politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Unless the betting is wildly wrong Paul Nuttall looks set to b
Comments
-
He contends that anglophone former British colonies constitute an ethnos (right word? would "nation" be better?) and have a superior understanding of civil rights to the rest of the world, resulting in a more peaceful administration without violent uprising since the Bill of Rights. To make this work he has to ignore Nordic countries that pioneered democracy before Britain (not to mention Greece and Rome), and maintain that the USA's impulse towards democracy is a product of British influence (as opposed to despite it), which ignores the influence of France in the independence. Not to mention the Irish War of Independence and the Highland Clearances.Theuniondivvie said:Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreignness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned0 -
If Trump wins Michigan he likely has a comfortable lead in the Electoral College, as of tonight RCP has Clinton's average national lead down to 3.1% but her average lead in Michigan is 6.3% ie almost exactly the same as that pollChris said:
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points:AndyJS said:
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.HYUFD said:
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.rottenborough said:NH Clinton +7 - Uni of NH.
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6008.html0 -
Well, really I was mostly pulling your pompous leg, but seriously, the suggestion in the article is obviously that the behaviour of this server was highly unusual - not just standard commercial communication.williamglenn said:
A multinational organisation which is engaged in multiple real estate projects will have communications with all kinds of banks for various reasons. Why pick on this one? Because it's a very tenuous way of implying some kind of conspiracy.Chris said:
I'm suggesting that anyone who suggests that's all it was is guilty of bias.williamglenn said:
No, I'm suggesting that any publication which suggests that the only black mark against Clinton is 'Poor email server management' is guilty of bias.Chris said:
You're suggesting that anyone who thinks Clinton's behaviour is worse than Trump's must be "biased"?williamglenn said:
Not biased?Chris said:
Slate is not biased and the article is very important.williamglenn said:
Slate is ridiculously biased and that article doesn't amount to much.FrancisUrquhart said:
Intriguing....Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/793208373235871744FrancisUrquhart said:
Link?Y0kel said:Trump and the Russians , 2.
Alfa Bank and the potentially strange transactional relationship and methods with the Trump Organisation
Stuff seems to be floating to the surface at the moment. Proper stuff.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/10/clinton_vs_trump_whose_crimes_are_worse.html
Obviously you're prejudiced.
As for the 'smoking gun': Multinational corporation has periodic communication of some form with a major bank in Russia. So what?
Perhaps you're a computer expert - who knows? - and you've decided they've got it all wrong. But if so it would be more intelligent to say so rather than giving people the impression you haven't even read the article you're pontificating about.0 -
Following one from previous post...
While the guardian / bbc creamed themselves over NI phone "hacking" of which celebs were banging one another , the independent made far more serious claims in regards to proper hacking by businesses Including legal firms on other rival businesses.0 -
Yes that's plausible.FrancisUrquhart said:One thing that occurred to me of one possible explanation not detailed by the nerds investigating this is that some Russians have hacked into trump & that is what they are seeing in the weird traffic profiles.
Anyway it looks like the NY Times is going with another tax story so this will be competing for attention in tomorrow's media.0 -
The article says that what the nerds were trying to do in the first place was to determine whether hackers were interfering with the Trump campaign, but that they ruled that out as an explanation for the strange behaviour they saw.FrancisUrquhart said:
But the suggestion is that a) the server has never been used for trumps real estate business b) the fact is it very limited & abnormal internet traffic for the supposed marketing business it is connected to.williamglenn said:
A multinational organisation which is engaged in multiple real estate projects will have communications with all kinds of banks for various reasons. Why pick on this one? Because it's a very tenuous way of implying some kind of conspiracy.Chris said:
I'm suggesting that anyone who suggests that's all it was is guilty of bias.williamglenn said:
No, I'm suggesting that any publication which suggests that the only black mark against Clinton is 'Poor email server management' is guilty of bias.Chris said:
You're suggesting that anyone who thinks Clinton's behaviour is worse than Trump's must be "biased"?williamglenn said:
Not biased?Chris said:
Slate is not biased and the article is very important.williamglenn said:
Slate is ridiculously biased and that article doesn't amount to much.FrancisUrquhart said:
Intriguing....Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/793208373235871744FrancisUrquhart said:
Link?Y0kel said:Trump and the Russians , 2.
Alfa Bank and the potentially strange transactional relationship and methods with the Trump Organisation
Stuff seems to be floating to the surface at the moment. Proper stuff.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/10/clinton_vs_trump_whose_crimes_are_worse.html
Obviously you're prejudiced.
As for the 'smoking gun': Multinational corporation has periodic communication of some form with a major bank in Russia. So what?
One thing that occurred to me of one possible explanation not detailed by the nerds investigating this is that some Russians have hacked into trump & that is what they are seeing in the weird traffic profiles.0 -
You really didn't read the article, did you?williamglenn said:
Yes that's plausible.FrancisUrquhart said:One thing that occurred to me of one possible explanation not detailed by the nerds investigating this is that some Russians have hacked into trump & that is what they are seeing in the weird traffic profiles.
0 -
HYUFD, you are Nate Silver and I claim my £5:HYUFD said:
I have put a bet on the winner of the presidency (most probably Hillary) losing the popular vote ...rottenborough said:
Surely it's not going to be this tight? I'm not sure I could last the night...HYUFD said:
You have to consider Nebraska's congressional district too which might cancel that out and Hillary has been leading in all districts of Maine in the latest pollingRobD said:
Is that even with Maine's congressional district?HYUFD said:
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.rottenborough said:NH Clinton +7 - Uni of NH.
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-odds-of-an-electoral-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/?ex_cid=2016-forecast0 -
Yes, and it's not a new story.Chris said:
You really didn't read the article, did you?williamglenn said:
Yes that's plausible.FrancisUrquhart said:One thing that occurred to me of one possible explanation not detailed by the nerds investigating this is that some Russians have hacked into trump & that is what they are seeing in the weird traffic profiles.
Here's the same thing being pushed a month ago:
https://gdd53.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/first-blog-post/0 -
The article talks about they were searching for malware & automated bot attacks etc. They concluded it was "manual". As far as I could tell, they didn't consider / That doesn't exclude that somebody had an "in" which they manually activated at times when they knew Trump Organisation would be doing things on the server.Chris said:
You really didn't read the article, did you?williamglenn said:
Yes that's plausible.FrancisUrquhart said:One thing that occurred to me of one possible explanation not detailed by the nerds investigating this is that some Russians have hacked into trump & that is what they are seeing in the weird traffic profiles.
Like with phone hacking, they used to listen to voice mails at particular times of the day. From the outside looking in, the lookups of people's voicemails would.have had a very odd traffic shape with lots of special calls from some ex footballers office.
0 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sunil060902/sandboxviewcode said:
He contends that anglophone former British colonies constitute an ethnos (right word? would "nation" be better?) and have a superior understanding of civil rights to the rest of the world, resulting in a more peaceful administration without violent uprising since the Bill of Rights. To make this work he has to ignore Nordic countries that pioneered democracy before Britain (not to mention Greece and Rome), and maintain that the USA's impulse towards democracy is a product of British influence (as opposed to despite it), which ignores the influence of France in the independence. Not to mention the Irish War of Independence and the Highland Clearances.Theuniondivvie said:Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreignness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned0 -
Good to see Nate and I on the same wavelength for once, though he seems to think it would be Trump more likely to win the electoral college and lose the popular vote whereas RCP suggests it would be Hillary. GoodnightChris said:
HYUFD, you are Nate Silver and I claim my £5:HYUFD said:
I have put a bet on the winner of the presidency (most probably Hillary) losing the popular vote ...rottenborough said:
Surely it's not going to be this tight? I'm not sure I could last the night...HYUFD said:
You have to consider Nebraska's congressional district too which might cancel that out and Hillary has been leading in all districts of Maine in the latest pollingRobD said:
Is that even with Maine's congressional district?HYUFD said:
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.rottenborough said:NH Clinton +7 - Uni of NH.
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-odds-of-an-electoral-college-popular-vote-split-are-increasing/?ex_cid=2016-forecast0 -
http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump
There is one big thing that doesn't work for me in that article. If the Russians had a load of dirt.on Clinton & were feeding it to team trump, they don't seem to be using it. I would of thought if there was serious damaging dirt it would relate to solid evidence of pay for play via the Clinton foundation (which is what I presume certain people think are in all the missing emails). But to date, pay for play / Clinton foundation is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, Having been paid big bucks for speeches in some odd places.0 -
O/T
So far this year, there have been six homicides in Croydon compared to only one in Hackney, the opposite of what one might have expected a few years ago. The total for the year so far for Greater London is 76, a very low number indeed.
http://www.murdermap.co.uk/investigate.asp
Interesting to note that the two homicides this year in Redbridge have both been stabbings at birthday parties.0 -
Given the figures are so small, easily be statistical "noise", but have you been to Croydon recently? Isnt a surprise to me if that becomes the norm there.AndyJS said:O/T
So far this year, there have been six homicides in Croydon compared to only one in Hackney, the opposite of what one might have expected a few years ago. The total for the year so far for Greater London is 76, a very low number indeed.
http://www.murdermap.co.uk/investigate.asp
Interesting to note that the two homicides this year in Redbridge have both been stabbings at birthday parties.0 -
Donald Trump has never shied away from reports that he has routinely refused to pay contractors, lawyers, and other people who have done work for him over the years. “Let’s say that they do a job that’s not good, or a job that they didn’t finish, or a job that was way late. I’ll deduct from their contract, absolutely,” Trump bragged this summer when confronted with a USA Today report documenting dozens of lawsuits against him. So it should come as little surprise that Trump, now the Republican nominee for president, is reportedly refusing to pay his own pollster. The results of Trump’s internal polls, after all, do not look good for the candidate.
Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, a veteran polling strategist, claims that the Trump campaign currently owes his firm $766,756.67 dollars for his work, as well as an additional $55,300 in debt...
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/donald-trump-pollster-unpaid0 -
Trump is probably waiting in order to use the debt for tax efficiency purposes...CarlottaVance said:Donald Trump has never shied away from reports that he has routinely refused to pay contractors, lawyers, and other people who have done work for him over the years. “Let’s say that they do a job that’s not good, or a job that they didn’t finish, or a job that was way late. I’ll deduct from their contract, absolutely,” Trump bragged this summer when confronted with a USA Today report documenting dozens of lawsuits against him. So it should come as little surprise that Trump, now the Republican nominee for president, is reportedly refusing to pay his own pollster. The results of Trump’s internal polls, after all, do not look good for the candidate.
Republican pollster Tony Fabrizio, a veteran polling strategist, claims that the Trump campaign currently owes his firm $766,756.67 dollars for his work, as well as an additional $55,300 in debt...
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/10/donald-trump-pollster-unpaid0 -
I was there a couple of years ago. The shopping centre in the middle of the town was a bit menacing after dark. (The figure for Croydon should be seven not six because the website I referred to has accidentally put one Croydon case in the Barnet section).FrancisUrquhart said:
Given the figures are so small, easily be statistical "noise", but have you been to Croydon recently? Isnt a surprise to me if that becomes the norm there.AndyJS said:O/T
So far this year, there have been six homicides in Croydon compared to only one in Hackney, the opposite of what one might have expected a few years ago. The total for the year so far for Greater London is 76, a very low number indeed.
http://www.murdermap.co.uk/investigate.asp
Interesting to note that the two homicides this year in Redbridge have both been stabbings at birthday parties.0 -
0
-
Just like George would have done it:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3891738/Theresa-Maynia-Selfies-autographs-red-carpet-PM-works-crowd-like-true-lister-Pride-Britain-awards.html0 -
Fascinating 'Kremlinology' on the May Cabinet:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/theresa-may-asserts-control-in-a-revamped-cabinet-committee-system/0 -
Both Tony Fabrizio's "Trump owes me money" story and the "Trump Tower has a private server communicating with a Russian bank" story seem to have had little effect on Trump's odds in the betting market. The damaging effect on Clinton of James Comey's letter to Congress, which one would have to be naive to believe wasn't its purpose, is not so far being reversed. There must surely be a feeling in the Trump camp of "if this is the best you've got, it's pathetic". A big blow against Trump now seems unlikely. A further big blow against Clinton could win this for Trump.
0 -
It's also worth noting that the story about the Trump Foundation collecting money in New York state as a charity but without being registered as a charity seems to have fizzled out. The New York attorney general demanded that the Trump Foundation produce documents by 15 October, but there has been no reporting of whether the Foundation managed to comply. Did the AG back down? Or perhaps the issue has snowballed and is about to come hurtling at Trump and the Fabrizio and Alfa Bank stories are tasters? Which I seriously doubt, because pulling punches and waiting while landing a few jabs doesn't seem like a sensible strategy now for the Clinton campaign.Dromedary said:Both Tony Fabrizio's "Trump owes me money" story and the "Trump Tower has a private server communicating with a Russian bank" story seem to have had little effect on Trump's odds in the betting market. The damaging effect on Clinton of James Comey's letter to Congress, which one would have to be naive to believe wasn't its purpose, is not so far being reversed. There must surely be a feeling in the Trump camp of "if this is the best you've got, it's pathetic". A big blow against Trump now seems unlikely. A further big blow against Clinton could win this for Trump.
0 -
Maybe there's no dirt, because she's clean.FrancisUrquhart said:http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump
There is one big thing that doesn't work for me in that article. If the Russians had a load of dirt.on Clinton & were feeding it to team trump, they don't seem to be using it. I would of thought if there was serious damaging dirt it would relate to solid evidence of pay for play via the Clinton foundation (which is what I presume certain people think are in all the missing emails). But to date, pay for play / Clinton foundation is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, Having been paid big bucks for speeches in some odd places.0 -
No - he gave the Foundation more time to comply:Dromedary said:
It's also worth noting that the story about the Trump Foundation collecting money in New York state as a charity but without being registered as a charity seems to have fizzled out. The New York attorney general demanded that the Trump Foundation produce documents by 15 October, but there has been no reporting of whether the Foundation managed to comply. Did the AG back down? .Dromedary said:Both Tony Fabrizio's "Trump owes me money" story and the "Trump Tower has a private server communicating with a Russian bank" story seem to have had little effect on Trump's odds in the betting market. The damaging effect on Clinton of James Comey's letter to Congress, which one would have to be naive to believe wasn't its purpose, is not so far being reversed. There must surely be a feeling in the Trump camp of "if this is the best you've got, it's pathetic". A big blow against Trump now seems unlikely. A further big blow against Clinton could win this for Trump.
Monday was supposed to be the deadline for Donald Trump's charitable foundation - which had been soliciting donations without the official registration required by New York state - to comply with state law.
But, early Monday afternoon, a spokesman for the New York attorney general said that Trump's foundation had asked for, and been granted, extra time.
"They've requested more time, and we've agreed to provide the Trump Foundation with more time," said Eric Soufer, a spokesman for Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, D. Soufer declined to say how much longer the attorney general's office had agreed to wait.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-foundation-20161017-story.html0 -
Brains explode.......edmundintokyo said:
Maybe there's no dirt, because she's clean.FrancisUrquhart said:http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump
There is one big thing that doesn't work for me in that article. If the Russians had a load of dirt.on Clinton & were feeding it to team trump, they don't seem to be using it. I would of thought if there was serious damaging dirt it would relate to solid evidence of pay for play via the Clinton foundation (which is what I presume certain people think are in all the missing emails). But to date, pay for play / Clinton foundation is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, Having been paid big bucks for speeches in some odd places.0 -
Many thanks for this, Carlotta!CarlottaVance said:
No - he gave the Foundation more time to comply:Dromedary said:
It's also worth noting that the story about the Trump Foundation collecting money in New York state as a charity but without being registered as a charity seems to have fizzled out. The New York attorney general demanded that the Trump Foundation produce documents by 15 October, but there has been no reporting of whether the Foundation managed to comply. Did the AG back down? .Dromedary said:Both Tony Fabrizio's "Trump owes me money" story and the "Trump Tower has a private server communicating with a Russian bank" story seem to have had little effect on Trump's odds in the betting market. The damaging effect on Clinton of James Comey's letter to Congress, which one would have to be naive to believe wasn't its purpose, is not so far being reversed. There must surely be a feeling in the Trump camp of "if this is the best you've got, it's pathetic". A big blow against Trump now seems unlikely. A further big blow against Clinton could win this for Trump.
Monday was supposed to be the deadline for Donald Trump's charitable foundation - which had been soliciting donations without the official registration required by New York state - to comply with state law.
But, early Monday afternoon, a spokesman for the New York attorney general said that Trump's foundation had asked for, and been granted, extra time.
"They've requested more time, and we've agreed to provide the Trump Foundation with more time," said Eric Soufer, a spokesman for Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, D. Soufer declined to say how much longer the attorney general's office had agreed to wait.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-trump-foundation-20161017-story.html0 -
They should compare his polling margins to hers, not his final numbers. Apples to Apples.AndyJS said:Interesting from Nate Silver:
https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/7932530291978362920 -
"Mrs May presented the lifetime achievement award to Prof Stephen Hawking, telling the audience: 'There is nothing theoretical about his genius.'CarlottaVance said:
Receiving the award, Prof Hawkins said: 'Thank you Prime Minster for those very kind words. I deal with very difficult mathematical questions every day but please don't ask me to help with Brexit.'
Arf!
0 -
Tim Montgomerie on the latest Keith Vaz lunacy:
https://twitter.com/montie/status/793208647853699072
Quite right. If, in ten or twenty years time, we have a full-on Trump eruption here and the political establishment tries to appeal to reason, voters will be perfectly entitled to say "look what you did" and tell them to fuck right off.
If you create a culture with no shame, then you forfeit not merely the right but the ability to call out shameless behaviour.0 -
Allahpundit – @allahpundit
Election ends tentatively at 269-269. Florida goes to recount. Recount goes to Supreme Court. Court deadlocks 4-4.
8:27 pm - 31 Oct 20160 -
Hard to believe that going to war with the FBI is on the Clinton grid for the final week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37830521
Their internal polling must be really worrying to do that. And it has to be high risk. If I'm a floating voter, I might just take away that hidden in the Weiner e-mail stash is something showing Hillary's conduct to have been even more egregious than Russia meddling in their election.....0 -
+1viewcode said:
He contends that anglophone former British colonies constitute an ethnos (right word? would "nation" be better?) and have a superior understanding of civil rights to the rest of the world, resulting in a more peaceful administration without violent uprising since the Bill of Rights. To make this work he has to ignore Nordic countries that pioneered democracy before Britain (not to mention Greece and Rome), and maintain that the USA's impulse towards democracy is a product of British influence (as opposed to despite it), which ignores the influence of France in the independence. Not to mention the Irish War of Independence and the Highland Clearances.Theuniondivvie said:Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreignness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned0 -
There must be a tiebreaker rule if the Supreme Court has an even number of Justices?nunu said:Allahpundit – @allahpundit
Election ends tentatively at 269-269. Florida goes to recount. Recount goes to Supreme Court. Court deadlocks 4-4.
8:27 pm - 31 Oct 20160 -
It's a dangerous development. You now have the supposedly moderate and sensible candidate and many of her supporters suggesting none-too-subtly that the head of federal law enforcement is meddling in politics. It would be as if Theresa May were to suggest that the Met Commissioner were dredging up unhelpful allegations at the behest of the Labour Party a week before a General Election. All very banana republic.MarqueeMark said:Hard to believe that going to war with the FBI is on the Clinton grid for the final week.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37830521
Their internal polling must be really worrying to do that. And it has to be high risk. If I'm a floating voter, I might just take away that hidden in the Weiner e-mail stash is something showing Hillary's conduct to have been even more egregious than Russia meddling in their election.....0 -
Several of my friends are badge wearing Clinton fanbois and are getting Very Angry that Emails Which Aren't Important are seemingly important when everyone should focus on that disgusting Sexual Predator Donald Trump who is a world away from their hero Bill Clinton the Chaiste.0
-
goes to wrestling, i thinkRobD said:
There must be a tiebreaker rule if the Supreme Court has an even number of Justices?nunu said:Allahpundit – @allahpundit
Election ends tentatively at 269-269. Florida goes to recount. Recount goes to Supreme Court. Court deadlocks 4-4.
8:27 pm - 31 Oct 20160 -
The Washington Post telling it like it is:
"To state the obvious, this is not a normal election. Democrats have nominated the first woman to head a major-party ticket, a controversial figure with vast experience who has been on the national stage for three decades. Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster.
That has to be the bottom line: Who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office, making the life-or-death decisions that come with being the most powerful individual on earth? Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/01/breathe_deeply_then_go_vote_132213.html
Taking a few steps back this really has to be right and this is surely the choice America will make. Clinton is a deeply tainted individual but she is fit for purpose. TINA.0 -
Dance-off....dugarbandier said:
goes to wrestling, i thinkRobD said:
There must be a tiebreaker rule if the Supreme Court has an even number of Justices?nunu said:Allahpundit – @allahpundit
Election ends tentatively at 269-269. Florida goes to recount. Recount goes to Supreme Court. Court deadlocks 4-4.
8:27 pm - 31 Oct 20160 -
EDIT Leaving Ed Balls as the next US President.....MarqueeMark said:
Dance-off....dugarbandier said:
goes to wrestling, i thinkRobD said:
There must be a tiebreaker rule if the Supreme Court has an even number of Justices?nunu said:Allahpundit – @allahpundit
Election ends tentatively at 269-269. Florida goes to recount. Recount goes to Supreme Court. Court deadlocks 4-4.
8:27 pm - 31 Oct 20160 -
This is disgusting. How can any 'honourable ' member vote for this person.FrancisUrquhart said:0 -
On paper thats obvious to most people. Then step back and appreciate that the American economy is broken for tens of millions and that another 4 years of continuity Reagan isn't sustainable, that the alarming sabre rattling against Russia threatens not Cold War 2 but World War 3 and ask the question again about fit for purpose.DavidL said:The Washington Post telling it like it is:
"To state the obvious, this is not a normal election. Democrats have nominated the first woman to head a major-party ticket, a controversial figure with vast experience who has been on the national stage for three decades. Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster.
That has to be the bottom line: Who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office, making the life-or-death decisions that come with being the most powerful individual on earth? Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/01/breathe_deeply_then_go_vote_132213.html
Taking a few steps back this really has to be right and this is surely the choice America will make. Clinton is a deeply tainted individual but she is fit for purpose. TINA.
A president who has shagged his way to the top and treats women as objects to use and discard. It's Disgusting and Outrageous say fans of Bill Clinton. There are Mexican Walls of hypocrisy at play here. Anyway, it's America. Their president is a figurehead...0 -
It's indicative of what Labour has come to.Blue_rog said:
This is disgusting. How can any 'honourable ' member vote for this person.FrancisUrquhart said:
On the plus side, it shows how well-regarded a fridge salesman can be in his party. No sniffiness you'd get from the Tories about being "in trade".
Even if it is rough....0 -
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.0 -
Nicely put.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.0 -
0
-
-
So what?Y0kel said:
Alfa Bank is involved with a few of Trump's mates. The Carter Page association is notable. Richard Burt. And thats just Americans.FrancisUrquhart said:
Intriguing....Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/juliaioffe/status/793208373235871744FrancisUrquhart said:
Link?Y0kel said:Trump and the Russians , 2.
Alfa Bank and the potentially strange transactional relationship and methods with the Trump Organisation
Stuff seems to be floating to the surface at the moment. Proper stuff.
The Trump Organisation's links to around 200 concerns in Russia seems quite high.
The man is in Russia's pocket and is far over his head he has to go with it.0 -
Typical pompous puffery from Eugene Robinson's pen. Zero credibility.DavidL said:The Washington Post telling it like it is:
"To state the obvious, this is not a normal election. Democrats have nominated the first woman to head a major-party ticket, a controversial figure with vast experience who has been on the national stage for three decades. Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster.
That has to be the bottom line: Who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office, making the life-or-death decisions that come with being the most powerful individual on earth? Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/01/breathe_deeply_then_go_vote_132213.html
Taking a few steps back this really has to be right and this is surely the choice America will make. Clinton is a deeply tainted individual but she is fit for purpose. TINA.0 -
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.0 -
No, this is spot on:MonikerDiCanio said:
Typical pompous puffery from Eugene Robinson's pen. Zero credibility.DavidL said:The Washington Post telling it like it is:
"To state the obvious, this is not a normal election. Democrats have nominated the first woman to head a major-party ticket, a controversial figure with vast experience who has been on the national stage for three decades. Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster.
That has to be the bottom line: Who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office, making the life-or-death decisions that come with being the most powerful individual on earth? Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/01/breathe_deeply_then_go_vote_132213.html
Taking a few steps back this really has to be right and this is surely the choice America will make. Clinton is a deeply tainted individual but she is fit for purpose. TINA.
"Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster."0 -
Representative democracy is finished across the pond. I expect us to follow fairly soon.DavidL said:
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
0 -
Its spot on about Trump. It may prove optimistic about HRC.logical_song said:
No, this is spot on:MonikerDiCanio said:
Typical pompous puffery from Eugene Robinson's pen. Zero credibility.DavidL said:The Washington Post telling it like it is:
"To state the obvious, this is not a normal election. Democrats have nominated the first woman to head a major-party ticket, a controversial figure with vast experience who has been on the national stage for three decades. Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster.
That has to be the bottom line: Who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office, making the life-or-death decisions that come with being the most powerful individual on earth? Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/01/breathe_deeply_then_go_vote_132213.html
Taking a few steps back this really has to be right and this is surely the choice America will make. Clinton is a deeply tainted individual but she is fit for purpose. TINA.
"Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster."0 -
There is literally a website where you can see what Clinton has done over the years compared to Trump. ( https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tools/way-back-when/ ) She went on and on about her achievements in the debate to the extent she was mocked for repeatedly bringing up her achievements.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? .DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
You seem to have confused not paying attention to Clinton not saying.0 -
I opened it up, and the first one was:Alistair said:
There is literally a website where you can see what Clinton has done over the years compared to Trump. ( https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tools/way-back-when/ ) She went on and on about her achievements in the debate to the extent she was mocked for repeatedly bringing up her achievements.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? .DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
You seem to have confused not paying attention to Clinton not saying.
During an address on energy diplomacy, Hillary says we need to address “the very real threat of climate change.”
Trump tweets that climate change “was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,”—and later calls it a hoax.
How is that doing something/having achieved something?
0 -
Let me guess, you want Trump to win?Dromedary said:Both Tony Fabrizio's "Trump owes me money" story and the "Trump Tower has a private server communicating with a Russian bank" story seem to have had little effect on Trump's odds in the betting market. The damaging effect on Clinton of James Comey's letter to Congress, which one would have to be naive to believe wasn't its purpose, is not so far being reversed. There must surely be a feeling in the Trump camp of "if this is the best you've got, it's pathetic". A big blow against Trump now seems unlikely. A further big blow against Clinton could win this for Trump.
0 -
I thought the consensus was that democracy ended here on June 23rd. I am sure I saw a lot of posts to that effect.Innocent_Abroad said:
Representative democracy is finished across the pond. I expect us to follow fairly soon.DavidL said:
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.0 -
In terms of monetisation, what has Clinton done that other politicians haven't? Look over here - from Thatcher through to Blair and beyond politicians have made money for themselves and their families on the back of their service.DavidL said:
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
0 -
After the biggest democratic decision we've ever made?DavidL said:
I thought the consensus was that democracy ended here on June 23rd. I am sure I saw a lot of posts to that effect.Innocent_Abroad said:
Representative democracy is finished across the pond. I expect us to follow fairly soon.DavidL said:
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.0 -
Even Blair has not touched $200m. But it is the money extorted by the Clinton Foundation and what happened to that money, that is going to dog her Presidency. I will be surprised if a Special Investigator, Starr style, is not in office before she is.SouthamObserver said:
In terms of monetisation, what has Clinton done that other politicians haven't? Look over here - from Thatcher through to Blair and beyond politicians have made money for themselves and their families on the back of their service.DavidL said:
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.0 -
I disagree. Robinson's boilerplate crap is worthless.logical_song said:
No, this is spot on:MonikerDiCanio said:
Typical pompous puffery from Eugene Robinson's pen. Zero credibility.DavidL said:The Washington Post telling it like it is:
"To state the obvious, this is not a normal election. Democrats have nominated the first woman to head a major-party ticket, a controversial figure with vast experience who has been on the national stage for three decades. Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster.
That has to be the bottom line: Who's going to be sitting in the Oval Office, making the life-or-death decisions that come with being the most powerful individual on earth? Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/01/breathe_deeply_then_go_vote_132213.html
Taking a few steps back this really has to be right and this is surely the choice America will make. Clinton is a deeply tainted individual but she is fit for purpose. TINA.
"Republicans have nominated the worst candidate in modern history, a know-nothing narcissist who lies constantly, treats women like possessions and appeals not to the better angels of our nature but to the worst bigotry and resentment. One candidate surely would be a competent president, perhaps a very good one. The other would be an unmitigated disaster."0 -
I can find one concrete achievement - the student bill. The rest is talk and verbiage, mostly on the back of her being Bill's wife. That's not achieving anything except in the strange parallel universe inhabited by Blair. She should have been disqualified from further office (answering @DavidL) after the healthcare reform fiasco which she screwed up because she (a) couldn't draft legislation, taking years and hundreds of pages to draft something that should have been fairly short and simple and (b) refused to make a couple of compromises that would have radically increased healthcare coverage on the grounds that they would not have allowed immediate universal coverage - while an admirable principle, incremental reform would have been far better than no reform.Alistair said:
There is literally a website where you can see what Clinton has done over the years compared to Trump. ( https://www.hillaryclinton.com/tools/way-back-when/ ) She went on and on about her achievements in the debate to the extent she was mocked for repeatedly bringing up her achievements.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? .DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
You seem to have confused not paying attention to Clinton not saying.
I understand she is likely to win. Indeed, I'm rather hoping she does, although I'm also desperately hoping for a moderate Republican congress, if such a thing even exists, to keep a brake on her incompetence. But I am neither starry-eyed nor stupid. She is a very weak candidate and will be a very poor president. The only way she could possibly shine is up against someone like Trump, and to be honest she's not even shining against him.0 -
Yep. It proved that people are not smart enough to vote or be trusted with complex issues or too easily fooled by lying politicians (smart tip, check if their mouths are moving) or just plain racist or bigoted or something. The details vary from day to day.RobD said:
After the biggest democratic decision we've ever made?DavidL said:
I thought the consensus was that democracy ended here on June 23rd. I am sure I saw a lot of posts to that effect.Innocent_Abroad said:
Representative democracy is finished across the pond. I expect us to follow fairly soon.DavidL said:
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.0 -
Maybe they can't find any WMD because Saddam has no WMD.CarlottaVance said:
Brains explode.......edmundintokyo said:
Maybe there's no dirt, because she's clean.FrancisUrquhart said:http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump
There is one big thing that doesn't work for me in that article. If the Russians had a load of dirt.on Clinton & were feeding it to team trump, they don't seem to be using it. I would of thought if there was serious damaging dirt it would relate to solid evidence of pay for play via the Clinton foundation (which is what I presume certain people think are in all the missing emails). But to date, pay for play / Clinton foundation is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, Having been paid big bucks for speeches in some odd places.
Ridiculous idea I know.0 -
The Clintons are already an order of magnitude worse. God only knows the scale of corruption awaiting the US should Bill and Hillary return to the White House.SouthamObserver said:
In terms of monetisation, what has Clinton done that other politicians haven't? Look over here - from Thatcher through to Blair and beyond politicians have made money for themselves and their families on the back of their service.DavidL said:
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.0 -
Trump is a Russian intelligence asset. Look the words are highlighted so it must be true.
https://twitter.com/DaveStroup/status/7932437593790300160 -
Mr Observer,
What was the saying about Caesar's wife being above suspicion? Looking at the e-mail farrago, it's a disaster.
It may all be innocent, but no one in America trusts HRC. Even her supporters resort to What-about-ery. Deleting loads of official e-mails hiding loads of others when she had the chance. Now the cover-up, or forgetfulness, or whatever, is coming back to haunt her.
Having a go at the FBI for bringing it up? Why not give them all the information in the first place?
No-one's suggesting the Pussy-gate women should keep quiet because it might affect the Election.
She's brought it on herself.
Watergate wasn't that big an issue - typical dirty tricks for America. It was the lack of honesty that did for Nixon (plus the fact that the media do like to preen when they get the chance).
Trump is bonkers, but he's still in the race because Hillary has given him the chance because ... well, she is dishonest. And US voters have a basic distrust of their politicians anyway.0 -
.. but a whole illegal war was fought on the fact that "WE " knew Saddam had WMD. I mean our intelligence service is the best in the world...Bromptonaut said:
Maybe they can't find any WMD because Saddam has no WMD.CarlottaVance said:
Brains explode.......edmundintokyo said:
Maybe there's no dirt, because she's clean.FrancisUrquhart said:http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump
There is one big thing that doesn't work for me in that article. If the Russians had a load of dirt.on Clinton & were feeding it to team trump, they don't seem to be using it. I would of thought if there was serious damaging dirt it would relate to solid evidence of pay for play via the Clinton foundation (which is what I presume certain people think are in all the missing emails). But to date, pay for play / Clinton foundation is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, Having been paid big bucks for speeches in some odd places.
Ridiculous idea I know.0 -
Being investigated is no particular evidence of wrongdoing in this context. Running a private email server was unwise but it something several of her peers and predecessors did, but only she was investigated. Let's also remember that she was found not to have a prosecutable case. She is more able to formulate detailed policy than most presidents and vastly more so than George W Bush or Ronald Reagan for example. She is unable to communicate it, accepted.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
She is extremely hardworking. Maybe too much, do she had written herself out. On her record competent too. Arrogant? Not more than most in her position. Unpleasant? Maybe. It's an opinion. Sleaze-ball? A bit. It depends on your standards. In a political culture that is built on hundreds of millions of dollars sloshing through the system, there are plenty of others.0 -
They did it after leaving office, when conflicts of interest are no longer as important.SouthamObserver said:
In terms of monetisation, what has Clinton done that other politicians haven't? Look over here - from Thatcher through to Blair and beyond politicians have made money for themselves and their families on the back of their service.DavidL said:
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
She has done it before going for the highest office in the world. The potential for trouble seems to me to be greater.
However, she is materially helped by the fact Trump is equally implicated in highly dubious monetary dealings, as we have been seeing.0 -
Lower Court decision stands, I believe.RobD said:
There must be a tiebreaker rule if the Supreme Court has an even number of Justices?nunu said:Allahpundit – @allahpundit
Election ends tentatively at 269-269. Florida goes to recount. Recount goes to Supreme Court. Court deadlocks 4-4.
8:27 pm - 31 Oct 20160 -
TRUMP must be a codename!Alistair said:Trump is a Russian intelligence asset. Look the words are highlighted so it must be true.
https://twitter.com/DaveStroup/status/7932437593790300160 -
Good morning, everyone.
The central premise of the threadstarter is spot on. UKIP need to patch themselves together then actually make progress under FPTP.
For all their dysfunction in Wales, they've actually got a fair amount of support and seats there (I think). I wonder if Nutall will go for a northern strategy. That could be good for UKIP and bad for Labour.0 -
Pennsylvania - Franklin & Marshall - Sample 863 - 26-30 Oct
Clinton 49 .. Trump 38
http://www.fandm.edu/uploads/files/913809798323927231-f-m-poll-release-october-2016.pdf0 -
Wonder if current Tories would be happy for their party to morph into the defacto centre and centre left party.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
The central premise of the threadstarter is spot on. UKIP need to patch themselves together then actually make progress under FPTP.
For all their dysfunction in Wales, they've actually got a fair amount of support and seats there (I think). I wonder if Nutall will go for a northern strategy. That could be good for UKIP and bad for Labour.0 -
New Hampshire - WMUR - Sample 618 - 26-30 Oct
Clinton 46 .. Trump 39
https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh.edu/files/research_publications/gsp2016_fall_nhelec103116.pdf0 -
0
-
F1: just rumour right now.
But the rumour is Ross Brawn has signed a deal to replace Ecclestone by the end of the year [heard via Twitter].0 -
The latter's the key.DavidL said:
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.0 -
Mr. Jonathan, depends on the type of Conservative. I think some Cameroons would be quite happy sitting in the centre.
I am not 100% convinced John Redwood would be, though.0 -
Have you considered taking something for your delusions?Innocent_Abroad said:
Representative democracy is finished across the pond. I expect us to follow fairly soon.DavidL said:
Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of HRC, at least in her later years. I don't think she is lazy but most of the other epithets fit. She served competently as a Senator, she played an important role as First Lady, she had a mixed record at State. My concerns about her are that she epitomises Washington corruption. There was a devastating piece in the WSJ the other day about her monetising her time at State. It's shocking and not healthy for American democracy. But the alternative....jeez.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.0 -
there but for the grace of god?RobD said:What were the whips thinking??
http://order-order.com/2016/11/01/tory-whips-saved-vaz/#more-2483520 -
I don't understand how people think Hillary has a leg to stand on when it comes to the Trump misogyny issue. The only reason she rose as high as she did was because she rode on the coat tails of her husband a noted womaniser. So yes Trump is a pig when it comes to women. But alkso yes, so was Bill Clinton. And Hillary Clinton chose to ignore it judging that she can use him to climb the ladder and that presumably was more important that her husband shagging anything that walks.
Hillary Clinton will be a disaster of a President based on her record and her character. Trump will almost certainly be a disaster of a President based on his character. Both are likely to spend a large proportion of their time under investigation for their various crimes and misdemeanours. So what does it matter which one wins? South Park have it right - a choice between Giant Douche and Turd Sandwich. But which is which?0 -
That's certainly a more comprehensive analysis of Hannan's worldview than he ever manages. As has been pointed out, he has a tendency to block people when challenged, or reverts to a sickly sweet Anglosycophancy as a substitute for persuasion.viewcode said:
He contends that anglophone former British colonies constitute an ethnos (right word? would "nation" be better?) and have a superior understanding of civil rights to the rest of the world, resulting in a more peaceful administration without violent uprising since the Bill of Rights. To make this work he has to ignore Nordic countries that pioneered democracy before Britain (not to mention Greece and Rome), and maintain that the USA's impulse towards democracy is a product of British influence (as opposed to despite it), which ignores the influence of France in the independence. Not to mention the Irish War of Independence and the Highland Clearances.Theuniondivvie said:Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreignness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned
Who could have predicted Peruvian-born Hannan would be such a fan of the Anglosphere?0 -
I hope so. He should be an outstanding replacement.Morris_Dancer said:F1: just rumour right now.
But the rumour is Ross Brawn has signed a deal to replace Ecclestone by the end of the year [heard via Twitter].
During the Ferrari Schumacher years, Brawn's the only one of the main figures - including Todt - who emerged with their reputations unscathed.0 -
But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!Chris said:
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points:AndyJS said:
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.HYUFD said:
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.rottenborough said:NH Clinton +7 - Uni of NH.
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story0 -
Seth Stevenson of the "Slate" re-interviews a panel of 13 GOP voters, who had concerns about Trump becoming their nominee, to see who they will be voting for :
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/10/gop_voters_who_don_t_like_trump_reveal_their_votes.html0 -
The FBI wouldn't be investigating if it were so trivial.Jobabob said:
But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!Chris said:
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points:AndyJS said:
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.HYUFD said:
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.rottenborough said:NH Clinton +7 - Uni of NH.
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story0 -
I read his Anglophone exceptionalism stuff posted on here last night and he went seriously down in my estimations. That is not to say that Canadians' sacrifice in the war was not courageous and heart-rending. Yet many nations made huge sacrifices - not least the Soviet Union which, as all good PB historians know, lost more men in WWII than all the other belligerents combined. Speaking English was not and is not a prerequisite for bravery.Theuniondivvie said:
That's certainly a more comprehensive analysis of Hannan's worldview than he ever manages. As has been pointed out, he has a tendency to block people when challenged, or reverts to a sickly sweet Anglosycophancy as a substitute for persuasion.viewcode said:
He contends that anglophone former British colonies constitute an ethnos (right word? would "nation" be better?) and have a superior understanding of civil rights to the rest of the world, resulting in a more peaceful administration without violent uprising since the Bill of Rights. To make this work he has to ignore Nordic countries that pioneered democracy before Britain (not to mention Greece and Rome), and maintain that the USA's impulse towards democracy is a product of British influence (as opposed to despite it), which ignores the influence of France in the independence. Not to mention the Irish War of Independence and the Highland Clearances.Theuniondivvie said:Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreignness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned
Who could have predicted Peruvian-born Hannan would be such a fan of the Anglosphere?0 -
Hannan is one of those chaps that presents a good front. He uses language well and makes his points aggressively.Theuniondivvie said:
That's certainly a more comprehensive analysis of Hannan's worldview than he ever manages. As has been pointed out, he has a tendency to block people when challenged, or reverts to a sickly sweet Anglosycophancy as a substitute for persuasion.viewcode said:
He contends that anglophone former British colonies constitute an ethnos (right word? would "nation" be better?) and have a superior understanding of civil rights to the rest of the world, resulting in a more peaceful administration without violent uprising since the Bill of Rights. To make this work he has to ignore Nordic countries that pioneered democracy before Britain (not to mention Greece and Rome), and maintain that the USA's impulse towards democracy is a product of British influence (as opposed to despite it), which ignores the influence of France in the independence. Not to mention the Irish War of Independence and the Highland Clearances.Theuniondivvie said:Perhaps Mr Hannan can release categorised lists of nationalities by level of foreignness, just so we can prepare for our bright, new, internationalist future.
So when when he says Canadians are "hardly foreign", he is being consistent with his mindset.
He does have inconsistencies and lacunae. He usually qualifies India (English as an official language, Commonwealth member) using phrases like "some people include", and always leaves out South Africa (English as an official language, Commonwealth member). I don't think he gets that Ireland exists (that "no revolutions since the Bill of Rights" thing does have an enormous exception that only makes sense if you realise he's ignoring Ireland) and Commonwealth former colonies like Jamaica rarely (never?) get mentioned
Who could have predicted Peruvian-born Hannan would be such a fan of the Anglosphere?
Yet for all that, there doesn't seem to be much depth. When he himself is challenged he is very brittle. Immediately post Brexit he almost went into meltdown.
I wonder which safe seat he is gunning for. Tick took.0 -
0
-
Without wanting to reopen *very* old arguments ...SquareRoot said:
.. but a whole illegal war was fought on the fact that "WE " knew Saddam had WMD. I mean our intelligence service is the best in the world...Bromptonaut said:
Maybe they can't find any WMD because Saddam has no WMD.CarlottaVance said:
Brains explode.......edmundintokyo said:
Maybe there's no dirt, because she's clean.FrancisUrquhart said:http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/veteran-spy-gave-fbi-info-alleging-russian-operation-cultivate-donald-trump
There is one big thing that doesn't work for me in that article. If the Russians had a load of dirt.on Clinton & were feeding it to team trump, they don't seem to be using it. I would of thought if there was serious damaging dirt it would relate to solid evidence of pay for play via the Clinton foundation (which is what I presume certain people think are in all the missing emails). But to date, pay for play / Clinton foundation is nothing more than unsubstantiated claims, Having been paid big bucks for speeches in some odd places.
Ridiculous idea I know.
To be fair, it was much more complex than that. If you read various sources, including TimT's book, published before the 2002/3 disaster, it is clear there was zero trust between the weapons inspectors and intelligence services on one hand (including the Russians), and the Iraqis on the other.
If the Iraqis had no WMDs, and were not attempting to make any, then they were saying and doing exactly the wrong things to convince us of that.0 -
People on this site keep saying Clinton has failed to articulate any policies. This campaign has been about Trump. That has been her job for months - keep the focus on whether Trump is fit to be president. No point in muddying the waters with policy.FF43 said:
Being investigated is no particular evidence of wrongdoing in this context. Running a private email server was unwise but it something several of her peers and predecessors did, but only she was investigated. Let's also remember that she was found not to have a prosecutable case. She is more able to formulate detailed policy than most presidents and vastly more so than George W Bush or Ronald Reagan for example. She is unable to communicate it, accepted.ydoethur said:
The problem is that that's a highly inaccurate characterisation of Clinton. In 30 years, what has she actually achieved? If so much, why does she not shout them from the rooftops? What is her real grasp of the issues? If it's so good, why is she unable to formulate detailed policy and communicate it? Why has she been under criminal investigation three times that we know of? If she's a dedicated public servant, she shouldn't even have been investigated once.DavidL said:Do you want a lifelong public servant with an encyclopedic grasp of the issues, or a buffoon guided only by his own prejudices?"
If Clinton were what the WP says, this election would have been over months ago and probably Trump would have taken Indiana and nowhere else. It is precisely because she is an incompetent, lazy, arrogant and unpleasant sleazeball that Trump (who is correctly described) is still in the running.
Who was it said that any candidate other than Clinton would undoubtedly beat Trump, and any candidate other than Trump would undoubtedly beat Clinton? I have seen nothing to suggest they were wrong. The loser is the US democratic process.
She is extremely hardworking. Maybe too much, do she had written herself out. On her record competent too. Arrogant? Not more than most in her position. Unpleasant? Maybe. It's an opinion. Sleaze-ball? A bit. It depends on your standards. In a political culture that is built on hundreds of millions of dollars sloshing through the system, there are plenty of others.0 -
Mr Bob,
"But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!"
I think you'll find it's a little more complicated than that.
I had a brief visit to the USA earlier this year (although to be honest, it wasn't the USA, it was California). Some of the women there will vote for HRC because she has ovaries, but there seemed little else behind their convictions. Still, that's democracy.
I'm not sure that nepotism is a good look for the USA, be it Jeb Bush, or Chelsea in a few years time. But it's up to them, and I admit I'm not an expert on Septic politicians.
0 -
Rubio implies he voted for Trump yesterday :
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303709-voting-early-rubio-implies-he-cast-ballot-for-trump
But Kasich voted for McCain by write-in :
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303693-kasich-votes-for-mccain-instead-of-trump0 -
I think that UKIP's seats in Wales were not won on FPTP.Morris_Dancer said:Good morning, everyone.
The central premise of the threadstarter is spot on. UKIP need to patch themselves together then actually make progress under FPTP.
For all their dysfunction in Wales, they've actually got a fair amount of support and seats there (I think). I wonder if Nutall will go for a northern strategy. That could be good for UKIP and bad for Labour.0 -
They're all as bad as each other. No wonder trust in politicians and voter turnout are at an all time low.RobD said:What were the whips thinking??
http://order-order.com/2016/11/01/tory-whips-saved-vaz/#more-2483520 -
Lifelong GOP supporter (now voting for Hillary): "Clinton basically trotted out the socialist manifesto. But the released WikiLeaks transcripts of her paid speeches were very comforting to me."JackW said:Seth Stevenson of the "Slate" re-interviews a panel of 13 GOP voters, who had concerns about Trump becoming their nominee, to see who they will be voting for :
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/10/gop_voters_who_don_t_like_trump_reveal_their_votes.html
I believe the tired and traditional PB cliche for moments like this is "heart of stone not to laugh etc"..0 -
Er, you know they haven't read the emails right? You have zero evidence for your statement. None.RobD said:
The FBI wouldn't be investigating if it were so trivial.Jobabob said:
But but - the husband of someone Hillary knew sent an email about something. Lock her up!Chris said:
Interestingly, a poll by Mitchell Research, conducted entirely after the FBI's intervention in the election, shows Clinton's lead is unchanged since last Tuesday, at 6 points:AndyJS said:
I think Trump may have to win either Michigan or Wisconsin to win the election.HYUFD said:
Even if he won NH alongside Iowa, Ohio, Florida, Nevada and North Carolina and the rest of the Romney states Trump would only get to 269, he needs Pennsylvania or Colorado to get over 270, Colorado is closer in the RCP average than NH and Pennsylvania is also closer in recent polls.rottenborough said:NH Clinton +7 - Uni of NH.
That seems to block one of Trumpy's routes to ECV of 270
http://www.fox2detroit.com/news/local-news/214738676-story0 -
Mr. Jessop, quite, and it does fly in the face of long-term rumours Horner would get the gig.
Mr. Song, yes, but it's still a source of strength for UKIP.0