politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Clinton punters are getting the jitters with the Electoral Col
Comments
-
Well some of us tried to sell 330 ups at 19.5, but got blocked by SPIN's creeking card systems. I'm not selling at 14 now either !peter_from_putney said:Hillary has actually slipped 11 ECVs from her peak today, i.e. from 322-332 to 311-321 currently.
Incidentally, there's was a riveting 10 minute interview featuring former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani just after the start of Lou Dobbs Tonight on the Fox Business Channel yesterday as linked to below and well worth watching. I can't imagine that anything remotely as strong as this would ever be allowed on our TV networks.
Not that we'd ever be allowed have a right of centre broadcaster in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DETe_cEckVA0 -
Of course, people occasionally forget that most of the USA was never a British colony and reversion to 1776 would be a hotchpotch, to put it mildly. It's also the reason why all these scary Hispanics are threatening to influence tomorrow's vote. A lot of "Hispanics", incidentally, are descendants of native Americans christianised by the Spanish. What a tangled web we wove...MarqueeMark said:
Remarkably similar to a post I've made on pb.com within the past month.AndyJS said:"Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States
Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
“This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states
Just sayin'....0 -
Hillary's spread slippage -- that wouldn't be punters and even the spread firms following OGH's lead would it?0
-
I have noticed similar. Two headlines for articles on a certain online newspaper's website using very similar wording to posts on here.MarqueeMark said:
Remarkably similar to a post I've made on pb.com within the past month.AndyJS said:"Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States
Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
“This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states
Just sayin'....0 -
You are referring to your new AV thread, surely?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, God this is exciting.
0 -
Interesting. It has heavily weighted methodology, among other things asking how the respondents think their neighbors will vote as a way of eliciting secret sympathy (and most people in PA think by a 12-point margin that their neighbors will vote Trump...hmm).RobD said:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4lhKxf9pMiteE9pZkcwQnZ3TVk/viewAndyJS said:
I haven't seen this poll. What were the numbers?NickPalmer said:That PA poll has to worry Clinton, as do those House polls showing the GOP surging, but nearly all the other polls look fairly good. I still think she's winning, but I'm not going anywhere near the spread bets, as weird results seem perfectly possible either way.
Roger/Tyson last thread - I think some Brexiteers are the nastier kind of nationalist and nearly all nasty nationalists are Brexiteers. But one shouldn't generalise beyond that. The instinct to control your destiny more effectively by national sovereignty is entirely understandable, even if (as I personally think) it's largely illusory in today's world.
0 -
Nope, it has the right to divide into multiple states within the United StatesSandyRentool said:
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?TheScreamingEagles said:
Actually there are strong legal arguments that no American state can secede from the United States. Once you join, you can never leave.SandyRentool said:
Does the US Constitution have an Article 50?weejonnie said:
Isn't there a two-year period of negotiation of transfer of power?AndyJS said:"Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States
Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
“This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states0 -
Thanks! So they could amend it if they had consent, or would they need continuing consent after amendment?prh47bridge said:
Article 5 of the US Constitution covers the mechanism by which the Constitution can be amended. It specifically prohibits any amendment to the Constitution which deprives a state of equal representation in the Senate without its consent.RobD said:FPT:
Interesting, how is it entrenched?rpjs said:
I think the intention of the Founding Fathers was that the VP's day job was to actually preside over the Senate, but after the first VP, John Adams, took a very active role as President of the Senate, the Senate didn't much care for that and since the VP has only actively presided when the Senate's tied.RobD said:
Why did they have a Senate that has an equal number of members (giving DC only one Senator would fix that). Similarly for the number of electoral votes!!rpjs said:
It certainly can, in which case whoever's elected Vice-President actually has to work for his pay for once, as he'll have to preside over the Senate in person to break any ties.stodge said:Just as an observation could the Senate end up 50 all ?
Fun fact: The states have to have equal representation in the Senate. That's the only super-entrenched part of the Constitution - it can't be amended even by the usual amendment process.0 -
Abe Lincoln prosecuted a Civil war that left nearly 1m ppl dead to labour that point.TheScreamingEagles said:
Actually there are strong legal arguments that no American state can secede from the United States. Once you join, you can never leave.SandyRentool said:
Does the US Constitution have an Article 50?weejonnie said:
Isn't there a two-year period of negotiation of transfer of power?AndyJS said:"Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States
Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
“This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states0 -
It's not just about trade. I don't like political integration. You do like political integration. For you, EU citizenship is something you love. For me, it's an imposition. That's the difference between us.YellowSubmarine said:
Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.Sean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
0 -
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?tyson said:
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.YellowSubmarine said:
Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.Sean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
0 -
Every day is a school day on PB!TheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, it has the right to divide into multiple states within the United StatesSandyRentool said:
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?TheScreamingEagles said:
Actually there are strong legal arguments that no American state can secede from the United States. Once you join, you can never leave.SandyRentool said:
Does the US Constitution have an Article 50?weejonnie said:
Isn't there a two-year period of negotiation of transfer of power?AndyJS said:"Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States
Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
“This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states0 -
He did indeed.ToryJim said:
Abe Lincoln prosecuted a Civil war that left nearly 1m ppl dead to labour that point.TheScreamingEagles said:
Actually there are strong legal arguments that no American state can secede from the United States. Once you join, you can never leave.SandyRentool said:
Does the US Constitution have an Article 50?weejonnie said:
Isn't there a two-year period of negotiation of transfer of power?AndyJS said:"Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States
Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
“This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states0 -
India has been as stagnant a market for the UK as the EU over much of the last decade.
The growth - sometimes pretty spectacular - is elsewhere.
Reducing our import obsession is as important as expanding exports.
0 -
I've been taking a look at the 2012 exit polls and most of them were darned accurate. For example, in Kansas the exit poll was Rep 60.0%, Dem 38.00%, and the result was Rep 59.71%, Dem 37.99%.
In Pennsylvania the exit poll was Dem 52.16%, Rep 46.84% and the result was Dem 51.97%, Rep 46.59%.0 -
Yes it also has Trump winning nearly 30% of blacks, 40% of Hispanic voters and 3/5 of Asians and with only a 3 point deficit among women. Not sure that's 100% plausible.NickPalmer said:
Interesting. It has heavily weighted methodology, among other things asking how the respondents think their neighbors will vote as a way of eliciting secret sympathy (and most people in PA think by a 12-point margin that their neighbors will vote Trump...hmm).RobD said:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4lhKxf9pMiteE9pZkcwQnZ3TVk/viewAndyJS said:
I haven't seen this poll. What were the numbers?NickPalmer said:That PA poll has to worry Clinton, as do those House polls showing the GOP surging, but nearly all the other polls look fairly good. I still think she's winning, but I'm not going anywhere near the spread bets, as weird results seem perfectly possible either way.
Roger/Tyson last thread - I think some Brexiteers are the nastier kind of nationalist and nearly all nasty nationalists are Brexiteers. But one shouldn't generalise beyond that. The instinct to control your destiny more effectively by national sovereignty is entirely understandable, even if (as I personally think) it's largely illusory in today's world.0 -
I help educate PBers on all matters, not just classical history.SandyRentool said:
Every day is a school day on PB!TheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, it has the right to divide into multiple states within the United StatesSandyRentool said:
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?TheScreamingEagles said:
Actually there are strong legal arguments that no American state can secede from the United States. Once you join, you can never leave.SandyRentool said:
Does the US Constitution have an Article 50?weejonnie said:
Isn't there a two-year period of negotiation of transfer of power?AndyJS said:"Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States
Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
“This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states0 -
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.SandyRentool said:
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?
0 -
The article that defines the amendment process says that no state may be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate without its consent. So, the only way for that to happen is either for that article to itself be amended first, or for all the states to consent to an amendment that ends their equal representation.RobD said:FPT:
Interesting, how is it entrenched?rpjs said:
I think the intention of the Founding Fathers was that the VP's day job was to actually preside over the Senate, but after the first VP, John Adams, took a very active role as President of the Senate, the Senate didn't much care for that and since the VP has only actively presided when the Senate's tied.RobD said:
Why did they have a Senate that has an equal number of members (giving DC only one Senator would fix that). Similarly for the number of electoral votes!!rpjs said:
It certainly can, in which case whoever's elected Vice-President actually has to work for his pay for once, as he'll have to preside over the Senate in person to break any ties.stodge said:Just as an observation could the Senate end up 50 all ?
Fun fact: The states have to have equal representation in the Senate. That's the only super-entrenched part of the Constitution - it can't be amended even by the usual amendment process.0 -
No AV thread until 2017 now.RobD said:
You are referring to your new AV thread, surely?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, God this is exciting.
0 -
Isn't this the old "My friend" when people are actually referring to themselves (in polling terms) ?NickPalmer said:
Interesting. It has heavily weighted methodology, among other things asking how the respondents think their neighbors will vote as a way of eliciting secret sympathy (and most people in PA think by a 12-point margin that their neighbors will vote Trump...hmm).RobD said:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4lhKxf9pMiteE9pZkcwQnZ3TVk/viewAndyJS said:
I haven't seen this poll. What were the numbers?NickPalmer said:That PA poll has to worry Clinton, as do those House polls showing the GOP surging, but nearly all the other polls look fairly good. I still think she's winning, but I'm not going anywhere near the spread bets, as weird results seem perfectly possible either way.
Roger/Tyson last thread - I think some Brexiteers are the nastier kind of nationalist and nearly all nasty nationalists are Brexiteers. But one shouldn't generalise beyond that. The instinct to control your destiny more effectively by national sovereignty is entirely understandable, even if (as I personally think) it's largely illusory in today's world.
Might be a good way to work out what is going on if so..0 -
God! I'm fed up with Brexit. I knew it was going to be a huge mess. But still! Today we have our mediocrity of a prime minister on a completely pointless "trade mission" to India with her infantile trade minister pretending to map out a post Brexit future.. Meanwhile her other minister tells Parliament it can't dictate anything because that would reveal the government's negotiating hand. When in fact Theresa May doesn't have negotiating hand, or at least not one she is willing to own up to.
This stuff is tricky. Why can't she treat us - the Indians, her EU partners and the people of Britain as grown ups?0 -
If RCS is about, then he should know I've written to Mike with a possible thread header tipping....
wait for it....
Nicolas Sarkozy.0 -
It needs 66% support in the Senate AND House to enact a change - and 75% ratification (38 States) before the amendment becomes part of the Constitution. Since at the moment the Senate is about to split 50-50 this seems unlikely. (There is often a time limit imposed as well, but that is not mandatory).RobD said:
Thanks! So they could amend it if they had consent, or would they need continuing consent after amendment?prh47bridge said:
Article 5 of the US Constitution covers the mechanism by which the Constitution can be amended. It specifically prohibits any amendment to the Constitution which deprives a state of equal representation in the Senate without its consent.RobD said:FPT:
Interesting, how is it entrenched?rpjs said:
I think the intention of the Founding Fathers was that the VP's day job was to actually preside over the Senate, but after the first VP, John Adams, took a very active role as President of the Senate, the Senate didn't much care for that and since the VP has only actively presided when the Senate's tied.RobD said:
Why did they have a Senate that has an equal number of members (giving DC only one Senator would fix that). Similarly for the number of electoral votes!!rpjs said:
It certainly can, in which case whoever's elected Vice-President actually has to work for his pay for once, as he'll have to preside over the Senate in person to break any ties.stodge said:Just as an observation could the Senate end up 50 all ?
Fun fact: The states have to have equal representation in the Senate. That's the only super-entrenched part of the Constitution - it can't be amended even by the usual amendment process.0 -
The choice that time was between "Rich and respectable" Romney or Barry "Clearly a decent chap" Obama. I expect people might struggle a bit more to admit they voted for either of this pair.AndyJS said:I've been taking a look at the 2012 exit polls and most of them were darned accurate. For example, in Kansas the exit poll was Rep 60.0%, Dem 38.00%, and the result was Rep 59.71%, Dem 37.99%.
In Pennsylvania the exit poll was Dem 52.16%, Rep 46.84% and the result was Dem 51.97%, Rep 46.59%.0 -
I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw0 -
The neighbours question is interesting but I'd want to see more evidence that it really does pick up shy Trumpsters among respondents or is it that they live next door to shy Hillary supporters?NickPalmer said:
Interesting. It has heavily weighted methodology, among other things asking how the respondents think their neighbors will vote as a way of eliciting secret sympathy (and most people in PA think by a 12-point margin that their neighbors will vote Trump...hmm).RobD said:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4lhKxf9pMiteE9pZkcwQnZ3TVk/viewAndyJS said:
I haven't seen this poll. What were the numbers?NickPalmer said:That PA poll has to worry Clinton, as do those House polls showing the GOP surging, but nearly all the other polls look fairly good. I still think she's winning, but I'm not going anywhere near the spread bets, as weird results seem perfectly possible either way.
Roger/Tyson last thread - I think some Brexiteers are the nastier kind of nationalist and nearly all nasty nationalists are Brexiteers. But one shouldn't generalise beyond that. The instinct to control your destiny more effectively by national sovereignty is entirely understandable, even if (as I personally think) it's largely illusory in today's world.0 -
So long as it doesn't go over 66%...TheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw0 -
@Tyson The other thing we need to know about Brexit ( and the biggest piece of info comes tomorrow ) is whether there has been contagion. The West is in trouble. What we don't know yet is whether Brexit is Sui Generis or part of a new normal. We've always had these kinds of anti intellectual populist movements ( from Lib Dem By Election wins to the FN. ) They perform a role in democracies. What we don't yet know is if this has now spead to " illiberal Democracy " where these movements win power ( Hungry, Brexit, Philippines ) via democratic means. If in 10 months time it's Clinton, Juppe and a centrist German Chancellor Brexit will look very different to if it's Trump, Sarkozy and the CDU beholden to the AfD and CSU.0
-
TheScreamingEagles said:
No AV thread until 2017 now.RobD said:
You are referring to your new AV thread, surely?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, God this is exciting.
0 -
The weather gods may not smile on Hamilton's slim championship hopes this weekend, which seems likely to be a dry oasis in a wet week:
https://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=interlagos+brazil0 -
Could a new state accept less representation?weejonnie said:
It needs 66% support in the Senate AND House to enact a change - and 75% ratification (38 States) before the amendment becomes part of the Constitution. Since at the moment the Senate is about to split 50-50 this seems unlikely. (There is often a time limit imposed as well, but that is not mandatory).RobD said:
Thanks! So they could amend it if they had consent, or would they need continuing consent after amendment?prh47bridge said:
Article 5 of the US Constitution covers the mechanism by which the Constitution can be amended. It specifically prohibits any amendment to the Constitution which deprives a state of equal representation in the Senate without its consent.RobD said:FPT:
Interesting, how is it entrenched?rpjs said:
I think the intention of the Founding Fathers was that the VP's day job was to actually preside over the Senate, but after the first VP, John Adams, took a very active role as President of the Senate, the Senate didn't much care for that and since the VP has only actively presided when the Senate's tied.RobD said:
Why did they have a Senate that has an equal number of members (giving DC only one Senator would fix that). Similarly for the number of electoral votes!!rpjs said:
It certainly can, in which case whoever's elected Vice-President actually has to work for his pay for once, as he'll have to preside over the Senate in person to break any ties.stodge said:Just as an observation could the Senate end up 50 all ?
Fun fact: The states have to have equal representation in the Senate. That's the only super-entrenched part of the Constitution - it can't be amended even by the usual amendment process.0 -
Population, Florida, 2000: 16mTheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Population, Florida, 2016: 20m.0 -
TheScreamingEagles said:
No AV thread until 2017 now.RobD said:
You are referring to your new AV thread, surely?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, God this is exciting.
Quite right, the exit polling and indeed the networks' live decision desks are usually absolutely superb. You have to go back 16 years to find a critical error, and even then in bizarre chad-hung circumstances in Florida.AndyJS said:I've been taking a look at the 2012 exit polls and most of them were darned accurate. For example, in Kansas the exit poll was Rep 60.0%, Dem 38.00%, and the result was Rep 59.71%, Dem 37.99%.
In Pennsylvania the exit poll was Dem 52.16%, Rep 46.84% and the result was Dem 51.97%, Rep 46.59%.0 -
I'm just glad I haven't bet much on turnout on this election.Pulpstar said:
So long as it doesn't go over 66%...TheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw0 -
When/ how do we get the actual values of the exit polls. It is fine that "CNN calls Kentucky for Trump" - but a margin would be very useful.Pulpstar said:
The choice that time was between "Rich and respectable" Romney or Barry "Clearly a decent chap" Obama. I expect people might struggle a bit more to admit they voted for either of this pair.AndyJS said:I've been taking a look at the 2012 exit polls and most of them were darned accurate. For example, in Kansas the exit poll was Rep 60.0%, Dem 38.00%, and the result was Rep 59.71%, Dem 37.99%.
In Pennsylvania the exit poll was Dem 52.16%, Rep 46.84% and the result was Dem 51.97%, Rep 46.59%.0 -
Tyson is a leftie, so therefore he is on the side of righteousness, goodness, decency, and everything that is right and proper and a perfect human being. You're just rightwing scum, so you're bound to want Trump to win.Sean_F said:
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?tyson said:
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.YellowSubmarine said:
Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.Sean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
0 -
Ah, that puts a different perspective on it.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Population, Florida, 2000: 16mTheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Population, Florida, 2016: 20m.0 -
Sadly this won't end anytime soon. We're going to have years of grinding discussions on trade deals - probably a whole parasitic industry will spring up around them - many of which will collapse in stalemate and disappointment.FF43 said:God! I'm fed up with Brexit. I knew it was going to be a huge mess. But still! Today we have our mediocrity of a prime minister on a completely pointless "trade mission" to India with her infantile trade minister pretending to map out a post Brexit future.. Meanwhile her other minister tells Parliament it can't dictate anything because that would reveal the government's negotiating hand. When in fact Theresa May doesn't have negotiating hand, or at least not one she is willing to own up to.
This stuff is tricky. Why can't she treat us - the Indians, her EU partners and the people of Britain as grown ups?0 -
So:TheWhiteRabbit said:
Population, Florida, 2000: 16mTheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Population, Florida, 2016: 20m.
2016 – 6,424,595 of 20,000,000 = 32.1%
2000 - 5,861,223 of 16,000,000 = 36.6%
0 -
I'm +6 (up to 62%) -13 (62% up)TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm just glad I haven't bet much on turnout on this election.Pulpstar said:
So long as it doesn't go over 66%...TheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
those are in pounds, not thousands...0 -
Ana Navarro – Verified account @ananavarro
FL is too close for me to cast a symbolic protest vote. I voted AGAINST Trump, and FOR Hillary. Here I explain why: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/07/opinions/navarro-republican-voting-for-clinton/index.html …0 -
I mean, turnout is still likely to be up, but not necessarily hugely so.MarkHopkins said:
So:TheWhiteRabbit said:
Population, Florida, 2000: 16mTheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Population, Florida, 2016: 20m.
2016 – 6,424,595 of 20,000,000 = 32.1%
2000 - 5,861,223 of 16,000,000 = 36.6%
About 8.3m votes last time.0 -
The other question is, are they the same kind of people? Is the increase in older Republican voting people or Democrat leaning Hispanics?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Population, Florida, 2000: 16mTheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Population, Florida, 2016: 20m.0 -
Another useful source of information, the New York Times has now lifted its paywall until Wednesday night.
http://www.nytimes.com0 -
-102 66+TheWhiteRabbit said:
I'm +6 (up to 62%) -13 (62% up)TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm just glad I haven't bet much on turnout on this election.Pulpstar said:
So long as it doesn't go over 66%...TheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
those are in pounds, not thousands...
+2 62-66
+86 58-62
+4 54-57
-102 54-0 -
Perhaps a post I read some time ago that you would love it if Trump wins to see the impact on the Guardianistas...or words to those effect.Sean_F said:
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?tyson said:
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.YellowSubmarine said:
Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.Sean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
It pissed me off at the time because I couldn't understand the mentality that you would rather someone with the pathological issues as Trump to become POTUs just to annoy people like me...
It would be like me saying I wish Stalin had invaded the UK just to see the faces of the Tories...ho, ho, ho...Very funny....
0 -
Not really - do you think only 5% Floridians will vote Tomorrow?TheScreamingEagles said:
Ah, that puts a different perspective on it.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Population, Florida, 2000: 16mTheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Population, Florida, 2016: 20m.0 -
January 1st to coincide with the traditional Sherlock episode I take it...TheScreamingEagles said:
No AV thread until 2017 now.RobD said:
You are referring to your new AV thread, surely?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, God this is exciting.
0 -
Well yes that is a difference between us. And as it happens I find your position on the Sean coherent, principled and honourable. I just happen to disagree with you but I have completed and utter respect for your point of view. However it's a minority view. To get it's self over the line Leave went with Labour red posters promising more money for the national religion. It blames foreigners for everything. It's like the Lib Dems defending Human Rights by going on about Dog Poo or opposing House Building or pretending to be X, Y or Z in individual seats. It's a great strategy unless you win as Nick Clegg and one part of the Leave coalition are about to find out.Sean_F said:
It's not just about trade. I don't like political integration. You do like political integration. For you, EU citizenship is something you love. For me, it's an imposition. That's the difference between us.YellowSubmarine said:
Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.Sean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
0 -
I win £120 ish if turnout is 49.99% or belowTheWhiteRabbit said:
I'm +6 (up to 62%) -13 (62% up)TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm just glad I haven't bet much on turnout on this election.Pulpstar said:
So long as it doesn't go over 66%...TheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
those are in pounds, not thousands...0 -
weve already had that, it's called financial servicesStark_Dawning said:
Sadly this won't end anytime soon. We're going to have years of grinding discussions on trade deals - probably a whole parasitic industry will spring up around them - many of which will collapse in stalemate and disappointment.FF43 said:God! I'm fed up with Brexit. I knew it was going to be a huge mess. But still! Today we have our mediocrity of a prime minister on a completely pointless "trade mission" to India with her infantile trade minister pretending to map out a post Brexit future.. Meanwhile her other minister tells Parliament it can't dictate anything because that would reveal the government's negotiating hand. When in fact Theresa May doesn't have negotiating hand, or at least not one she is willing to own up to.
This stuff is tricky. Why can't she treat us - the Indians, her EU partners and the people of Britain as grown ups?0 -
-
However, the Labour Leave campaign message to vote Leave in order to 'wipe the smiles' from Cam and Ozzie's faces did help to persuade a tranche of Labourites to vote Leave.tyson said:
Perhaps a post I read some time ago that you would love it if Trump wins to see the impact on the Guardianistas...or words to those effect.Sean_F said:
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?tyson said:
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.YellowSubmarine said:
Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.Sean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
It pissed me off at the time because I couldn't understand the mentality that you would rather someone with the pathological issues as Trump to become POTUs just to annoy people like me...
It would be like me saying I wish Stalin had invaded the UK just to see the faces of the Tories...ho, ho, ho...Very funny....0 -
Yes, that's quite a common sentiment on here. It is, as you say, utterly bizarre that anyone could hold that view – especially someone as demonstrably intelligent as Sean Fear.tyson said:
Perhaps a post I read some time ago that you would love it if Trump wins to see the impact on the Guardianistas...or words to those effect.Sean_F said:
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?tyson said:
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.YellowSubmarine said:
Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.Sean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
It pissed me off at the time because I couldn't understand the mentality that you would rather someone with the pathological issues as Trump to become POTUs just to annoy people like me...
It would be like me saying I wish Stalin had invaded the UK just to see the faces of the Tories...ho, ho, ho...Very funny....0 -
0
-
The Civil War settled that no state can unilaterally secede, but there's nothing in the constitution to say that states can't secede by mutual consent. It's very hard to consider a scenario where that would happen though.TheScreamingEagles said:
Actually there are strong legal arguments that no American state can secede from the United States. Once you join, you can never leave.SandyRentool said:
Does the US Constitution have an Article 50?weejonnie said:
Isn't there a two-year period of negotiation of transfer of power?AndyJS said:"Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States
Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
“This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states0 -
Huzzah for Michael Gove
1/after a fascinating four days in US it's great to be back home - and have the chance to reflect on our constitutional debate
2/ The first thing to note is that judicial independence is critical to the rule of law and any proper democracy
3/the high court judges who've ruled on Article 50 are brilliant, thoughtful, wise and decent men - their judgment deserves respect
4/ Good people can differ on their reasoning and conclusion - but I find much of it persuasive
5/ however, even if I didn't agree with elements of their reasoning I'd personally treat the judgement of 3 brilliant men with respect
6/BUT the freedom of the press is also important- some of us may object to judgements - others to headlines - but let's remember Voltaire
7/a raucous, vigorous, press is just as much a guarantor of freedom as our independent judiciary - we are the land of Wilkes and Edward Coke0 -
Didn't really work though did it? Osborne in particular seems like a man reborn.SandyRentool said:
However, the Labour Leave campaign message to vote Leave in order to 'wipe the smiles' from Cam and Ozzie's faces did help to persuade a tranche of Labourites to vote Leave.tyson said:
Perhaps a post I read some time ago that you would love it if Trump wins to see the impact on the Guardianistas...or words to those effect.Sean_F said:
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?tyson said:
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.YellowSubmarine said:
Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.Sean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
It pissed me off at the time because I couldn't understand the mentality that you would rather someone with the pathological issues as Trump to become POTUs just to annoy people like me...
It would be like me saying I wish Stalin had invaded the UK just to see the faces of the Tories...ho, ho, ho...Very funny....0 -
If only we nasty, vitriolic Nats could aspire to the special patriotism of 'death to traitors, freedom for Britain', 'Breaking Point', 'Enemies of the People' and ''We won! Now send them back'. We'll just have to comfort ourselves by reflecting on the no doubt minor achievement of managing not to murder or assault anyone.Black_Rook said:
Personally, I regard myself as patriotic rather than nationalist. I do not take a "my country, right or wrong" attitude and nor do I consider it to be inherently superior to all others, but I do reserve the right to regard it as both special and worth preserving. Make of that what you will.
0 -
I spent a week in Las Vegas and came out a full 2 dollars up. I don't do that kind of gambling...it makes me too nervous. I met an American at the bar at the airport, I told him I made 2 bucks...he bought me a drink and I told me I was lucky not to come out at least three grand out of pocket. He said 90% of punters at Vegas lose in gambling just as much as they pay for hotels, food and entertainment.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I'm +6 (up to 62%) -13 (62% up)TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm just glad I haven't bet much on turnout on this election.Pulpstar said:
So long as it doesn't go over 66%...TheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
those are in pounds, not thousands...
0 -
You can't have your final call with 7 toss ups! That's like saying Leave would get 45 to 55% in the referendum!TheScreamingEagles said:
I see strictly they have Trump winning Nevada and Clinton Iowa. And a shock Dem gain in Georgia.0 -
Having seen the campaign unfold, and Trump's character flaws exposed, I've concluded that winding up Lefties is not sufficient reason to wish him to win. I've no liking for Clinton, but would sooner entrust her with the world's biggest nuclear arsenal. I've posted plenty of critical comments about Trump on this site.tyson said:
Perhaps a post I read some time ago that you would love it if Trump wins to see the impact on the Guardianistas...or words to those effect.Sean_F said:
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?tyson said:
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.YellowSubmarine said:
Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.Sean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
It pissed me off at the time because I couldn't understand the mentality that you would rather someone with the pathological issues as Trump to become POTUs just to annoy people like me...
It would be like me saying I wish Stalin had invaded the UK just to see the faces of the Tories...ho, ho, ho...Very funny....0 -
Better than George Osborne on Strictly...Pulpstar said:0 -
Beware of percentages my friend, the politicians' best method of hiding things.FF43 said:
The other question is, are they the same kind of people? Is the increase in older Republican voting people or Democrat leaning Hispanics?TheWhiteRabbit said:
Population, Florida, 2000: 16mTheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Population, Florida, 2016: 20m.
Someone said earlier today 900,000 whites, 500,000 Hispanics. But of course %ge wise the increase in Hispanics >> increase in whites.0 -
I lost money in a dozen casinos. I was a whole $30 down by the end... (all slots)tyson said:
I spent a week in Las Vegas and came out a full 2 dollars up. I don't do that kind of gambling...it makes me too nervous. I met an American at the bar at the airport, I told him I made 2 bucks...he bought me a drink and I told me I was lucky not to come out at least three grand out of pocket. He said 90% of punters at Vegas lose in gambling just as much as they pay for hotels, food and entertainment.TheWhiteRabbit said:
I'm +6 (up to 62%) -13 (62% up)TheScreamingEagles said:
I'm just glad I haven't bet much on turnout on this election.Pulpstar said:
So long as it doesn't go over 66%...TheScreamingEagles said:I'm revising my opinion on the election now because of the below tweet.
If we're getting a real boost in turnout, it's going to be a landslide, just not sure which way at the moment
https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/795694782387486720?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
those are in pounds, not thousands...
Once you have $0.14 left you get the little cash out slip which I think is worth more as a momento.0 -
<54% -411
54-58% -1
58-62% +551
62-66% -3
>66% -411
Personally I still see the 58-62% band as value.0 -
-
Enjoying Rich Hall's guide to the US presidency on BBC40
-
Hasn't Jimmy Young been dead for a long time....how old...he must be at least 109?weejonnie said:
There are some people that die...and you are simply amazed that were still breathing in the first place.
0 -
Disappointed of HertsmereTheScreamingEagles said:
No AV thread until 2017 now.RobD said:
You are referring to your new AV thread, surely?TheScreamingEagles said:On topic, God this is exciting.
0 -
No it didn't work, and in fact backfired on the sinister left-nationalists of Labour Leave by engendering sympathy for the Tories' Remainer wing among moderate europhile Labourites. Rentool's rabble have reaped what they have sewn in so many ways.Stark_Dawning said:
Didn't really work though did it? Osborne in particular seems like a man reborn.SandyRentool said:
However, the Labour Leave campaign message to vote Leave in order to 'wipe the smiles' from Cam and Ozzie's faces did help to persuade a tranche of Labourites to vote Leave.tyson said:
SNIPSean_F said:
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?tyson said:
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.YellowSubmarine said:
SNIPSean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
But then what do you expect from someone who boasted on here about pushing letters through people's doors telling they'd get £350m a week for the NHS, despite knowing that the bilge he was spreading was a bare-faced, flat lie?0 -
Heh snap, you seem to have averaged slightly better odds than me thoughAlastairMeeks said:<54% -411
54-58% -1
58-62% +551
62-66% -3
>66% -411
Personally I still see the 58-62% band as value.0 -
It was also fucking idiotic.SandyRentool said:
However, the Labour Leave campaign message to vote Leave in order to 'wipe the smiles' from Cam and Ozzie's faces did help to persuade a tranche of Labourites to vote Leave.tyson said:
Perhaps a post I read some time ago that you would love it if Trump wins to see the impact on the Guardianistas...or words to those effect.Sean_F said:
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?tyson said:
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.YellowSubmarine said:
Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.Sean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
It pissed me off at the time because I couldn't understand the mentality that you would rather someone with the pathological issues as Trump to become POTUs just to annoy people like me...
It would be like me saying I wish Stalin had invaded the UK just to see the faces of the Tories...ho, ho, ho...Very funny....0 -
Clinton is playing hard ball over Trump ads.
http://us.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-ads-legal-warning-election-2016/index.html0 -
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.viewcode said:
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.SandyRentool said:
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?0 -
That does rather come across as a man with a plate full of cake and a belly full of cake....TheScreamingEagles said:Huzzah for Michael Gove
1/after a fascinating four days in US it's great to be back home - and have the chance to reflect on our constitutional debate
2/ The first thing to note is that judicial independence is critical to the rule of law and any proper democracy
3/the high court judges who've ruled on Article 50 are brilliant, thoughtful, wise and decent men - their judgment deserves respect
4/ Good people can differ on their reasoning and conclusion - but I find much of it persuasive
5/ however, even if I didn't agree with elements of their reasoning I'd personally treat the judgement of 3 brilliant men with respect
6/BUT the freedom of the press is also important- some of us may object to judgements - others to headlines - but let's remember Voltaire
7/a raucous, vigorous, press is just as much a guarantor of freedom as our independent judiciary - we are the land of Wilkes and Edward Coke0 -
The difference is that Brucie is on the deathlist (https://deathlist.net/) and JY wasn't.MarqueeMark said:
Morbid, I know, but it is an interesting list of lots of famous people who aren't (yet) dead and you might have thought they were.0 -
With a 5 year freeze on indexing benefits and Brexit inflation coming due to the Brexit devaluation it will be the very poorest who'll have the smile wiped off their faces. In my view using poor communities you never cared about to win for Leave is less problematic than using poor communities you did care about to win for Leave. Doubtless Sandy Rentool and Rochdale Pioneers will think the ESA claimant struggling to heat more than one room next winter or a family unable to replace a broken washing machine as well as feed the kids will be experiencing false consciousness. After all they will have taken back control.Jobabob said:
No it didn't work, and in fact backfired on the sinister left-nationalists of Labour Leave by engendering sympathy for the Tories' Remainer wing among moderate europhile Labourites. Rentool's rabble have reaped what they have sewn in so many ways.Stark_Dawning said:
Didn't really work though did it? Osborne in particular seems like a man reborn.SandyRentool said:
However, the Labour Leave campaign message to vote Leave in order to 'wipe the smiles' from Cam and Ozzie's faces did help to persuade a tranche of Labourites to vote Leave.tyson said:
SNIPSean_F said:
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?tyson said:
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.YellowSubmarine said:
SNIPSean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
But then what do you expect from someone who boasted on here about pushing letters through people's doors telling they'd get £350m a week for the NHS, despite knowing that the bilge he was spreading was a bare-faced, flat lie?
There is a special place in Hell in my view , not for genuine 'Kippers , but for the voguish Lexiters. They should have and nearly all of them did know better but did it anyway.0 -
Having seen the campaign unfold, and Trump's character flaws exposed, I've concluded that winding up Lefties is not sufficient reason to wish him to win. I've no liking for Clinton, but would sooner entrust her with the world's biggest nuclear arsenal. I've posted plenty of critical comments about Trump on this site.
@seanFear
My apologies. I have seen enough posts though of people who are all invariably right leaning, who have tried to draw equivalence between the two...and I have seen that for what is; namely Clinton haters who put their partisan feeling over and above the wider interests. That is where ideology is dangerous.
But fair play to you Sean....you haven't done that now.
I am massively partisan....but if you gave me the choice of Corbyn or May, or Corbyn or Hammond....I would go for the Tory. I know Corbyn would be utterly useless, and wouldn't even want to risk the fact that he could be PM.....
0 -
I'm sure you find it hugely galling, but Labour Leave played a blinder. The best of any of the Referendum campaigns.Jobabob said:
It was also fucking idiotic.SandyRentool said:
However, the Labour Leave campaign message to vote Leave in order to 'wipe the smiles' from Cam and Ozzie's faces did help to persuade a tranche of Labourites to vote Leave.tyson said:
Perhaps a post I read some time ago that you would love it if Trump wins to see the impact on the Guardianistas...or words to those effect.Sean_F said:
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?tyson said:
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.YellowSubmarine said:
Because you've blown up our membership of the best trade deal on the planet. And in part you blew up that membership by appealing to the fantastical view there was a queue of better trade deals out there just waiting for us to leave the EU. So poor old May has to go to uber protectionist India and pretend that she's negotiating a trade deal and one that won't entail visa liberalisation. I'd still feel sorry for her if it wasn't for *that* conference speech. Nevertheless she wasn't responsible for the incoherent tissue of lies that was the Leave Campaign that's now decomposing like a Hallowe'en Pumpkin. She has to keep the balls in the air for as long as possible for the national good. I suppose a showy trip to another Anglosphere democracy is as harmless a way of doing that as any in the current circumstances.Sean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
It pissed me off at the time because I couldn't understand the mentality that you would rather someone with the pathological issues as Trump to become POTUs just to annoy people like me...
It would be like me saying I wish Stalin had invaded the UK just to see the faces of the Tories...ho, ho, ho...Very funny....
And ultimately, decisive.0 -
Florida:
Right now, registered Democrats are ahead by about 7,200 votes. That pales in comparison to the roughly 146,000-voter edge they saw at this point in 2008. African-Americans were 16% of the early voting electorate that year, but they're only about 13% of the electorate so far in 2016. An overwhelming majority of black voters in Florida are registered with the Democratic Party.0 -
Florida and Texas did seceede in 1861. It didn't end well.justin124 said:
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.viewcode said:
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.SandyRentool said:
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?0 -
Clinton lags in N. Carolina compared with 2012
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/north-carolina-early-voting-2016/index.html
And this is CNN
Teehee! The wicked witch of the south is shrivelling in the winds of autumn.0 -
The only percentage figure that matters is Jill Stein < 1%.
I am deeply worried this http://votecastr.us is going to let a bunch of west coast hippies vote Stein because the election is locked up for Clinton.0 -
But I don't recall either state being part of the Civil War!foxinsoxuk said:
Florida and Texas did seceede in 1861. It didn't end well.justin124 said:
In practical terms,however, if the people of Texas, California or Florida decided to break away to become independent, could the rest of the USA do much about it? A denial of selfdetermination would hardly look good to the rest of the world.viewcode said:
If memory serves, the Republic of Texas entered the Union with something in writing saying it could leave (or convert itself to up to four states) if it wanted. However, post-Civil War the legal status is that it just can't, tough titty.SandyRentool said:
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?0 -
Obama extended his lead on the day.Pulpstar said:Florida:
Right now, registered Democrats are ahead by about 7,200 votes. That pales in comparison to the roughly 146,000-voter edge they saw at this point in 2008. African-Americans were 16% of the early voting electorate that year, but they're only about 13% of the electorate so far in 2016. An overwhelming majority of black voters in Florida are registered with the Democratic Party.
What I think we can say is that it's close.0 -
No, the original treaty between the US and Texas called for Texas to be annexed as territory which from which up to five states could be admitted. The treaty was rejected by the Senate and in the end Texas was admitted by Congressional joint resolution as a state. It has no more or less right to divide itself as any other state, and any such division would have to be approved by Congress.TheScreamingEagles said:
Nope, it has the right to divide into multiple states within the United StatesSandyRentool said:
I thought that Texas was the only state with a right to leave?TheScreamingEagles said:
Actually there are strong legal arguments that no American state can secede from the United States. Once you join, you can never leave.SandyRentool said:
Does the US Constitution have an Article 50?weejonnie said:
Isn't there a two-year period of negotiation of transfer of power?AndyJS said:"Queen Offers To Restore British Rule Over United States
Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
“This two-hundred-and-forty-year experiment in self-rule began with the best of intentions, but I think we can all agree that it didn’t end well,” she said.
The Queen urged Americans to write in her name on Election Day, after which the transition to British rule could begin “with a minimum of bother.”
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/queen-offers-to-restore-british-rule-over-united-states0 -
Hoping for some early Trump victories or would that spoil your other bets?Alistair said:The only percentage figure that matters is Jill Stein < 1%.
I am deeply worried this http://votecastr.us is going to let a bunch of west coast hippies vote Stein because the election is locked up for Clinton.0 -
That will have no effect on the EC votes thoughAlistair said:The only percentage figure that matters is Jill Stein < 1%.
I am deeply worried this http://votecastr.us is going to let a bunch of west coast hippies vote Stein because the election is locked up for Clinton.0 -
Pender, Craven, New Hanover and Onslow are now GOP in the early voting rather than Democrat.MikeK said:Clinton lags in N. Carolina compared with 2012
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/north-carolina-early-voting-2016/index.html
And this is CNN
Teehee! The wicked witch of the south is shrivelling in the winds of autumn.
McDowell, Henderson too (West)
(Southeast)
0 -
Exactly. People voting Stein as they don't need to vote Hillary to make sure she stop Trump. I don't care about EC, I'm on Jill Stein sub 1% vote share @ the ludicrous generous 4/1 Paddy is offering. I have a touch of insurance at 1%-2% but still lose £22.50 if that happens. Nightmare if it goes over 2%.RobD said:
That will have no effect on the EC votes thoughAlistair said:The only percentage figure that matters is Jill Stein < 1%.
I am deeply worried this http://votecastr.us is going to let a bunch of west coast hippies vote Stein because the election is locked up for Clinton.
I want that conspiracy loon anti-vax-courting nutter to get 0%.0 -
I tell you...the amount of posts on pbCOM picking through early voting, ethnic breakdowns, bla, bla, bla.......you are like Shakespeares witches, looking at the tea leaves. I am non the wiser from all this early voting because everyone here has a different opinion and a different evidence source to back them up....TheWhiteRabbit said:
Obama extended his lead on the day.Pulpstar said:Florida:
Right now, registered Democrats are ahead by about 7,200 votes. That pales in comparison to the roughly 146,000-voter edge they saw at this point in 2008. African-Americans were 16% of the early voting electorate that year, but they're only about 13% of the electorate so far in 2016. An overwhelming majority of black voters in Florida are registered with the Democratic Party.
What I think we can say is that it's close.
0 -
Ah, sorry, you were talking about your position!Alistair said:
Exactly. People voting Stein as they don't need to vote Hillary to make sure she stop Trump. I don't care about EC, I'm on Jill Stein sub 1% vote share @ the ludicrous generous 4/1 Paddy is offering. I have a touch of insurance at 1%-2% but still lose £22.50 if that happens. Nightmare if it goes over 2%.RobD said:
That will have no effect on the EC votes thoughAlistair said:The only percentage figure that matters is Jill Stein < 1%.
I am deeply worried this http://votecastr.us is going to let a bunch of west coast hippies vote Stein because the election is locked up for Clinton.
I want that conspiracy loon anti-vax-courting nutter to get 0%.0 -
Agreed.YellowSubmarine said:
With a 5 year freeze on indexing benefits and Brexit inflation coming due to the Brexit devaluation it will be the very poorest who'll have the smile wiped off their faces. In my view using poor communities you never cared about to win for Leave is less problematic than using poor communities you did care about to win for Leave. Doubtless Sandy Rentool and Rochdale Pioneers will think the ESA claimant struggling to heat more than one room next winter or a family unable to replace a broken washing machine as well as feed the kids will be experiencing false consciousness. After all they will have taken back control.Jobabob said:
No it didn't work, and in fact backfired on the sinister left-nationalists of Labour Leave by engendering sympathy for the Tories' Remainer wing among moderate europhile Labourites. Rentool's rabble have reaped what they have sewn in so many ways.Stark_Dawning said:
Didn't really work though did it? Osborne in particular seems like a man reborn.SandyRentool said:
However, the Labour Leave campaign message to vote Leave in order to 'wipe the smiles' from Cam and Ozzie's faces did help to persuade a tranche of Labourites to vote Leave.tyson said:
SNIPSean_F said:
Where do you get the impression I want Trump to win?tyson said:
I wouldn't waste your breath Yellow......Sean wants Trump to win, so he's hardly going to be remotely persuaded by the nuances of your points.YellowSubmarine said:
SNIPSean_F said:
Why do we require a trade deal with India?Stark_Dawning said:Terrible headlines for May in tonight's Evening Standard. Gist is that Brexit requires a trade deal with India; India won't do one without increased immigration; ergo Brexit necessitates an increase in immigration. From India. Leave need to play this very carefully with the WCC. This isn't what they voted for at all. There will be cries of 'betrayal'.
But then what do you expect from someone who boasted on here about pushing letters through people's doors telling they'd get £350m a week for the NHS, despite knowing that the bilge he was spreading was a bare-faced, flat lie?
There is a special place in Hell in my view , not for genuine 'Kippers , but for the voguish Lexiters. They should have and nearly all of them did know better but did it anyway.0 -
There is no equivalence at all in my mind. I detest Clinton and pretty much all that she stands for in terms of elitist arrogance. But I would campaign for her and vote for her in a heartbeat as long as her opponent is Trump. I am not given to hyperbole when it comes to individuals but I do believe he is genuinely dangerous both for the US and the rest of the world.tyson said:
My apologies. I have seen enough posts though of people who are all invariably right leaning, who have tried to draw equivalence between the two...and I have seen that for what is; namely Clinton haters who put their partisan feeling over and above the wider interests. That is where ideology is dangerous.
But fair play to you Sean....you haven't done that now.
I am massively partisan....but if you gave me the choice of Corbyn or May, or Corbyn or Hammond....I would go for the Tory. I know Corbyn would be utterly useless, and wouldn't even want to risk the fact that he could be PM.....0 -
Financially my best result is Mike Pence president.0
-
Why are you getting excited by a state Romney won in 2012?MikeK said:Clinton lags in N. Carolina compared with 2012
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/07/politics/north-carolina-early-voting-2016/index.html
And this is CNN
Teehee! The wicked witch of the south is shrivelling in the winds of autumn.
Next you'll be getting overexcited by a poll in Arizona showing Trump winning by 50