politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » This is analysis might well disprove the theory of shy Trumper
Comments
-
Rasmussen, who you seem to be pinning your statements on, state that Roment got 17% of the black vote. This completely disagrees with the national exit poll commissioned by the tv networks in 2012 that said he got 6%. The best I've seen for him is around 10%.HYUFD said:
Yes but the same trend is seen in the polls where Trump is close or leading, if he wins more of those Dems than Romney he has a real chance. It is rural and blue collar small town whites who are Trump's core supporters, not urban whites. Trump does not need to win younger voters, just benefit from their failure to come out to vote for Hillarynunu said:
OK but 1) its Ras no other pollster is showing this, in fact most polls I've seen show over 90% of dems backing her whereas he struggles to get 85% of Republicans. And she is winning educated white women (i.e suburban women) easily.HYUFD said:
As I posted earlier, Trump is winning 15% of Democrats while Hillary is getting just 11% of Republicans according to Rasmussennunu said:
Why? On what basis? No evidence for this at all.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
2) there are more Dems
3) in North Carolina in the early vote white urban turnout is UP 2% for dems but white urban turnout is down 4% for Republicans which is particularly bad for them since the local party is 94% white. This suggests so far at least suburban Repubs are not voting for DT.
4) Bernie voters are mainly young and he is often fourth place with them.
This makes everything they say suspect.0 -
538 is not a great source for your material TSE. It's very one-sided and got caught out massively re. Trump's nomination and consistently under-estimated Bernie Sanders.
The reason this article may be wayward is that primaries don't touch the vast swathe of non-political people who will will vote in the real thing. They're the ones most likely to be 'shy' not your political anoraks of primary and caucus season.
Epistemological = theory of knowledge. I presume you mean psephological?0 -
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports itRobD said:
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441276/hillary-clinton-partial-birth-abortion-defending-indefensible
Trump might be a groping fool but she is pure poison.0 -
p.s.good to see the US Election getting coverage on here though at last0
-
Alistair said:
Regardless of whether they gave Romney the exact correct percentage in 2012, Rasmussen have called elections right before eg they were one of the most accurate pollsters in 2012. In any case it is lower turnout amongst African Americans which will likely hit Hillary more relative to 2012 than Trump winning a significant percentage of the African American voteHYUFD said:
Rasmussen, who you seem to be pinning your statements on, state that Roment got 17% of the black vote. This completely disagrees with the national exit poll commissioned by the tv networks in 2012 that said he got 6%. The best I've seen for him is around 10%.nunu said:
OK but 1) its Ras no other pollster is showing this, in fact most polls I've seen show over 90% of dems backing her whereas he struggles blockquote>HYUFD said:
As I posted earlier, Trump is winning 15% of Democrats while Hillary is getting just 11% of Republicans according to Rasmussennunu said:
Why? On what basis? No evidence for this at all.HYUFD said:
There are likely to be more white blue collar Democrats voting for Trump than suburban college educated Republicans voting for Clinton (some of the latter may vote for Johnson instead)619 said:
Well, If RAS says it...HYUFD said:
Indeed, Rasmussen has Trump winning 15% of Democrats and Hillary 11% of RepublicansPaul_Bedfordshire said:
Caution - AIUI all we know is the proportion of each parties registered supporters who are turning out (all registering as supporter does is allow you to vote in the primaries).Alistair said:At first blush it looks like Trump does 'well' in Dem states and worse in Rep.states.
Clinton seems to be outperforming in Rep states.
We dont actually know who they are voting for. They are not obliged to vote for the party they register with and many Sanders supporters in particular may not vote for Clinton.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct21
Yes but the same trend is seen in the polls where Trump is close or leading, if he wins more of those Dems than Romney he has a real chance. It is rural and blue collar small town whites who are Trump's core supporters, not urban whites. Trump does not need to win younger voters, just benefit from their failure to come out to vote for Hillary
This makes everything they say suspect.0 -
Nunu, in no way are partial birth abortion and saving the life of a pregnant mother in conflict. Do some reading on the subject. Clinton's is an extreme position as she sucks up to Planned Parenthood and the like.nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
A modern day Massacre of the Innocents?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports itRobD said:
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441276/hillary-clinton-partial-birth-abortion-defending-indefensible
Trump might be a groping fool but she is pure poison.0 -
Marine Le Pen seems to me to be the kind of candidate you're referring to here. She's not necessarily likeable as such, but charismatic and serious (her problems in the next election will be more down to her parties background/past, rather than her own - a bit like the reverse of Trump's issues). Her agenda is very much populist in nature similar to Trump's, rather than classic FN like her father.Malmesbury said:
Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.
It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...0 -
What do you think of the chances of Marion?Paristonda said:
Marine Le Pen seems to me to be the kind of candidate you're referring to here. She's not necessarily likeable as such, but charismatic and serious (her problems in the next election will be more down to her parties background/past, rather than her own - a bit like the reverse of Trump's issues). Her agenda is very much populist in nature similar to Trump's, rather than classic FN like her father.Malmesbury said:
Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.
It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...0 -
No of course you shouldn't kill the mother so the as yet to born mother can live? How can you think that OK?RobD said:
Killing a baby to save an adult? Surely it should be the other way around!nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
I just love this photo.
https://twitter.com/RoyChubbsBrown/status/7899267844605501440 -
Well that little lot of F1 bets came out about slightly green. Well done especially to Jenson.0
-
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
It says here it was outlawed by Bush in 2003 do they still do it. I won't put the procedure on here but the description is horrific on the link. Why do we do such a thing.MP_SE said:
A modern day Massacre of the Innocents?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports itRobD said:
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441276/hillary-clinton-partial-birth-abortion-defending-indefensible
Trump might be a groping fool but she is pure poison.
I presume also the feet first delivery and terminating process is completed while head is still in the birth canal. One presumes that's to avoid manslaughter / murder ??
Anyone who supports this just can't be human.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3246407.stm0 -
Listen.
The problem and danger with Trump is either that he doesn't seem able to take advice, or that his advisers are shite.0 -
Why would anyone be a shy Trumper? It would be like being a secret Corbyn supporter.. They don't exist. If they support their candidate, they are out there. There is no in-between.0
-
Hence why a good few people will hold their noses and vote Trump, even if they wont admit to it.Moses_ said:
It says here it was outlawed by Bush in 2003 do they still do it. I won't put the procedure on here but the description is horrific on the link. Why do we do such a thing.MP_SE said:
A modern day Massacre of the Innocents?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports itRobD said:
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441276/hillary-clinton-partial-birth-abortion-defending-indefensible
Trump might be a groping fool but she is pure poison.
I presume also the feet first delivery and terminating process is completed while head is still in the birth canal. One presumes that's to avoid manslaughter / murder ??
Anyone who supports this just can't be human.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3246407.stm0 -
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.nunu said:
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
Yeah, anti abortionists in American are famed for their shy and reticent nature. Only occasionally venturing out to picket clinics and phone in hoax bomb threats.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Hence why a good few people will hold their noses and vote Trump, even if they wont admit to it.Moses_ said:
It says here it was outlawed by Bush in 2003 do they still do it. I won't put the procedure on here but the description is horrific on the link. Why do we do such a thing.MP_SE said:
A modern day Massacre of the Innocents?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports itRobD said:
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441276/hillary-clinton-partial-birth-abortion-defending-indefensible
Trump might be a groping fool but she is pure poison.
I presume also the feet first delivery and terminating process is completed while head is still in the birth canal. One presumes that's to avoid manslaughter / murder ??
Anyone who supports this just can't be human.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3246407.stm0 -
I suspect the vast majority don't actual do any of those things.Alistair said:
Yeah, anti abortionists in American are famed for their shy and reticent nature. Only occasionally venturing out to picket clinics and phone in hoax bomb threats.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Hence why a good few people will hold their noses and vote Trump, even if they wont admit to it.Moses_ said:
It says here it was outlawed by Bush in 2003 do they still do it. I won't put the procedure on here but the description is horrific on the link. Why do we do such a thing.MP_SE said:
A modern day Massacre of the Innocents?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports itRobD said:
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441276/hillary-clinton-partial-birth-abortion-defending-indefensible
Trump might be a groping fool but she is pure poison.
I presume also the feet first delivery and terminating process is completed while head is still in the birth canal. One presumes that's to avoid manslaughter / murder ??
Anyone who supports this just can't be human.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3246407.stm0 -
Of course she would. Start of a very slippery slope towards infanticide.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.nunu said:
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
You are making the same mistake as those who confused the relatively small quantity of noisy Europhobes with the rather larger number of people who voted Brexit.Alistair said:
Yeah, anti abortionists in American are famed for their shy and reticent nature. Only occasionally venturing out to picket clinics and phone in hoax bomb threats.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Hence why a good few people will hold their noses and vote Trump, even if they wont admit to it.Moses_ said:
It says here it was outlawed by Bush in 2003 do they still do it. I won't put the procedure on here but the description is horrific on the link. Why do we do such a thing.MP_SE said:
A modern day Massacre of the Innocents?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
It is utterly disgusting but Hillary supports itRobD said:
That can't be true, surely? It sounds utterly disgusting.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - fully legalise partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
"Clinton’s defense of partial-birth abortion, the appalling practice whereby a baby is half delivered and then killed, is remarkably easy to dissemble. The Supreme Court ruled the federal ban on partial-birth abortion to be constitutional in the 2007 case Gonzales v. Carhart, affirming that the government has the power to regulate abortion despite Roe.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441276/hillary-clinton-partial-birth-abortion-defending-indefensible
Trump might be a groping fool but she is pure poison.
I presume also the feet first delivery and terminating process is completed while head is still in the birth canal. One presumes that's to avoid manslaughter / murder ??
Anyone who supports this just can't be human.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3246407.stm0 -
When asked the question are you pro life or pro choice the American public come back at 50/50. Amd given they keep voting in pro choice presidents recently im not seeing the evidence for shy pro lifers.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
You are making the same mistake as those who confused the relatively small quantity of noisy Europhobes with the rather larger number of people who voted Brexit.0 -
There are plenty of pro choice people, possibly a majority, who are appalled by partial birth abortion.Alistair said:
When asked the question are you pro life or pro choice the American public come back at 50/50. Amd given they keep voting in pro choice presidents recently im not seeing the evidence for shy pro lifers.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
You are making the same mistake as those who confused the relatively small quantity of noisy Europhobes with the rather larger number of people who voted Brexit.
Never again?0 -
Marine Le Pen on Hard Talk recently talking about Trump. (Ignore the Kipper captions).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sfhc_e5P880 -
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.nunu said:
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
There's a big difference between being pro-choice and being in favour of basically murdering a baby in the womb.Alistair said:
When asked the question are you pro life or pro choice the American public come back at 50/50. Amd given they keep voting in pro choice presidents recently im not seeing the evidence for shy pro lifers.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
You are making the same mistake as those who confused the relatively small quantity of noisy Europhobes with the rather larger number of people who voted Brexit.
I'd suggest those in favour of the latter are somewhat less than 50%, and that a majority of people are horrified by the idea in a western country.0 -
'''Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying...'''
A recent poll on Ohio had Trump and Hillary at 45 each. And yet when same poll asked a different question, the number who said the country was 'on the wrong track' was almost two thirds to a third.
At the time I posed the question, in what world are people who think the country is on the wrong track going to vote for Hillary Clinton?
It was pooh-poohed by the Clinton massive on here of course, but I think the question still stands.
0 -
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwisenunu said:
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.nunu said:
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
are you a doctor? There are several reasons why a pregnancy is going so badly that it needs the baby out to save the mother.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
I'm still not sure why an adult's life is worth more than a baby's?619 said:
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwisenunu said:
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.nunu said:
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
Untrue. I wouldn't admit to supporting Trump especially to a stranger over the phone.SquareRoot said:Why would anyone be a shy Trumper? It would be like being a secret Corbyn supporter.. They don't exist. If they support their candidate, they are out there. There is no in-between.
0 -
I didnt poo poo it. I asked follow up questions u ignored.taffys said:'''Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying...'''
A recent poll on Ohio had Trump and Hillary at 45 each. And yet when same poll asked a different question, the number who said the country was 'on the wrong track' was almost two thirds to a third.
At the time I posed the question, in what world are people who think the country is on the wrong track going to vote for Hillary Clinton?
It was pooh-poohed by the Clinton massive on here of course, but I think the question still stands.
And again. One poll?0 -
My sense is that there's still a lot of volatility and a lot will depend on what is dominating the news cycle in the final days of the campaign.taffys said:'''Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying...'''
A recent poll on Ohio had Trump and Hillary at 45 each. And yet when same poll asked a different question, the number who said the country was 'on the wrong track' was almost two thirds to a third.
At the time I posed the question, in what world are people who think the country is on the wrong track going to vote for Hillary Clinton?
It was pooh-poohed by the Clinton massive on here of course, but I think the question still stands.0 -
-
She's even more popular than Marine at the moment, and also a very charismatic politician, but I think her ideas would find a lot less support in the country at large. She's too classic FN minus the anti-semitism. Under scrutiny I think she'd lose a large proportion of the 'left behind' vote.rcs1000 said:
What do you think of the chances of Marion?Paristonda said:
Marine Le Pen seems to me to be the kind of candidate you're referring to here. She's not necessarily likeable as such, but charismatic and serious (her problems in the next election will be more down to her parties background/past, rather than her own - a bit like the reverse of Trump's issues). Her agenda is very much populist in nature similar to Trump's, rather than classic FN like her father.Malmesbury said:
Nope - Trump's problems are the demented stuff that he added on to voter discontent - the wall stuff, and his own.... past.HYUFD said:
Being sane or likeable and having Trump's agenda could be a contradiction in termsSeanT said:Finding it very hard to get excited about this POTUS election now. Trump's absolute shiteness has ruined it all. Boo.
The interesting thing is what could a sane, likeable candidate do with Trump's agenda? I suggest he or she would win.
It's quite easy to imagine a populist of the right - a republican Bernie Sanders.
It's worth considering from the other side of things that Bernie Sanders with a few things different would have beaten Hillary... he was too old and too Corbyn like. But even so he scared the hell out of Clinton. Hence the Black Lives Matter bizarro attack on Sanders...0 -
No, I rember she didn't just say its only of its only if mothers life is at risk, most humane people would agree with that but I remember her saying "and unexpected illness" i.e ones the baby has, but that could be a plethora of different things.619 said:
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwisenunu said:
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.nunu said:
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
Are you serious? Its not one or the other. Its both or the baby dying.RobD said:
I'm still not sure why an adult's life is worth more than a baby's?619 said:
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwisenunu said:
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.nunu said:
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
Bloody hell.0 -
-
The post above said it was at full term?619 said:
Are you serious? Its not one or the other. Its both or the baby dying.RobD said:
I'm still not sure why an adult's life is worth more than a baby's?619 said:
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwisenunu said:
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.nunu said:
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
Bloody hell.0 -
Crap.619 said:
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwisenunu said:
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.nunu said:
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
in the debate she justified it where the mothers "health is in jeopardy"
Weasel words that are a completely different thing to her life being in jeopardy
As the enquirer points out "Furthermore, Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton, so expansively defined the “mother’s health” exception in Roe — it includes “physical, emotional, psychological, [and] familial” health, according to Doe — as to justify virtually any abortion"
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441276/hillary-clinton-partial-birth-abortion-defending-indefensible0 -
This was very similar to the original arguments for allowing abortion in the UK, which has since been allowed to be interpreted as any social reason that the woman decides she doesn't want to be a mother, leading to over 200,000 abortions in the UK every year.619 said:
its only if the mothers life is at risk. She has made that very clear. Saying you dont believe her is up to the individual person but no evidence otherwisenunu said:
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.nunu said:
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
No pooh-pooing but Trumps unfavoubility is much worse than Clinton. Hers is minus 10 or so his is - 30%. Also Obama favour ability number is at 57%, so that wrong direction could mean they don't like congress blocking everything we need supplementary questions on it's own it doesn't tell us much.taffys said:'''Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying...'''
A recent poll on Ohio had Trump and Hillary at 45 each. And yet when same poll asked a different question, the number who said the country was 'on the wrong track' was almost two thirds to a third.
At the time I posed the question, in what world are people who think the country is on the wrong track going to vote for Hillary Clinton?
It was pooh-poohed by the Clinton massive on here of course, but I think the question still stands.0 -
Late term abortions do take place in the UK, and can be as late as 39 weeks, but are only permitted in unusual circumstances:nunu said:
I don't know why a mother would want to do that unless absolutely neccasary. Is it allowed here?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Well she would say that, wouldn't she.nunu said:
Well during the debate she made out it is only used to save the mothers life or if it has some unforseen illness. Maybe I'm wrong.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/488493/EXCLUSIVE-MP-outrage-at-39-week-abortion/amp?client=ms-android-hms-tef-gb
I would have a lot more sympathy with banning late term abortions if it wasn't that many occur as a result of making early terminations difficult to access, particularly in the USA.0 -
Yet you admit it on here daily?JennyFreeman said:
Untrue. I wouldn't admit to supporting Trump especially to a stranger over the phone.SquareRoot said:Why would anyone be a shy Trumper? It would be like being a secret Corbyn supporter.. They don't exist. If they support their candidate, they are out there. There is no in-between.
0 -
Remember when some people practically climaxed at the prospect of the 'great repeal' bill whilst some us were left unmoved.
@michaelsavage: Remember the Great Repeal Bill, announced by May at #CPC16? Well, it is set to become a parliamentary nightmare for government... 1/3
One senior Tory wants to a "sunset clause", meaning all EU laws expire after 5yrs unless ministers have separately passed them into law. 2/3
This is just one of what will be many proposals to derail it by Remain/Leave MPs. Will it ever get passed!? See tomorrow's Times for more.0 -
With all this polling of small sample sizes and less than transparent methods, I'm still not convinced that the presidential contest is over. Trump could yet pull this off.taffys said:'''Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying...'''
A recent poll on Ohio had Trump and Hillary at 45 each. And yet when same poll asked a different question, the number who said the country was 'on the wrong track' was almost two thirds to a third.
At the time I posed the question, in what world are people who think the country is on the wrong track going to vote for Hillary Clinton?
It was pooh-poohed by the Clinton massive on here of course, but I think the question still stands.
Party booked for the night of 8th, and the following day off work! Popcorn ordered in bulk!0 -
Did you see the part where she has to get funding from Russian banks since French ones won't lend to her. Bit of a pattern emerging with these nationalistic movements. Make the motherland great again!williamglenn said:Marine Le Pen on Hard Talk recently talking about Trump. (Ignore the Kipper captions).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sfhc_e5P880 -
A sunset clause would be a ridiculous idea.TheScreamingEagles said:Remember when some people practically climaxed at the prospect of the 'great repeal' bill whilst some us were left unmoved.
@michaelsavage: Remember the Great Repeal Bill, announced by May at #CPC16? Well, it is set to become a parliamentary nightmare for government... 1/3
One senior Tory wants to a "sunset clause", meaning all EU laws expire after 5yrs unless ministers have separately passed them into law. 2/3
This is just one of what will be many proposals to derail it by Remain/Leave MPs. Will it ever get passed!? See tomorrow's Times for more.0 -
I'm not sure why there's such antipathy to Hillary. I really like her. Almost up there with Merkel. I wish we had her here instead of the disappointing Theresa May0
-
Indeed so I agree but the procedure is to terminate the baby inside the mother so why kill the baby?619 said:
are you a doctor? There are several reasons why a pregnancy is going so badly that it needs the baby out to save the mother.Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Perhaps you might want to explain how killing an already partially born viable full term foetus before birth is complete saves the mothers life?nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.
just get it out quickly and it then it takes its chances I would have thought.0 -
Hillary is rather technocratic and lacking in charisma and the human touch.Roger said:I'm not sure why there's such antipathy to Hillary. I really like her. Almost up there with Merkel. I wish we had her here instead of the disappointing Theresa May
I am not bothered, having seen far too many charismatic charletans wreaking chaos over the years. Someone who thinks before she speaks is a pleasant change.0 -
Dreadfully uninspiring, and I think she has health issues that will show part way through her presidency. I'd rather have Obama (M) for leader ^_~Roger said:I'm not sure why there's such antipathy to Hillary. I really like her. Almost up there with Merkel. I wish we had her here instead of the disappointing Theresa May
0 -
If the baby was a Remain voter then we've been told on here that its life is worth more than an adult one. Especially if the mother is old.nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
Jeremy Corbyn discussed giving Shami Chakrabarti a peerage with his team in March, it has emerged, amid claims she was aware her name was listed before agreeing to conduct a Labour report into anti-Semitism.
The Labour leader is understood to have long-listed Baroness Chakrabarti for an honour after he was made aware that new peers would be created by David Cameron following the EU referendum.
The shadow attorney general's name was added before she was approached to conduct a report into anti-Semitism and Labour sources have claimed that the peer was told this prior to the announcement on 29 April that she would chair an independent inquiry into anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in the Labour party.
Baroness Chakrabarti denies being made aware that her name was on a long-list before she was officially approached by Mr Corbyn in July and offered the peerage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/jeremy-corbyn-discussed-shami-chakrabarti-peerage-with-advisors/0 -
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.TheScreamingEagles said:
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?0 -
It was Cameron's resignation privilege to nominate peers. How could Corbyn have been 'made aware' that Cameron would resign after the referendum?TheScreamingEagles said:Jeremy Corbyn discussed giving Shami Chakrabarti a peerage with his team in March, it has emerged, amid claims she was aware her name was listed before agreeing to conduct a Labour report into anti-Semitism.
The Labour leader is understood to have long-listed Baroness Chakrabarti for an honour after he was made aware that new peers would be created by David Cameron following the EU referendum.
The shadow attorney general's name was added before she was approached to conduct a report into anti-Semitism and Labour sources have claimed that the peer was told this prior to the announcement on 29 April that she would chair an independent inquiry into anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in the Labour party.
Baroness Chakrabarti denies being made aware that her name was on a long-list before she was officially approached by Mr Corbyn in July and offered the peerage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/jeremy-corbyn-discussed-shami-chakrabarti-peerage-with-advisors/0 -
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.foxinsoxuk said:
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.TheScreamingEagles said:
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?0 -
The answer is a great deal further, into the depths of the sewer, judging from Trump.619 said:0 -
The plan was to appoint new working peers after the referendum, irrespective of the result.IanB2 said:
It was Cameron's resignation privilege to nominate peers. How could Corbyn have been 'made aware' that Cameron would resign after the referendum?TheScreamingEagles said:Jeremy Corbyn discussed giving Shami Chakrabarti a peerage with his team in March, it has emerged, amid claims she was aware her name was listed before agreeing to conduct a Labour report into anti-Semitism.
The Labour leader is understood to have long-listed Baroness Chakrabarti for an honour after he was made aware that new peers would be created by David Cameron following the EU referendum.
The shadow attorney general's name was added before she was approached to conduct a report into anti-Semitism and Labour sources have claimed that the peer was told this prior to the announcement on 29 April that she would chair an independent inquiry into anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in the Labour party.
Baroness Chakrabarti denies being made aware that her name was on a long-list before she was officially approached by Mr Corbyn in July and offered the peerage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/jeremy-corbyn-discussed-shami-chakrabarti-peerage-with-advisors/
Because of the result, they became the Cameron resignation honours list.
Still disappointed by Dave and his resignation honours list, where was my GCMG? (and JohnO's peerage?)0 -
She won't do anything to address the problems that have resulted in the US throwing up first the Tea Party and now Trump, and the malaise set in earlier than that. Hilary is prototypically establishment. So if America is going in the wrong direction Hilary is not the solution, she's four more years of the same stuff that brought America to the current mess, without Obama's charm.Roger said:I'm not sure why there's such antipathy to Hillary. I really like her. Almost up there with Merkel. I wish we had her here instead of the disappointing Theresa May
As other's down thread have already said the danger is that someone with mad ideas like Trump but without the daft hair and misogyny will turn up in 2020 win the election and take the US in a very bad direction. Or maybe the Democrats and Republicans could actually look at addressing some of the problems that have lead to any increasingly large section of the electorate seeking disruptive parties and candidates.
0 -
Oh dear oh dear. One large bucket of whitewash for Mr Corbyn.TheScreamingEagles said:Jeremy Corbyn discussed giving Shami Chakrabarti a peerage with his team in March, it has emerged, amid claims she was aware her name was listed before agreeing to conduct a Labour report into anti-Semitism.
The Labour leader is understood to have long-listed Baroness Chakrabarti for an honour after he was made aware that new peers would be created by David Cameron following the EU referendum.
The shadow attorney general's name was added before she was approached to conduct a report into anti-Semitism and Labour sources have claimed that the peer was told this prior to the announcement on 29 April that she would chair an independent inquiry into anti-Semitism and other forms of racism in the Labour party.
Baroness Chakrabarti denies being made aware that her name was on a long-list before she was officially approached by Mr Corbyn in July and offered the peerage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/jeremy-corbyn-discussed-shami-chakrabarti-peerage-with-advisors/0 -
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.Sandpit said:
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.foxinsoxuk said:
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.TheScreamingEagles said:
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?0 -
It's stating the bleeding obvious. You spy on diplomats and negotiators, that's the job.foxinsoxuk said:No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?0 -
Roger said:
Yet you admit it on here daily?JennyFreeman said:
Untrue. I wouldn't admit to supporting Trump especially to a stranger over the phone.SquareRoot said:Why would anyone be a shy Trumper? It would be like being a secret Corbyn supporter.. They don't exist. If they support their candidate, they are out there. There is no in-between.
They don't seem particularly shy, Lol. Quite the opposite, there probably are some not enough and I think there will be a shy Clinton vote as well.Roger said:
Yet you admit it on here daily?JennyFreeman said:
Untrue. I wouldn't admit to supporting Trump especially to a stranger over the phone.SquareRoot said:Why would anyone be a shy Trumper? It would be like being a secret Corbyn supporter.. They don't exist. If they support their candidate, they are out there. There is no in-between.
0 -
0
-
So sad the way some young people were complaining they were out voted by older people forgetting they voted for it in 1975 and have seen they were lied to.GeoffM said:
If the baby was a Remain voter then we've been told on here that its life is worth more than an adult one. Especially if the mother is old.nunu said:
So if the mothers life is at risk she should just die?Paul_Bedfordshire said:
Yes - pack the supreme court with her cronies to ensure ful legalisation of partial birth abortion (the one where the baby is part delivered at pretty well full term and a pair of surgical scissors rammed into the base of its skull before the head emerges into the world ensuring it is born dead).SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
A real votewinner.
And in the eyes of many a rather more serious matter than groping.0 -
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.nunu said:
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.0 -
''So if America is going in the wrong direction Hilary is not the solution, she's four more years of the same stuff that brought America to the current mess, without Obama's charm.''
If some of the polls are right, then there's a big groundswell of support for more of the same. America must be doing pretty well.
If you look at the BBC's programme about Ohio, you can tell that's not the case. In fact, quite the opposite.
0 -
thats one metric and one tv show.taffys said:''So if America is going in the wrong direction Hilary is not the solution, she's four more years of the same stuff that brought America to the current mess, without Obama's charm.''
If some of the polls are right, then there's a big groundswell of support for more of the same. America must be doing pretty well.
If you look at the BBC's programme about Ohio, you can tell that's not the case. In fact, quite the opposite.0 -
These days whenever I come on this site I feel rather relieved that PBers aren't in government. Some of the ideas on this site are seriously frightening....0
-
It very much depends where you are in the States. The wrong track if you are a steelworker in Ohio or a car factory worker in Michigan, but if you are a software engineer in California, or geneticist in North Carolina it is a different story.taffys said:''So if America is going in the wrong direction Hilary is not the solution, she's four more years of the same stuff that brought America to the current mess, without Obama's charm.''
If some of the polls are right, then there's a big groundswell of support for more of the same. America must be doing pretty well.
If you look at the BBC's programme about Ohio, you can tell that's not the case. In fact, quite the opposite.
Not liking the track the country is on tells you little. We may well have 2/3 of Britons thinking that we are on the wrong track, with those being equally divided between Cobynistas and Faragists.0 -
Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.0
-
Evening all!
"Downfall" on BBC2 at 11.20 tonight!0 -
So that huge building just South of Vauxhall Bridge is full of people reading publicly available information and assembling it into reports? Who knew?foxinsoxuk said:
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.Sandpit said:
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.foxinsoxuk said:
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.TheScreamingEagles said:
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?0 -
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at619 said:Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
0 -
Not entirely!HurstLlama said:
So that huge building just South of Vauxhall Bridge is full of people reading publicly available information and assembling it into reports? Who knew?foxinsoxuk said:
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.Sandpit said:
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.foxinsoxuk said:
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.TheScreamingEagles said:
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?
But with so many people leaving a twitter and internet trail, it is a very good place to start.0 -
La times poll is pointless.HYUFD said:
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at619 said:Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
RAS is less useless.
So 2 vs around 15 other polls. So yeah depends what u look at!0 -
I don't buy that.HYUFD said:
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at619 said:Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
We have not seen surges in registrations of Trump demographics or early voting by them, we have however seen surges in registrations by demographics hostile to Trump.0 -
Actually, from a serious intelligence generation point of view it is an awful place to start. But I have already had this discussion, albeit with a slightly different starting point, with Mr. Nabavi, gent of this parish. I even bought him lunch so we could talk face to face and so that I could diagrammatically demonstrate he was wrong.foxinsoxuk said:
Not entirely!HurstLlama said:
So that huge building just South of Vauxhall Bridge is full of people reading publicly available information and assembling it into reports? Who knew?foxinsoxuk said:
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.Sandpit said:
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.foxinsoxuk said:
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.TheScreamingEagles said:
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?
But with so many people leaving a twitter and internet trail, it is a very good place to start.
However, after this morning I am never going to rehearse arguments on this site. So I shall not repeat myself.0 -
$125K is probbly not a lot in New york or L.A but what about swing states? but it's moot as no one is talking about policy anyway. It won't grab any headlines this yeaar.rpjs said:
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.nunu said:
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.0 -
How much does the blue collar worker earn in those "high-earning" states? I'd bet it is a damn sight less than $125k p.a.nunu said:
$125K is probbly not a lot in New york or L.A but what about swing states? but it's moot as no one is talking about policy anyway. It won't grab any headlines this yeaar.rpjs said:
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.nunu said:
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.0 -
Well think what you want but before you get too cocky in 2004 the final Rasmussen poll had Bush ahead 50.2% to 48.5%, the final IBID-TIPP poll had Bush ahead by 50.1% to 48%, Bush beat Kerry 50.7% to 48.3%. With minority and particularly African American turnout not boosted by Obama as it was in 2008 and 2012 both pollsters may be in the correct ballpark this time as they were 12 years ago619 said:
La times poll is pointless.HYUFD said:
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at619 said:Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
RAS is less useless.
So 2 vs around 15 other polls. So yeah depends what u look at!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2004/election_2004_bush_kerry
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2004/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_kerry-939.html#polls0 -
Automatic naturalisation of long term illegal immigrants without a criminal record. Probably not popular, but definitely changing things and striking.SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
0 -
Foreign politicians leave very public trails, and are certainly worth monitoring as are foreign newspapers and other media.HurstLlama said:
Actually, from a serious intelligence generation point of view it is an awful place to start. But I have already had this discussion, albeit with a slightly different starting point, with Mr. Nabavi, gent of this parish. I even bought him lunch so we could talk face to face and so that I could diagrammatically demonstrate he was wrong.foxinsoxuk said:
Not entirely!HurstLlama said:
So that huge building just South of Vauxhall Bridge is full of people reading publicly available information and assembling it into reports? Who knew?foxinsoxuk said:
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.Sandpit said:
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.foxinsoxuk said:
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.TheScreamingEagles said:
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?
But with so many people leaving a twitter and internet trail, it is a very good place to start.
However, after this morning I am never going to rehearse arguments on this site. So I shall not repeat myself.0 -
Have we? I have seen no surge in early voting by African Americans compared to 2012 and as I said Trump is winning more Democrats than Hillary is winning Republicans according to Rasmussen so party ID may not be much to go on eitherfoxinsoxuk said:
I don't buy that.HYUFD said:
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at619 said:Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
We have not seen surges in registrations of Trump demographics or early voting by them, we have however seen surges in registrations by demographics hostile to Trump.0 -
They would be the ones benefitting then from free tuition at State Universities and Community Colleges.HurstLlama said:
How much does the blue collar worker earn in those "high-earning" states? I'd bet it is a damn sight less than $125k p.a.nunu said:
$125K is probbly not a lot in New york or L.A but what about swing states? but it's moot as no one is talking about policy anyway. It won't grab any headlines this yeaar.rpjs said:
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.nunu said:
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.
If only a British Party was wanting to implement it!0 -
That is household income, so about $62,500 individual income which would still be an above average income in most statesnunu said:
$125K is probbly not a lot in New york or L.A but what about swing states? but it's moot as no one is talking about policy anyway. It won't grab any headlines this yeaar.rpjs said:
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.nunu said:
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.0 -
they were last right 8 years ago. And there are less white uneducated voters in comparision to latino voters. And im yet to be convinced that there is any evidence of less Dem voter turnoutHYUFD said:
Well think what you want but before you get too cocky in 2004 the final Rasmussen poll had Bush ahead 50.2% to 48.5%, the final IBID-TIPP poll had Bush ahead by 50.1% to 48%, Bush beat Kerry 50.7% to 48.3%. With minority and particularly African American turnout not boosted by Obama as it was in 2008 and 2012 both pollsters may be in the correct ballpark this time as they were 12 years ago619 said:
La times poll is pointless.HYUFD said:
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at619 said:Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
RAS is less useless.
So 2 vs around 15 other polls. So yeah depends what u look at!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2004/election_2004_bush_kerry
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2004/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_kerry-939.html#polls0 -
Exactly, most would easily earn less than this that's why it could be popular. Should've have lowered it and offered free grants as well.HurstLlama said:
How much does the blue collar worker earn in those "high-earning" states? I'd bet it is a damn sight less than $125k p.a.nunu said:
$125K is probbly not a lot in New york or L.A but what about swing states? but it's moot as no one is talking about policy anyway. It won't grab any headlines this yeaar.rpjs said:
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.nunu said:
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.0 -
They certainly do leave very public trails, Doc, but I was talking about serious intelligence generation.foxinsoxuk said:
Foreign politicians leave very public trails, and are certainly worth monitoring as are foreign newspapers and other media.HurstLlama said:
Actually, from a serious intelligence generation point of view it is an awful place to start. But I have already had this discussion, albeit with a slightly different starting point, with Mr. Nabavi, gent of this parish. I even bought him lunch so we could talk face to face and so that I could diagrammatically demonstrate he was wrong.foxinsoxuk said:
Not entirely!HurstLlama said:
So that huge building just South of Vauxhall Bridge is full of people reading publicly available information and assembling it into reports? Who knew?foxinsoxuk said:
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.Sandpit said:
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.foxinsoxuk said:
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.TheScreamingEagles said:
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?
But with so many people leaving a twitter and internet trail, it is a very good place to start.
However, after this morning I am never going to rehearse arguments on this site. So I shall not repeat myself.0 -
It's a middle class subsidy....foxinsoxuk said:
They would be the ones benefitting then from free tuition at State Universities and Community Colleges.HurstLlama said:
How much does the blue collar worker earn in those "high-earning" states? I'd bet it is a damn sight less than $125k p.a.nunu said:
$125K is probbly not a lot in New york or L.A but what about swing states? but it's moot as no one is talking about policy anyway. It won't grab any headlines this yeaar.rpjs said:
Not quite. She's proposing free tuition at public-sector universities, not all universities, so no Ivys[1], no MIT, no Stanford. That's not to say that state universities are crap: most are perfectly respectable and some are very good indeed, but in general we're talking former polys rather than Oxbridge or Russell Group here.nunu said:
She wants free college education for households earning less than $125,000, but I only know this because I pay attention more than even the average American. Would be popular if unaffordable.SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.
And whilst $125,000 is a lot in many, if not most, parts of the country, it's rather more modest in some of the really high-cost-of-living areas like the NYC tri-state or the Bay Area[2]. I'm on just above that amount after five years in the US, and I was on £48k when I left the UK, not over £80k.
[1] Princeton is tuition-free for all undergraduates - paid for from its endowment. Other Ivys could probably afford to follow suit, Harvard for sure, but choose not to.
[2] And these areas are quite populous, so a larger proportion of the population might not qualify for the free tuition than you might expect.
If only a British Party was wanting to implement it!0 -
Clearly different targets require different approaches, but we were discussing gathering intelligence on politicians engaged in Brexit negotiations.HurstLlama said:
They certainly do leave very public trails, Doc, but I was talking about serious intelligence generation.foxinsoxuk said:
Foreign politicians leave very public trails, and are certainly worth monitoring as are foreign newspapers and other media.HurstLlama said:
Actually, from a serious intelligence generation point of view it is an awful place to start. But I have already had this discussion, albeit with a slightly different starting point, with Mr. Nabavi, gent of this parish. I even bought him lunch so we could talk face to face and so that I could diagrammatically demonstrate he was wrong.foxinsoxuk said:
Not entirely!HurstLlama said:
So that huge building just South of Vauxhall Bridge is full of people reading publicly available information and assembling it into reports? Who knew?foxinsoxuk said:
A lot of this work does not involve nefarious activity, a lot is just assembling information in the public domain, for example newspaper reporting of party congresses, politicians twitter etc.Sandpit said:
Spies being spies, as you say it's hardly news. Im sure we are trying to get into those who will be on the other side of the EU negotiations.foxinsoxuk said:
No surprises there! And I would be disappointed if our spooks were not doing the same in reverse.TheScreamingEagles said:
Isn't this what we have intelligence services for?
But with so many people leaving a twitter and internet trail, it is a very good place to start.
However, after this morning I am never going to rehearse arguments on this site. So I shall not repeat myself.0 -
We shall see but certainly it does show Rasmussen and IBID-TIPP cannot be dismissed as always calling elections wrong619 said:
they were last right 8 years ago. And there are less white uneducated voters in comparision to latino voters. And im yet to be convinced that there is any evidence of less Dem voter turnoutHYUFD said:
Well think what you want but before you get too cocky in 2004 the final Rasmussen poll had Bush ahead 50.2% to 48.5%, the final IBID-TIPP poll had Bush ahead by 50.1% to 48%, Bush beat Kerry 50.7% to 48.3%. With minority and particularly African American turnout not boosted by Obama as it was in 2008 and 2012 both pollsters may be in the correct ballpark this time as they were 12 years ago619 said:
La times poll is pointless.HYUFD said:
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at619 said:Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
RAS is less useless.
So 2 vs around 15 other polls. So yeah depends what u look at!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2004/election_2004_bush_kerry
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2004/president/us/general_election_bush_vs_kerry-939.html#polls0 -
@HurstLlama, have sent you a message.0
-
amnesty is pretty popular in the US. Def more than Trumps to chuck them out.FF43 said:
Automatic naturalisation of long term illegal immigrants without a criminal record. Probably not popular, but definitely changing things and striking.SeanT said:OK here's a test. Can anyone name a single Hillary policy that she will enact, that will be popular, and change things?
I can think of lots of Trump policies that are popular and will change things. It is very possible they will change things for the worse, but at least they are striking. And memorable.
Hillary is the ultimate More of the Same candidate. More of the Same, only without Obama's liberal charisma and baritone speechifying, and with extra rumours of early dementia.0 -
Jess Phillips MP continues her vendetta against men.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/23/female-labour-mps-write-to-attorney-general-over-ched-evans-case0 -
In a little over 2 weeks we will know.HYUFD said:
Have we? I have seen no surge in early voting by African Americans compared to 2012 and as I said Trump is winning more Democrats than Hillary is winning Republicans according to Rasmussen so party ID may not be much to go on eitherfoxinsoxuk said:
I don't buy that.HYUFD said:
It is not so much 'shy' Trumpers which will do it for him as 'turning out' Trumpers ie white working class voters who have not voted for years but will this year while African American and young voters who turned out for Obama stay at home rather than vote for Hillary. 3 pollsters have Trump ahead or tied so also depends which polls you look at619 said:Shy trumpers are so shy, Even conway, most of Trump's surrogates and the GOP dont think they exist and Trump is tanking in the polls.
We have not seen surges in registrations of Trump demographics or early voting by them, we have however seen surges in registrations by demographics hostile to Trump.
I am watching the beginning of Downfall (though will record the rest). I am reminded of Steiner's phantom divisions...0
