before the election when previously they were ubiquitous and people fearing to say who they support is as ominous as an approaching thunderstorm.JosiasJessop said:
The problem with that is that the elected representatives are dealing with the real world, where internationalism and global corporatism not only exist, but are here to stay.Casino_Royale said:
I think the trouble is that for at least twenty years centrist parties in the US and UK, of both left and right, have clustered around a consensus that has become so axiomatic that it brooks no criticism. They have been far too willing to dismiss those who disagree and plenty of warning signs. That includes immigration but also elected representatives not being seen to be putting the interests of their own nation/people first, above internationalism and those of global corporatism.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
.SouthamObserver said:
It will not be pleasant.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.SouthamObserver said:
It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.JennyFreeman said:
I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:SouthamObserver said:Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6
In short: voters feeling their representatives are on their side.
What we're seeing now is a political storm to make that sentiment fully felt. Saying that Trump is repugnant fuels it, IMHO, because the thing many voters want the most is to annoy/offend the established political players as much as possible.
Look at Venezuela as an example of where attempts to stop these forces have not ended well.
I saw nearly none in the referendum and they were very sparse in the 2015 GE too. I think that they have been replaced by Social Media.-1 -
Smith et al were pretty thick as well. Offered 80% of what they wanted on the HMS Tiger talks. Refused and got nothing.foxinsoxuk said:
UDI didn't end well as I recall.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Rhodesia 2.0SouthamObserver said:
It will not be pleasant.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.SouthamObserver said:
It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.JennyFreeman said:
I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:SouthamObserver said:Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6
(actually the US is Rhodesia 1.0 and Rhodesia is 2.0 but thats bye the bye. )
This is the eqiuvalent of the 1962 Rhodesian election when the pro UDI Rhodesian Front, later to be led by Smith unexpectedly beat the establishment United Federal Party.
The eatablishment always wins in Rhodesia it was said. However liberal Prime Minister Sir Garfield Todd was seen to gave given too many concessions to Joshua Nkomo and suffered a shock defeat.
Three years later in the 1965 election, the Rhodesia Front under Smith won every single seat.
The liberal left have made the same mistake only worse by smearing all whites as racist and now electorates are going all Rhodesian.0 -
I never mentioned war!Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Far from Trump causing world war 3, his legacy may be civil war 2. The problem is so would Hilarys, so people are taking sides. Hitchens article describing the sudden lack of posters in peoples houses before the election when previously they were ubiquitous and people fearing to say who they support is as ominous as an approaching thunderstorm.JosiasJessop said:
The problem with that is that the elected representatives are dealing with the real world, where internationalism and global corporatism not only exist, but are here to stay.Casino_Royale said:
I think the trouble is that for at least twenty years centrist parties in the US and UK, of both left and right, have clustered around a consensus that has become so axiomatic that it brooks no criticism. They have been far too willing to dismiss those who disagree and plenty of warning signs. That includes immigration but also elected representatives not being seen to be putting the interests of their own nation/people first, above internationalism and those of global corporatism.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
.SouthamObserver said:
It will not be pleasant.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.SouthamObserver said:
It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.JennyFreeman said:
I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:SouthamObserver said:Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6
In short: voters feeling their representatives are on their side.
What we're seeing now is a political storm to make that sentiment fully felt. Saying that Trump is repugnant fuels it, IMHO, because the thing many voters want the most is to annoy/offend the established political players as much as possible.
Look at Venezuela as an example of where attempts to stop these forces have not ended well.
But yes, the increasingly large splits in the US's politics and society are worrying. They stand a god chance of becoming the Disunited States.0 -
How many hours work?Pulpstar said:
My sub 1000.0 (But not HRC or Trump) book in full:Sandpit said:
Indeed, he's on the ballot in all 50 states. I'm on for £2 at 950, hoping to lay off at 100 or 200 later.foxinsoxuk said:
He does have the advantage of actually being on the ballot, unlike some of the other names bandied around.Sandpit said:
Yep, that guy. Remember that most people haven't been paying much attention up until now. If both Trump and Clinton lose tonight, the American public might look around. If he can add enough points to get in a debate, his odds will come in dramatically from 949/1PlatoSaid said:
Gary What's Aleppo Johnson?Sandpit said:Morning all. Stayed away from the Pres bettering so far, apart from a tenner on Trump at 5/1 in the middle of the primaries.
I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.
From a betting view, maybe it's worth a quid or two on Gary Johnson, currently 950 on Betfair. He's unlikely to win, but if the American public wake up to how completely crap the main two candidates are, there might be a chance he can get a seat in one of the later debates - which would bring his price in massively.
And this?
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_azcqlYC2s
Back:
Joe Biden 99.05 £21.00
Gary Johnson 650.20 £4.00
Mike Pence 1,000.00 £5.00 V green
Paul Ryan 386.39 £7.20
Bernie Sanders 33.41 £232.75
Jill Stein 1,000.00 £2.00
Lay:
Joe Biden 52.53 £69.15 Very red
Tim Kaine 160.00 £12.00 Quite green
Michelle Obama 480 £2.00 V red
Paul Ryan 220.00 £2.00 Green
Bernie Sanders 32.52 £286.27 V red
Elizabeth Warren 990.00 £2.00 red.
Which adds up to £100 profit come the night itself.0 -
Dare I ask...what is the Hillary's eyes meme?PlatoSaid said:
Lester is the moderator IIRC. He's going to be watched like a hawk given his previous donations to HRC - along with Hillary's eyes.IanB2 said:
2 am I believeMorris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Not a word on the BBC front page about the gun and bomb attacks in Malmo, Sweden. Didn't see it on the main Europe page either. Top reporting there.
On-topic: does the debate start at 11pm? Think I saw that time on Sky, although that might be the start of preamble coverage.
I've totally ignored the 'eyes' thing until it was mentioned on Sky earlier - by Dr Linda their US psychology pundit. That she's picked up on the meme...
Do they turn bright red when she's crossed?0 -
Which would win it for the other.Sandpit said:I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.
There isn't symmetry. Shocks favour Trump. This makes it like Brexit.
Predictions about the TV "debate" are of little value if they come from journalists who don't mention the fake world of wrestling. Here is how Trump is seen to "stand up to pressure" in that environment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHwypvDvuFY?t=01m20s
0 -
There is the innovation of the Solent Mayoralty too. Soton, Pompey and Wight in one fiefdom.IanB2 said:
In Portsmouth this will be a gift for the LibDems, who will probably recover the council in MayMoses_ said:
There are just not going to be enough poster boards for the Tories at the next election.tlg86 said:
Okay, so she's a nobody from Portsmouth (significant), but this is quite damning:PlatoSaid said:Jessica Parker
Calls for a new breakaway party from @John_Ferrett as the #Portsmouth #Labour group leader quits @UKLabour. Here's his resignation letter https://t.co/xRLUvhM3zN
I cannot advocate to voters that they elect a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Indeed, I would be morally obliged to campaign against any administration that included Corbyn and John McDonnell, given my belief that they would seriously imperil our nation's national security if ever given the reins of power.0 -
No you didnt. But there is no longer a Demos in the USA. There are two. One is mainly white, Christian and conservative. The other is mainly from non european ancestry but includes white liberals and whites who are outside traditional cultural values.JosiasJessop said:
I never mentioned war!Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Far from Trump causing world war 3, his legacy may be civil war 2. The problem is so would Hilarys, so people are taking sides. Hitchens article describing the sudden lack of posters in peoples houses before the election when previously they were ubiquitous and people fearing to say who they support is as ominous as an approaching thunderstorm.JosiasJessop said:
The problem with that is that the elected representatives are dealing with the real world, where internationalism and global corporatism not only exist, but are here to stay.Casino_Royale said:Paul_Bedfordshire said:
.SouthamObserver said:
It will not be pleasant.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.SouthamObserver said:
It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.JennyFreeman said:
I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:SouthamObserver said:Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6
In short: voters feeling their representatives are on their side.
What we're seeing now is a political storm to make that sentiment fully felt. Saying that Trump is repugnant fuels it, IMHO, because the thing many voters want the most is to annoy/offend the established political players as much as possible.
Look at Venezuela as an example of where attempts to stop these forces have not ended well.
But yes, the increasingly large splits in the US's politics and society are worrying. They stand a god chance of becoming the Disunited States.
It wont end well whoever wins in November. Its no longer about equality. Its a battle for the whip hand to paraphrase a certain former wolverhampton MP.0 -
Is that it then. Leader of Portsmouth council. Not 84? No embargoed letter release?
Pah!
*surveys boxes of unopened popcorn*0 -
UKIP are also strong in PortsmouthIanB2 said:
In Portsmouth this will be a gift for the LibDems, who will probably recover the council in MayMoses_ said:
There are just not going to be enough poster boards for the Tories at the next election.tlg86 said:
Okay, so she's a nobody from Portsmouth (significant), but this is quite damning:PlatoSaid said:Jessica Parker
Calls for a new breakaway party from @John_Ferrett as the #Portsmouth #Labour group leader quits @UKLabour. Here's his resignation letter https://t.co/xRLUvhM3zN
I cannot advocate to voters that they elect a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Indeed, I would be morally obliged to campaign against any administration that included Corbyn and John McDonnell, given my belief that they would seriously imperil our nation's national security if ever given the reins of power.0 -
There's a lot of footage of her eyes going in opposite directions - apparently a cranial nerve damage thing following her concussion. It looks really crazy and photoshopped - but isn't.Gardenwalker said:
Dare I ask...what is the Hillary's eyes meme?PlatoSaid said:
Lester is the moderator IIRC. He's going to be watched like a hawk given his previous donations to HRC - along with Hillary's eyes.IanB2 said:
2 am I believeMorris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Not a word on the BBC front page about the gun and bomb attacks in Malmo, Sweden. Didn't see it on the main Europe page either. Top reporting there.
On-topic: does the debate start at 11pm? Think I saw that time on Sky, although that might be the start of preamble coverage.
I've totally ignored the 'eyes' thing until it was mentioned on Sky earlier - by Dr Linda their US psychology pundit. That she's picked up on the meme...
Do they turn bright red when she's crossed?
That goes along with her weird face pulling/rapid nodding/head jiggling. It just looks odd. I'm very wary of tweaked videos - but there's a lot of footage of this stuff and it's strange.0 -
Nearer 90%.matt said:
Smith et al were pretty thick as well. Offered 80% of what they wanted on the HMS Tiger talks. Refused and got nothing.foxinsoxuk said:
UDI didn't end well as I recall.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Rhodesia 2.0SouthamObserver said:
It will not be pleasant.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.SouthamObserver said:
It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.JennyFreeman said:
I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:SouthamObserver said:Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6
(actually the US is Rhodesia 1.0 and Rhodesia is 2.0 but thats bye the bye. )
This is the eqiuvalent of the 1962 Rhodesian election when the pro UDI Rhodesian Front, later to be led by Smith unexpectedly beat the establishment United Federal Party.
The eatablishment always wins in Rhodesia it was said. However liberal Prime Minister Sir Garfield Todd was seen to gave given too many concessions to Joshua Nkomo and suffered a shock defeat.
Three years later in the 1965 election, the Rhodesia Front under Smith won every single seat.
The liberal left have made the same mistake only worse by smearing all whites as racist and now electorates are going all Rhodesian.
The problem was that Smith couldnt prevail against the far right nutjobs in his cabinet like Van Der Byl so anything he agreed on the boat was worthless and he chose to dissemble his way out of it instead of admitting it.0 -
really? david duke and other white nationalists def support/ donate to trumpweejonnie said:
Well its the Democrats who are hobnobbing with the KKK619 said:Trump voters cant complain about being called racist when they voted for such an openly racist candidate
its like being a BNP voter in this country0 -
Dave Nellist? Wasn't he the original Dave Spart, beloved of Private Eye?
They're all coming out the woodwork. Wolfie Smith next?0 -
TBH, I don't place any faith in the US media at all, and even less in the UK media re Trump. The bias against him is painful.Dromedary said:
Which would win it for the other.Sandpit said:I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.
There isn't symmetry. Shocks favour Trump. This makes it like Brexit.
Predictions about the TV "debate" are of little value if they come from journalists who don't mention the fake world of wrestling. Here is how Trump is seen to "stand up to pressure" in that environment:
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHwypvDvuFY?t=01m20s
It's like watching Soubry commenting on Brexit voters.0 -
Placing those specific bets ?Charles said:
How many hours work?Pulpstar said:
My sub 1000.0 (But not HRC or Trump) book in full:Sandpit said:
Indeed, he's on the ballot in all 50 states. I'm on for £2 at 950, hoping to lay off at 100 or 200 later.foxinsoxuk said:
He does have the advantage of actually being on the ballot, unlike some of the other names bandied around.Sandpit said:
Yep, that guy. Remember that most people haven't been paying much attention up until now. If both Trump and Clinton lose tonight, the American public might look around. If he can add enough points to get in a debate, his odds will come in dramatically from 949/1PlatoSaid said:
Gary What's Aleppo Johnson?Sandpit said:Morning all. Stayed away from the Pres bettering so far, apart from a tenner on Trump at 5/1 in the middle of the primaries.
I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.
From a betting view, maybe it's worth a quid or two on Gary Johnson, currently 950 on Betfair. He's unlikely to win, but if the American public wake up to how completely crap the main two candidates are, there might be a chance he can get a seat in one of the later debates - which would bring his price in massively.
And this?
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_azcqlYC2s
Back:
Joe Biden 99.05 £21.00
Gary Johnson 650.20 £4.00
Mike Pence 1,000.00 £5.00 V green
Paul Ryan 386.39 £7.20
Bernie Sanders 33.41 £232.75
Jill Stein 1,000.00 £2.00
Lay:
Joe Biden 52.53 £69.15 Very red
Tim Kaine 160.00 £12.00 Quite green
Michelle Obama 480 £2.00 V red
Paul Ryan 220.00 £2.00 Green
Bernie Sanders 32.52 £286.27 V red
Elizabeth Warren 990.00 £2.00 red.
Which adds up to £100 profit come the night itself.
1/2 an hour maybe ?0 -
She was a lone Tory MP in a Labour area. Also was a minister in the DWP, which made her doubly evil in the eyes of the hard left. The treatment she got during the election campaign was disgusting, stuff like a sewage truck emptied onto the lawn of her parents.Sean_F said:
I don't know what Esther McVey has done to incur the manic loathing of the hard left. But, then, the hard left is viciously misogynistic as well as viciously anti-Semitic.PlatoSaid said:
I'm struggling to recall the last time Labour didn't do something, that in other times I'd presume was a joke or parody tweet.ydoethur said:
The real risk for Labour now is that this will be a dog that doesn't bark, which would certainly make this a curious incident.surbiton said:
Let's wait and see. Sometimes the bark is worse than the bite.ydoethur said:
And whatever is about to happen, that certainly isn't. Which is why I was talking about 57. That's just about realistic.surbiton said:
They don't have to take the party name. The Speaker will recognise the largest body of MPs who accept their whip as the official opposition. 117 is the magic number.RochdalePioneers said:
That only happens if they're taking the party name and organisation with them.Sandpit said:
Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?ydoethur said:If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).
Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.
I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
Let's be clear. The majority of pre-2015 members feel like the party has been stolen from us and been replaced by this democratic hate mob of chanting ideologues. To up and leave - to abandon this 116 year old movement to the kind of scum handing out anti-semitic leaflets at a merting discussing anti-semitism would be screaming cowardice. We can't leave. They will have to leave.
I'm still trying to think of any mistake that Labour could have made and hasn't.
Just watched McIRA on Sky - he's totally unapologetic for calling Ester McVey a stain on humanity. Now whatever one's opinion of HMG policy - that's quite an insult.0 -
RIP Arnold Palmer0
-
From Red Box
There is a strange atmosphere down by the docks, with the Labour Party apparently occupying a smaller conference space than the Lib Dems did when they were here in 2010.0 -
Still a fair few garden and field posters were aroundfoxinsoxuk said:
In the UK house posters seem to be history.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Far from Trump causing world war 3, his legacy may be civil war 2. The problem is so would Hilarys, so people are taking sides. Hitchens article describing the sudden lack erstorm.JosiasJessop said:
The problem with that is that the elected representatives are dealing with the real world, where internationalism and global corporatism not only exist, but are here to stay.Casino_Royale said:
I think the trouble is that for at least twenty years centrist parties in the US and UK, of both left and right, have clustered around a consensus that has become so axiomatic that it brooks no criticism. They have been far too willing to dismiss those who disagree and plenty of warning signs. That includes immigration but also elected representatives not being seen to be putting the interests of their own nation/people first, above internationalism and those of global corporatism.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
.SouthamObserver said:
It will not be pleasant.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
I suspect any such trouble will be brutally dealt with in much the same way as it was here before about 1850.SouthamObserver said:
It won't go down well in the US. It will be a place to avoid for a while if he wins. An openly racist President will lead to serious trouble on city streets.JennyFreeman said:
I never bought into the WWIII Brexit scaremongering. Trump though might be a different story. This isn't going to go down well in Arab and Muslim nations:SouthamObserver said:Currently at a forum in Gothenburg, Sweden. Spent much of yesterday asking US attendees what President Trump will do in his first 100 days. This was not greatly appreciated. But most now expect him to win.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-netanyahu-idUSKCN11V0Q6
In short: voters feeling their representatives are on their side.
What we're seeing now is a political storm to make that sentiment fully felt. Saying that Trump is repugnant fuels it, IMHO, because the thing many voters want the most is to annoy/offend the established political players as much as possible.
Look at Venezuela as an example of where attempts to stop these forces have not ended well.
I saw nearly none in the referendum and they were very sparse in the 2015 GE too. I think that they have been replaced by Social Media.0 -
Thanks. Will look out for, along for signs of Parkinson's, Epilepsy, and Rabies.PlatoSaid said:
There's a lot of footage of her eyes going in opposite directions - apparently a cranial nerve damage thing following her concussion. It looks really crazy and photoshopped - but isn't.Gardenwalker said:
Dare I ask...what is the Hillary's eyes meme?PlatoSaid said:
Lester is the moderator IIRC. He's going to be watched like a hawk given his previous donations to HRC - along with Hillary's eyes.IanB2 said:
2 am I believeMorris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Not a word on the BBC front page about the gun and bomb attacks in Malmo, Sweden. Didn't see it on the main Europe page either. Top reporting there.
On-topic: does the debate start at 11pm? Think I saw that time on Sky, although that might be the start of preamble coverage.
I've totally ignored the 'eyes' thing until it was mentioned on Sky earlier - by Dr Linda their US psychology pundit. That she's picked up on the meme...
Do they turn bright red when she's crossed?
That goes along with her weird face pulling/rapid nodding/head jiggling. It just looks odd. I'm very wary of tweaked videos - but there's a lot of footage of this stuff and it's strange.
By the way, did you coin "dresses like a Space Commander"? It's quite good.0 -
I suppose you're interested in this so would follow it anyway so it isn't really like work. Pence coming in would be a nice bonus for you, though!Pulpstar said:
Placing those specific bets ?Charles said:
How many hours work?Pulpstar said:
My sub 1000.0 (But not HRC or Trump) book in full:Sandpit said:
Indeed, he's on the ballot in all 50 states. I'm on for £2 at 950, hoping to lay off at 100 or 200 later.foxinsoxuk said:
He does have the advantage of actually being on the ballot, unlike some of the other names bandied around.Sandpit said:
Yep, that guy. Remember that most people haven't been paying much attention up until now. If both Trump and Clinton lose tonight, the American public might look around. If he can add enough points to get in a debate, his odds will come in dramatically from 949/1PlatoSaid said:
Gary What's Aleppo Johnson?Sandpit said:Morning all. Stayed away from the Pres bettering so far, apart from a tenner on Trump at 5/1 in the middle of the primaries.
I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.
From a betting view, maybe it's worth a quid or two on Gary Johnson, currently 950 on Betfair. He's unlikely to win, but if the American public wake up to how completely crap the main two candidates are, there might be a chance he can get a seat in one of the later debates - which would bring his price in massively.
And this?
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_azcqlYC2s
Back:
Joe Biden 99.05 £21.00
Gary Johnson 650.20 £4.00
Mike Pence 1,000.00 £5.00 V green
Paul Ryan 386.39 £7.20
Bernie Sanders 33.41 £232.75
Jill Stein 1,000.00 £2.00
Lay:
Joe Biden 52.53 £69.15 Very red
Tim Kaine 160.00 £12.00 Quite green
Michelle Obama 480 £2.00 V red
Paul Ryan 220.00 £2.00 Green
Bernie Sanders 32.52 £286.27 V red
Elizabeth Warren 990.00 £2.00 red.
Which adds up to £100 profit come the night itself.
1/2 an hour maybe ?0 -
Reporting actual statements that Trump has made is not bias.PlatoSaid said:
TBH, I don't place any faith in the US media at all, and even less in the UK media re Trump. The bias against him is painful.Dromedary said:
Which would win it for the other.Sandpit said:I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.
There isn't symmetry. Shocks favour Trump. This makes it like Brexit.
Predictions about the TV "debate" are of little value if they come from journalists who don't mention the fake world of wrestling. Here is how Trump is seen to "stand up to pressure" in that environment:
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHwypvDvuFY?t=01m20s
It's like watching Soubry commenting on Brexit voters.0 -
Robert Colville
If you want to understand Corbynista mentality, this from @paulmasonnews is a good place to start https://t.co/TDhjDBM3cQ https://t.co/zbHuMKXziN
To us, it looks like they've captured the party - to them, they're still persecuted minority facing implacable forces of reaction0 -
Ooh, no idea - it struck me the moment I saw her - but doesn't she justGardenwalker said:
Thanks. Will look out for, along for signs of Parkinson's, Epilepsy, and Rabies.PlatoSaid said:
There's a lot of footage of her eyes going in opposite directions - apparently a cranial nerve damage thing following her concussion. It looks really crazy and photoshopped - but isn't.Gardenwalker said:
Dare I ask...what is the Hillary's eyes meme?PlatoSaid said:
Lester is the moderator IIRC. He's going to be watched like a hawk given his previous donations to HRC - along with Hillary's eyes.IanB2 said:
2 am I believeMorris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
Not a word on the BBC front page about the gun and bomb attacks in Malmo, Sweden. Didn't see it on the main Europe page either. Top reporting there.
On-topic: does the debate start at 11pm? Think I saw that time on Sky, although that might be the start of preamble coverage.
I've totally ignored the 'eyes' thing until it was mentioned on Sky earlier - by Dr Linda their US psychology pundit. That she's picked up on the meme...
Do they turn bright red when she's crossed?
That goes along with her weird face pulling/rapid nodding/head jiggling. It just looks odd. I'm very wary of tweaked videos - but there's a lot of footage of this stuff and it's strange.
By the way, did you coin "dresses like a Space Commander"? It's quite good.
0 -
I'm out for a beer in Liverpool with the old gits on Wednesday but we'll have to plot a course to avoid the Trots. A sober one is bad enough, but one in his cups ...0
-
Her eyes allegedly move oddly, supposedly a sign of some underlying serious health condition which she is concealing.Gardenwalker said:
Dare I ask...what is the Hillary's eyes meme?
Do they turn bright red when she's crossed?
See, for example, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/297208-clintons-eyes-a-window-into-her-health-issues
Quoting from that page:
Does anyone here have enough medical knowledge to comment on the plausibility of this?
Like all things medical, there is a long list of potential causes but in my opinion the most likely one, based on Clinton's known medical history is an intermittent lateral rectus palsy caused by damage to or pressure on her sixth cranial nerve.
It is known that she suffered a traumatic brain injury in late 2012 when she fell and struck her head. What is also known is that she was diagnosed with a transverse sinus thrombosis — blood clot in the major vein at the base of the brain. Almost all patients with a transverse sinus thrombosis suffer swelling of the brain and increased intracranial pressure. Most have headaches, balance issues and visual disturbances — all of which Clinton was reported to have following that event.
Clinton's physician reported that she was placed on Coumadin (a blood thinner) to dissolve the blood clot. Actually, that is incorrect, because Coumadin has no effect on an existing clot. It serves only to decrease the chance of further clotting occurring Clinton's physician has also reported that on follow up exam, the clot had resolved. That is surprising since the majority of such clots do not dissolve. The way it was documented that the clot had resolved has not been reported.
If, as is statistically likely, Clinton's transverse sinus is still blocked, she would still have increased pressure and swelling and decreased blood flow to her brain. That swelling would place pressure on the exposed portion of the sixth cranial nerve at the base of her brain, explaining the apparent lateral rectus palsy. And such a deficit can be partial and/or intermittent.0 -
That was the rationale of the Gulags. That the revolution was so necessary for the welfare of mankind but so fragile and weak against the massed forces of reactionaryism that those even suspected of harbouring reactionary tendencies had to be removed from society on the precautionary principle.PlatoSaid said:Robert Colville
If you want to understand Corbynista mentality, this from @paulmasonnews is a good place to start https://t.co/TDhjDBM3cQ https://t.co/zbHuMKXziN
To us, it looks like they've captured the party - to them, they're still persecuted minority facing implacable forces of reaction0 -
Miss Plato, sounds vaguely reminiscent of Mandelson's 'insurgents despite being in government' approach, except that that was political strategy rather than genuinely fetishising victimhood.
In other news, there seems to have been a device found/dealt with in Gothenburg.0 -
Here's Hillary snogging a leading KKKer.619 said:
really? david duke and other white nationalists def support/ donate to trumpweejonnie said:
Well its the Democrats who are hobnobbing with the KKK619 said:Trump voters cant complain about being called racist when they voted for such an openly racist candidate
its like being a BNP voter in this country
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/
Google searches are a great way of finding stuff out btw.0 -
There was a mention of co-ordinated resignations in the earlier Twitter rumours, so far it has just been the one senior councillor, who resigned live on local radio. The last time the Blairites co-ordinated it turned out to be resignations spread through the day, so who knows?Sandpit said:
Rather boring wasn't it?Moses_ said:Is that it then. Leader of Portsmouth council. Not 84? No embargoed letter release?
Pah!
*surveys boxes of unopened popcorn*
0 -
From Mr Mid-Life-Crisis blogPlatoSaid said:Robert Colville
If you want to understand Corbynista mentality, this from @paulmasonnews is a good place to start https://t.co/TDhjDBM3cQ https://t.co/zbHuMKXziN
To us, it looks like they've captured the party - to them, they're still persecuted minority facing implacable forces of reaction
"Here’s twelve bullet points I am using to orientate myself during the next phase of Labour politics. You are welcome to use them, attack them, or pick and mix. You’ll understand why I’ve called it neo-Bevanism when you get to point 12 — but in general I am inspired by Nye’s lifelong determination to combine what he learned as a syndicalist with radical Labour politics and parliamentary democracy, which he described as “a sword pointed at the heart of property-power”
"...The most exciting left organisation to be in now is Labour.
The most revolutionary thing we can do in the era of fragmenting neoliberalism is put a truly radical social-democracy in power."0 -
Mr. CD13, a wise precaution. One doesn't want to end an evening out suffering a bad case of the Trots.0
-
that was after he renounced the kkk, became a senator and helped push through civil rights legislationIshmael_X said:
Here's Hillary snogging a leading KKKer.619 said:
really? david duke and other white nationalists def support/ donate to trumpweejonnie said:
Well its the Democrats who are hobnobbing with the KKK619 said:Trump voters cant complain about being called racist when they voted for such an openly racist candidate
its like being a BNP voter in this country
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/
Google searches are a great way of finding stuff out btw.
not the same as david dukes. At all.0 -
And there was no other way to get stuff dug and built in Siberia.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
That was the rationale of the Gulags. That the revolution was so necessary for the welfare of mankind but so fragile and weak against the massed forces of reactionaryism that those even suspected of harbouring reactionary tendencies had to be removed from society on the precautionary principle.PlatoSaid said:Robert Colville
If you want to understand Corbynista mentality, this from @paulmasonnews is a good place to start https://t.co/TDhjDBM3cQ https://t.co/zbHuMKXziN
To us, it looks like they've captured the party - to them, they're still persecuted minority facing implacable forces of reaction0 -
Does anyone here have enough medical knowledge to comment on the plausibility of this?Robert_Of_Sheffield said:
Her eyes allegedly move oddly, supposedly a sign of some underlying serious health condition which she is concealing.Gardenwalker said:
Dare I ask...what is the Hillary's eyes meme?
Do they turn bright red when she's crossed?
See, for example, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/297208-clintons-eyes-a-window-into-her-health-issues
Quoting from that page:
Like all things medical, there is a long list of potential causes but in my opinion the most likely one, based on Clinton's known medical history is an intermittent lateral rectus palsy caused by damage to or pressure on her sixth cranial nerve.
It is known that she suffered a traumatic brain injury in late 2012 when she fell and struck her head. What is also known is that she was diagnosed with a transverse sinus thrombosis — blood clot in the major vein at the base of the brain. Almost all patients with a transverse sinus thrombosis suffer swelling of the brain and increased intracranial pressure. Most have headaches, balance issues and visual disturbances — all of which Clinton was reported to have following that event.
Clinton's physician reported that she was placed on Coumadin (a blood thinner) to dissolve the blood clot. Actually, that is incorrect, because Coumadin has no effect on an existing clot. It serves only to decrease the chance of further clotting occurring Clinton's physician has also reported that on follow up exam, the clot had resolved. That is surprising since the majority of such clots do not dissolve. The way it was documented that the clot had resolved has not been reported.
If, as is statistically likely, Clinton's transverse sinus is still blocked, she would still have increased pressure and swelling and decreased blood flow to her brain. That swelling would place pressure on the exposed portion of the sixth cranial nerve at the base of her brain, explaining the apparent lateral rectus palsy. And such a deficit can be partial and/or intermittent.
she has released pages of her medical information so thats a good place to start.
trump released that 1 page letter, so harder to know for sure what the matter with him is0 -
0
-
There was a very nasty campaign in Wirral West against her last year. It's a real shame it succeeded.Sean_F said:
I don't know what Esther McVey has done to incur the manic loathing of the hard left. But, then, the hard left is viciously misogynistic as well as viciously anti-Semitic.PlatoSaid said:
I'm struggling to recall the last time Labour didn't do something, that in other times I'd presume was a joke or parody tweet.ydoethur said:
The real risk for Labour now is that this will be a dog that doesn't bark, which would certainly make this a curious incident.surbiton said:
Let's wait and see. Sometimes the bark is worse than the bite.ydoethur said:
And whatever is about to happen, that certainly isn't. Which is why I was talking about 57. That's just about realistic.surbiton said:
They don't have to take the party name. The Speaker will recognise the largest body of MPs who accept their whip as the official opposition. 117 is the magic number.RochdalePioneers said:
ThatSandpit said:
Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?ydoethur said:If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).
Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.
I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
I'm still trying to think of any mistake that Labour could have made and hasn't.
Just watched McIRA on Sky - he's totally unapologetic for calling Ester McVey a stain on humanity. Now whatever one's opinion of HMG policy - that's quite an insult.
McDonnell is doing nothing more than showing himself up to be the dirt he really is.0 -
Labour fighting like Ferretts in a sack?surbiton said:
It is from John Ferrett, Leader of Portsmouth Council Labour Group.tlg86 said:
Okay, so she's a nobody from Portsmouth (significant), but this is quite damning:PlatoSaid said:Jessica Parker
Calls for a new breakaway party from @John_Ferrett as the #Portsmouth #Labour group leader quits @UKLabour. Here's his resignation letter https://t.co/xRLUvhM3zN
I cannot advocate to voters that they elect a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Indeed, I would be morally obliged to campaign against any administration that included Corbyn and John McDonnell, given my belief that they would seriously imperil our nation's national security if ever given the reins of power.0 -
I feel sorry for tim over at georgeosbornegenius on twitter, it must be doing his head in.0
-
I think Charlotte Leslie actually had abuse emptied onto the lawn of her parents as well.Sandpit said:
She was a lone Tory MP in a Labour area. Also was a minister in the DWP, which made her doubly evil in the eyes of the hard left. The treatment she got during the election campaign was disgusting, stuff like a sewage truck emptied onto the lawn of her parents.Sean_F said:
I don't know what Esther McVey has done to incur the manic loathing of the hard left. But, then, the hard left is viciously misogynistic as well as viciously anti-Semitic.PlatoSaid said:
I'm struggling to recall the last time Labour didn't do something, that in other times I'd presume was a joke or parody tweet.ydoethur said:
The real risk for Labour now is that this will be a dog that doesn't bark, which would certainly make this a curious incident.surbiton said:
Let's wait and see. Sometimes the bark is worse than the bite.ydoethur said:
And whatever is about to happen, that certainly isn't. Which is why I was talking about 57. That's just about realistic.surbiton said:
They don't have to take the party name. The Speaker will recognise the largest body of MPs who accept their whip as the official opposition. 117 is the magic number.RochdalePioneers said:
That.Sandpit said:
Surely the magic number is 117 - half plus one if the Labour MPs?ydoethur said:If there is to be a split, the magic number is 57 MPs. At that point, they will be securely bigger than the SNP (who are I think 54 plus two on suspension).
Can't see it myself. Will be a terrible blow to Labour organisationally and a huge boost to Corbyn personally if it does happen though. A double whammy that could kill the whole party stone dead.
I wonder what Satan charged Theresa for the sale of her soul?
That makes them the Official Opposition and relegates Corbyn's party to the back benches with the SNP.
I'm still trying to think of any mistake that Labour could have made and hasn't.
Just watched McIRA on Sky - he's totally unapologetic for calling Ester McVey a stain on humanity. Now whatever one's opinion of HMG policy - that's quite an insult.
Some people just dislike themselves so much they have to get their sense of decency from marking out others as more wicked than them, and then publicly abusing them.
They enjoy hating because at heart they hate themselves.0 -
If you want to argue about David Duke - who only gets a mention at elections619 said:
that was after he renounced the kkk, became a senator and helped push through civil rights legislationIshmael_X said:
Here's Hillary snogging a leading KKKer.619 said:
really? david duke and other white nationalists def support/ donate to trumpweejonnie said:
Well its the Democrats who are hobnobbing with the KKK619 said:Trump voters cant complain about being called racist when they voted for such an openly racist candidate
its like being a BNP voter in this country
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/
Google searches are a great way of finding stuff out btw.
not the same as david dukes. At all.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/0 -
Mr. Observer, can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.
Does that mean the Scottish and Welsh NEC members will happen, or not?0 -
Does anyone here have enough medical knowledge to comment on the plausibility of this?Robert_Of_Sheffield said:
Her eyes allegedly move oddly, supposedly a sign of some underlying serious health condition which she is concealing.Gardenwalker said:
Dare I ask...what is the Hillary's eyes meme?
Do they turn bright red when she's crossed?
See, for example, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/297208-clintons-eyes-a-window-into-her-health-issues
Quoting from that page:
Like all things medical, there is a long list of potential causes but in my opinion the most likely one, based on Clinton's known medical history is an intermittent lateral rectus palsy caused by damage to or pressure on her sixth cranial nerve.
It is known that she suffered a traumatic brain injury in late 2012 when she fell and struck her head. What is also known is that she was diagnosed with a transverse sinus thrombosis — blood clot in the major vein at the base of the brain. Almost all patients with a transverse sinus thrombosis suffer swelling of the brain and increased intracranial pressure. Most have headaches, balance issues and visual disturbances — all of which Clinton was reported to have following that event.
Clinton's physician reported that she was placed on Coumadin (a blood thinner) to dissolve the blood clot. Actually, that is incorrect, because Coumadin has no effect on an existing clot. It serves only to decrease the chance of further clotting occurring Clinton's physician has also reported that on follow up exam, the clot had resolved. That is surprising since the majority of such clots do not dissolve. The way it was documented that the clot had resolved has not been reported.
If, as is statistically likely, Clinton's transverse sinus is still blocked, she would still have increased pressure and swelling and decreased blood flow to her brain. That swelling would place pressure on the exposed portion of the sixth cranial nerve at the base of her brain, explaining the apparent lateral rectus palsy. And such a deficit can be partial and/or intermittent.
An intermittent Lateral Rectus Palsy lasts months at a time, not seconds. If she still had it then one or both of her eyes would not move outwards, becoming cross-eyed when lokking to the affected side. I have seen nothing like this during the campaign.
Hillary wore glasses with prisms after her Transverse sinus thrombosis, but these palsies resolve over a couple of months.
Coumarim (Warfarin in the UK) does not dissolve the clot, but a natural bypass opens up as the other veins dilate. As long as she remains on Warfarin the risk of recurrence is very low, and potentially treatable if it did.0 -
If you stopped spitting ("manic", "loathing", "hard left"), you could find out some of what it is that people have against her. Start by looking at how her family demolition business, in which she used to be a director, operates. Then look at how she has claimed as her great inspiration William Lever. She calls him "the Merseyside soap baron who became one of the greatest philanthropists". Also known as Lord Leverhulme, the guy ran a private slave-based regime in Congo under the wing of Leopold II of Belgium. The population got reduced by half. This is described in the book Lord Leverhulme's Ghosts: Colonial Exploitation in the Congo. At the DWP she was Minister for Employment, That job normally comes with a health and safety role, namely responsibility for the Health and Safety Executive. But given her family firm's terrible record in health and safety, she got banned from having any responsibilities in that area after the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health wrote to David Cameron to tell them about her. Maybe they are all hard maniacs from the rabid left-handed brigade of misogynistic loathers.Sean_F said:I don't know what Esther McVey has done to incur the manic loathing of the hard left.
0 -
So just to be clear, not a single TV station or newspaper is trustworthy in your world. They're ALL biased.PlatoSaid said:
TBH, I don't place any faith in the US media at all, and even less in the UK media re Trump. The bias against him is painful.Dromedary said:
Which would win it for the other.Sandpit said:I wonder how much either candidate can gain from the debates, although maybe there's a low bar of expectation from them both. They've both got a lot to lose though, one slip of the tongue could sink their campaign.
There isn't symmetry. Shocks favour Trump. This makes it like Brexit.
Predictions about the TV "debate" are of little value if they come from journalists who don't mention the fake world of wrestling. Here is how Trump is seen to "stand up to pressure" in that environment:
ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHwypvDvuFY?t=01m20s
It's like watching Soubry commenting on Brexit voters.
The only source of the truth is the right wing news sites and columnist you constantly copy and paste.
Is that correct? Does it not cross your mind that this bias is actually because what you believe to be true is not consistent with reality?0 -
Is this an electorate made up of physicians or of normal people with eyes?619 said:
Does anyone here have enough medical knowledge to comment on the plausibility of this?Robert_Of_Sheffield said:
Her eyes allegedly move oddly, supposedly a sign of some underlying serious health condition which she is concealing.Gardenwalker said:
Dare I ask...what is the Hillary's eyes meme?
Do they turn bright red when she's crossed?
See, for example, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/297208-clintons-eyes-a-window-into-her-health-issues
Quoting from that page:
Like all things medical, there is a long list of potential causes but in my opinion the most likely one, based on Clinton's known medical history is an intermittent lateral rectus palsy caused by damage to or pressure on her sixth cranial nerve.
It is known that she suffered a traumatic brain injury in late 2012 when she fell and struck her head. What is also known is that she was diagnosed with a transverse sinus thrombosis — blood clot in the major vein at the base of the brain. Almost all patients with a transverse sinus thrombosis suffer swelling of the brain and increased intracranial pressure. Most have headaches, balance issues and visual disturbances — all of which Clinton was reported to have following that event.
Clinton's physician reported that she was placed on Coumadin (a blood thinner) to dissolve the blood clot. Actually, that is incorrect, because Coumadin has no effect on an existing clot. It serves only to decrease the chance of further clotting occurring Clinton's physician has also reported that on follow up exam, the clot had resolved. That is surprising since the majority of such clots do not dissolve. The way it was documented that the clot had resolved has not been reported.
If, as is statistically likely, Clinton's transverse sinus is still blocked, she would still have increased pressure and swelling and decreased blood flow to her brain. That swelling would place pressure on the exposed portion of the sixth cranial nerve at the base of her brain, explaining the apparent lateral rectus palsy. And such a deficit can be partial and/or intermittent.
she has released pages of her medical information so thats a good place to start.
trump released that 1 page letter, so harder to know for sure what the matter with him is
Does Hillary look ill and strange - yes. Does Trump look ill - no.
It's about as plausible as the nitwit trying to claim Mrs May is lily-livered. It's just not a credible bit of name calling. Her brand is being very firm and rather cold/school mistress.0 -
But can we trust the medical information Hillary has released?619 said:
she has released pages of her medical information so thats a good place to start.Robert_Of_Sheffield said:
Her eyes allegedly move oddly, supposedly a sign of some underlying serious health condition which she is concealing.Gardenwalker said:
Dare I ask...what is the Hillary's eyes meme?
Do they turn bright red when she's crossed?
See, for example, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/297208-clintons-eyes-a-window-into-her-health-issues
Does anyone here have enough medical knowledge to comment on the plausibility of this?
Quoting from that site again: "Clinton's physician reported that she was placed on Coumadin (a blood thinner) to dissolve the blood clot. Actually, that is incorrect, because Coumadin has no effect on an existing clot. It serves only to decrease the chance of further clotting occurring Clinton's physician has also reported that on follow up exam, the clot had resolved. That is surprising since the majority of such clots do not dissolve. The way it was documented that the clot had resolved has not been reported."
If that claim about Coumadin is accurate, Clinton's doctor must have given false information.
0 -
So any word on the gang of 84?0
-
Or the 18 Southern Democrat Senators who tried to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act.PlatoSaid said:
If you want to argue about David Duke - who only gets a mention at elections619 said:
that was after he renounced the kkk, became a senator and helped push through civil rights legislationIshmael_X said:
Here's Hillary snogging a leading KKKer.619 said:
really? david duke and other white nationalists def support/ donate to trumpweejonnie said:
Well its the Democrats who are hobnobbing with the KKK619 said:Trump voters cant complain about being called racist when they voted for such an openly racist candidate
its like being a BNP voter in this country
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/
Google searches are a great way of finding stuff out btw.
not the same as david dukes. At all.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/0 -
Here is his interview from Radio SolentMarqueeMark said:
Labour fighting like Ferretts in a sack?surbiton said:
It is from John Ferrett, Leader of Portsmouth Council Labour Group.tlg86 said:
Okay, so she's a nobody from Portsmouth (significant), but this is quite damning:PlatoSaid said:Jessica Parker
Calls for a new breakaway party from @John_Ferrett as the #Portsmouth #Labour group leader quits @UKLabour. Here's his resignation letter https://t.co/xRLUvhM3zN
I cannot advocate to voters that they elect a Labour Government with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm. Indeed, I would be morally obliged to campaign against any administration that included Corbyn and John McDonnell, given my belief that they would seriously imperil our nation's national security if ever given the reins of power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0491t630 -
And as they say, when you're explaining - you're losing.Robert_Of_Sheffield said:
But can we trust the medical information Hillary has released?619 said:
she has released pages of her medical information so thats a good place to start.Robert_Of_Sheffield said:
Her eyes allegedly move oddly, supposedly a sign of some underlying serious health condition which she is concealing.Gardenwalker said:
Dare I ask...what is the Hillary's eyes meme?
Do they turn bright red when she's crossed?
See, for example, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/297208-clintons-eyes-a-window-into-her-health-issues
Does anyone here have enough medical knowledge to comment on the plausibility of this?
Quoting from that site again: "Clinton's physician reported that she was placed on Coumadin (a blood thinner) to dissolve the blood clot. Actually, that is incorrect, because Coumadin has no effect on an existing clot. It serves only to decrease the chance of further clotting occurring Clinton's physician has also reported that on follow up exam, the clot had resolved. That is surprising since the majority of such clots do not dissolve. The way it was documented that the clot had resolved has not been reported."
If that claim about Coumadin is accurate, Clinton's doctor must have given false information.0 -
she has released pages of her medical information so thats a good place to start.619 said:
Does anyone here have enough medical knowledge to comment on the plausibility of this?Robert_Of_Sheffield said:
Her eyes allegedly move oddly, supposedly a sign of some underlying serious health condition which she is concealing.Gardenwalker said:
Dare I ask...what is the Hillary's eyes meme?
Do they turn bright red when she's crossed?
See, for example, http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/297208-clintons-eyes-a-window-into-her-health-issues
Quoting from that page:
Like all things medical, there is a long list of potential causes but in my opinion the most likely one, based on Clinton's known medical history is an intermittent lateral rectus palsy caused by damage to or pressure on her sixth cranial nerve.
It is known that she suffered a traumatic brain injury in late 2012 when she fell and struck her head. What is also known is that she was diagnosed with a transverse sinus thrombosis — blood clot in the major vein at the base of the brain. Almost all patients with a transverse sinus thrombosis suffer swelling of the brain and increased intracranial pressure. Most have headaches, balance issues and visual disturbances — all of which Clinton was reported to have following that event.
Clinton's physician reported that she was placed on Coumadin (a blood thinner) to dissolve the blood clot. Actually, that is incorrect, because Coumadin has no effect on an existing clot. It serves only to decrease the chance of further clotting occurring Clinton's physician has also reported that on follow up exam, the clot had resolved. That is surprising since the majority of such clots do not dissolve. The way it was documented that the clot had resolved has not been reported.
If, as is statistically likely, Clinton's transverse sinus is still blocked, she would still have increased pressure and swelling and decreased blood flow to her brain. That swelling would place pressure on the exposed portion of the sixth cranial nerve at the base of her brain, explaining the apparent lateral rectus palsy. And such a deficit can be partial and/or intermittent.
trump released that 1 page letter, so harder to know for sure what the matter with him is
Trump?
He is, hopefully, suffering from (politically) terminal egoism.0
This discussion has been closed.