What is Dominic Cummings' opinion on Scottish Independence? If he wanted to push people towards it, that's a great way to go about it.
The PM's position is there will be no indyref2 allowed while he is PM, in any case they are still getting their furlough although in my view if Sturgeon or Drakeford do not impose a lockdown at the same time as the rest of the UK they should raise Scottish or Welsh taxes to pay for it
Furlough is a reserved matter. Why should Scottish or Welsh taxes go to subsidise an Enbglish lockdown when the reverse is not permitted?
Why should English taxpayers pay for Scottish and Welsh furlough when England is not in lockdown?
Because the money is UK money. Not English. You're confusing the UK and England yet again.
Quite. If parts of the UK are not willing to support other parts in their time of need what's the point of it? I have no concern there.
Indeed. Thougfh refusing the Mancs and Geordies as well rather shows that the English border is not really the criterion and whining about Scottish etc taxpayers is a smokescreen. Or perhaps Mancs and Geordies aren't human or English and it's only people in the South of England, you know, places like Essex, which really really really are true English when it comes to furlough at full whack.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
Wow that is one of the most jaw droppingly racist things I've ever read on this site. 😲
DAlexander? Hmmmm... isn't Alexander a Greek name?
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton. Assuming: People vote according to their registrations The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%) then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split. Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump) Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
FYI Sumter is at 81% turnout and will likely go higher. Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1
Fake news?
Party Ballots Cast Percent of Ballots Cast Democrat 20,172 23.45% Republican 50,691 58.93% No Party Affiliation 14,584 16.95% Other 575 0.67%
Talking about fascists and identity, my two brothers-in-law used to be soft BNP supporters in their yoof. They also liked the idea of deporting unwanted foreigners. I remember one conversation where I pointed out that as they were quarter Irish half Spanish and were called Rodriguez that they probably should be careful what they wish for and which of Ireland oir Spain did they wish to be deported to.
I couldn't give a monkey's what ethic background British citizens have, what their name is, what their faith is. We are all subject to the same laws and that means not being deported to a country you aren't a citizen of. There is a problem at the moment with Islamic terror as there was Irish terror before them. The solution to the IRA wasn't to arrest people at Holyhead for having Irish names and fitting them up for terror offences, and the solution to ISIS isn't arresting "Mohammad Sidique Khan" for having a Pakistani name.
In a country named after Germanic migrants we really should know better about castigating anyone who looks / sounds foreign. That was us a few millennia ago
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?
Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers.
There's not much of him left to deport....to Leeds....
Yes but for Biden to get the same % lead as Clinton did in 2016, either the unaffiliateds have to split to him at least 60/40 or voters registered as Republicans have to be unfaithful in large numbers. Could be.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
Anyone with the moniker D'Alexander should clearly be sent back to France...
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?
Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers. I thought I'd add that context before Topping gets me banned.
That doesn't change the fact you want to deport a British citizen born in Britain because of his name. 🤦🏻♂️
Out of interest, does anyone know whether Americans’ party “registration” is shown on their electoral roll (assuming they have one)? It’s such an odd concept.
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton. Assuming: People vote according to their registrations The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%) then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split. Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump) Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
FYI Sumter is at 81% turnout and will likely go higher. Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1
Fake news?
Party Ballots Cast Percent of Ballots Cast Democrat 20,172 23.45% Republican 50,691 58.93% No Party Affiliation 14,584 16.95% Other 575 0.67%
I was counting the election day votes only and the ratio, which was nearly 5 to 1 for Republicans.
Honestly itd be hilarious if Biden wins, not even by much, and Trump shocked everyone by reacting gracefully.
Wont happen, his schtick is no act, as seems to have shocked many who worked for him, but it would be amusing to see his supporters' reaction to gracefully defeat
Still, I'm a Biden better, as someone coined it, so no chickens counted.
I had this bizarre dream last night of that actually happening. He called Biden to concede, warned him that it would be a difficult ride, and wished him well.
Of course, there is zero chance of that happening!
I have vague memories of Machiavelli saying that people who correct a flaw usually jump too far in the other direction and make the opposite mistake. Suspect this is just nervousness based on what happened last time.
I have vague memories of Machiavelli saying that people who correct a flaw usually jump too far in the other direction and make the opposite mistake. Suspect this is just nervousness based on what happened last time.
I think so too. Also I have been targetted with popup ads pointing out the Clinton/Trump odds last time out encouraging me/anyone else with a suitable browser history to have a punt on him.
Shit, my name Irish, I don't think that passes muster either.
Is it one of those Irish names that is spelt nothing like it sounds?
Because I'm all in favour of deporting people like that?
I had an employee called 'Kiva' but spelt 'Caoimhe'
That was a bloody nightmare.
That's only becausde your eddication isn't broad enough. You can pronounce French. What's wrong with the Gaelic?
As a rootless cosmopolitan I can speak seven languages, all of them have some sort of logic, including the French with their plethora of things like accent aigus, Gaelic has no logic.
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton. Assuming: People vote according to their registrations The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%) then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split. Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump) Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
FYI Sumter is at 81% turnout and will likely go higher. Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1
Fake news?
Party Ballots Cast Percent of Ballots Cast Democrat 20,172 23.45% Republican 50,691 58.93% No Party Affiliation 14,584 16.95% Other 575 0.67%
He's talking about election day votes only, it's currently 67.27% Rep to 14.39% for the Dems. So at 4.8 to 1
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton. Assuming: People vote according to their registrations The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%) then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split. Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump) Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
FYI Sumter is at 81% turnout and will likely go higher. Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1
Fake news?
Party Ballots Cast Percent of Ballots Cast Democrat 20,172 23.45% Republican 50,691 58.93% No Party Affiliation 14,584 16.95% Other 575 0.67%
I was counting the election day votes only and the ratio, which was nearly 5 to 1 for Republicans.
Shit, my name Irish, I don't think that passes muster either.
Is it one of those Irish names that is spelt nothing like it sounds?
Because I'm all in favour of deporting people like that?
I had an employee called 'Kiva' but spelt 'Caoimhe'
That was a bloody nightmare.
That's only becausde your eddication isn't broad enough. You can pronounce French. What's wrong with the Gaelic?
As a rootless cosmopolitan I can speak seven languages, all of them have some sort of logic, including the French with their plethora of things like accent aigus, Gaelic has no logic.
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton. Assuming: People vote according to their registrations The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%) then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split. Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump) Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
FYI Sumter is at 81% turnout and will likely go higher. Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1
Fake news?
Party Ballots Cast Percent of Ballots Cast Democrat 20,172 23.45% Republican 50,691 58.93% No Party Affiliation 14,584 16.95% Other 575 0.67%
I was counting the election day votes only and the ratio, which was nearly 5 to 1 for Republicans.
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton. Assuming: People vote according to their registrations The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%) then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split. Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump) Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
FYI Sumter is at 81% turnout and will likely go higher. Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1
Fake news?
Party Ballots Cast Percent of Ballots Cast Democrat 20,172 23.45% Republican 50,691 58.93% No Party Affiliation 14,584 16.95% Other 575 0.67%
I was counting the election day votes only and the ratio, which was nearly 5 to 1 for Republicans.
But you are right, I should have made that clear
AND...it's 9.18am in Florida. Over to PB.com where the election day votes have already been counted.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
Wow that is one of the most jaw droppingly racist things I've ever read on this site. 😲
DAlexander? Hmmmm... isn't Alexander a Greek name?
D'Alexander sounds suspiciously French to me.
Get the tumbrils rolling for the great purge.
Hmmmmm... "Foxy" sounds sufficiently Aesopian to me that we should be deporting you to Greece. Any particular resort you prefer?
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?
Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers. I thought I'd add that context before Topping gets me banned.
That doesn't change the fact you want to deport a British citizen born in Britain because of his name. 🤦🏻♂️
This is getting ridiculous.
I wanted to deport him because he committed a terrorist act not because of his name.
But as someone has just pointed out...there's not much left of him to deport.
This game of trying to twist peoples' words so you can shout racist at them for instead of coming up with a reasonable counter-argument is incredibly tedious now.
Denmark are doing it, it's really not that outrageous. And maybe those people killed yesterday would still be alive now (not that actual real people matter when there's a chance to score points off people you don't know on the internet).
Although so many votes wont be counted in crucial swing states until after today (due to the postal vote rules in some states) , one early result I'll be looking at is Sumpter County in FL (home of the Village and the older group that traditionally vote heavily R) I think about 80% of all reg voters there have early voted and FL rules mean those votes will have been counted. So I'd expect that county's results not too long after polls close. In 2016 Trump won 68% to 29% or so there. If he's in similar shape this time its a good indicator that he's doing well in FL . On the other hand if he's in the low 60s he could well be in trouble in the state as it would indicate a chunk of older voters have deserted him. It's only one indicator but most agree that if Trump loses FL hes pretty much done. So this might be an early indicator of how FL is looking, on the other hand,,,,it might be 66/34 and tell us , not much at all
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton. Assuming: People vote according to their registrations The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%) then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split. Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump) Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
FYI Sumter is at 81% turnout and will likely go higher. Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1
Fake news?
Party Ballots Cast Percent of Ballots Cast Democrat 20,172 23.45% Republican 50,691 58.93% No Party Affiliation 14,584 16.95% Other 575 0.67%
He's talking about election day votes only, it's currently 67.27% Rep to 14.39% for the Dems. So at 4.8 to 1
He didn't write that though – seriously misleading on a betting site.
Shit, my name Irish, I don't think that passes muster either.
Is it one of those Irish names that is spelt nothing like it sounds?
Because I'm all in favour of deporting people like that?
I had an employee called 'Kiva' but spelt 'Caoimhe'
That was a bloody nightmare.
That's only becausde your eddication isn't broad enough. You can pronounce French. What's wrong with the Gaelic?
As a rootless cosmopolitan I can speak seven languages, all of them have some sort of logic, including the French with their plethora of things like accent aigus, Gaelic has no logic.
Oh, why do you think that? Seriously?
Probably because I've tried to learn to speak Gaelic.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?
Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers. I thought I'd add that context before Topping gets me banned.
That doesn't change the fact you want to deport a British citizen born in Britain because of his name. 🤦🏻♂️
This is getting ridiculous.
I wanted to deport him because he committed a terrorist act not because of his name.
But as someone has just pointed out...there's not much left of him to deport.
This game of trying to twist peoples' words so you can shout racist at them for instead of coming up with a reasonable counter-argument is incredibly tedious now.
Denmark are doing it, it's really not that outrageous. And maybe those people killed yesterday would still be alive now (not that actual real people matter when there's a chance to score points off people you don't know on the internet).
Then why did you make such a point of his name not sounding "native English". Why not simply say that if at all possible he should have been deported? It's the use of the phrase "native English" that outs you.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
Oh! We're using peoples' names to determine whether they are English. Are you being serious?
Wow that is one of the most jaw droppingly racist things I've ever read on this site. 😲
DAlexander? Hmmmm... isn't Alexander a Greek name?
D'Alexander sounds suspiciously French to me.
Get the tumbrils rolling for the great purge.
Hmmmmm... "Foxy" sounds sufficiently Aesopian to me that we should be deporting you to Greece. Any particular resort you prefer?
Lieutenant George : Smithy, you haven't seen any suspicious characters hanging around have you, who might be German spies? Brigadier Smith : Nein. Lieutenant George : Nine! Well, the cap's got his work cut out, then.
Being slightly sceptical here but let's say you wanted to discredit Trump - surely this is the sort of thing you would do?
Always defending the bigots, why am I not surprised.
I'd watch your words @TSE. I'm not defending any bigots. What I am questioning is "cui bono" this is.
No what you are doing is wheeling out the Trumpton "Fake News" response to any inconvenient fact. It's so predictable I think I could have guessed how long it would be before one of you came out with it.
Honestly itd be hilarious if Biden wins, not even by much, and Trump shocked everyone by reacting gracefully.
Wont happen, his schtick is no act, as seems to have shocked many who worked for him, but it would be amusing to see his supporters' reaction to gracefully defeat
Still, I'm a Biden better, as someone coined it, so no chickens counted.
I had this bizarre dream last night of that actually happening. He called Biden to concede, warned him that it would be a difficult ride, and wished him well.
Of course, there is zero chance of that happening!
The thing with Trump is he can actually be like that e.g. death of RBG. Most of time, Trump is totally predictable with his reactions, but from time to time he can shock with sounding decent.
Shit, my name Irish, I don't think that passes muster either.
Is it one of those Irish names that is spelt nothing like it sounds?
Because I'm all in favour of deporting people like that?
I had an employee called 'Kiva' but spelt 'Caoimhe'
That was a bloody nightmare.
That's only becausde your eddication isn't broad enough. You can pronounce French. What's wrong with the Gaelic?
As a rootless cosmopolitan I can speak seven languages, all of them have some sort of logic, including the French with their plethora of things like accent aigus, Gaelic has no logic.
Oh, why do you think that? Seriously?
Probably because I've tried to learn to speak Gaelic.
And yet I have this Gaelic grammar in the bookcase downstairs, so it certainly has its logic!
George MacDonald Fraser pointed out that no-one familiar with the Scottish border would have been surprised by the way Nixon behaved. The Nixons were exported to Ireland, en-masse, as part of the shutting down of the border feuding system. Their reputation was somewhat.... er... tricky?
Honestly itd be hilarious if Biden wins, not even by much, and Trump shocked everyone by reacting gracefully.
Wont happen, his schtick is no act, as seems to have shocked many who worked for him, but it would be amusing to see his supporters' reaction to gracefully defeat
Still, I'm a Biden better, as someone coined it, so no chickens counted.
I had this bizarre dream last night of that actually happening. He called Biden to concede, warned him that it would be a difficult ride, and wished him well.
Of course, there is zero chance of that happening!
The thing with Trump is he can actually be like that e.g. death of RBG. Most of time, Trump is totally predictable with his reactions, but from time to time he can shock with sounding decent.
He practically jumped into RBG's grave with glee at the fact that she had died so he could nominate a Justice.
If he does lose (which I expect), Trump TV is going to be yuuuuuuge...i mean look at the numbers the second rate surrogates like Hannity do, when his fans can have the real deal on 5 nights a week.
The deal for no prison will preclude him doing this sort of stuff.
Honestly itd be hilarious if Biden wins, not even by much, and Trump shocked everyone by reacting gracefully.
Wont happen, his schtick is no act, as seems to have shocked many who worked for him, but it would be amusing to see his supporters' reaction to gracefully defeat
Still, I'm a Biden better, as someone coined it, so no chickens counted.
I had this bizarre dream last night of that actually happening. He called Biden to concede, warned him that it would be a difficult ride, and wished him well.
Of course, there is zero chance of that happening!
The thing with Trump is he can actually be like that e.g. death of RBG. Most of time, Trump is totally predictable with his reactions, but from time to time he can shock with sounding decent.
He practically jumped into RBG's grave with glee at the fact that she had died so he could nominate a Justice.
No, his piece to camera was decent. Shockingly so for Trump.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.
No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.
It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated
He’s not a Republican. He’s not a conservative, he has been ripping out the tree roots, the platform of fiscal responsibility, friends abroad, respect for law, republicans have fought and won on for decades, in order to shift the tree to blood and soil nationalism.
The GOP are now Wise to him. They are ready to move on him, just a matter of hours now.
If you genuinely believe what you have written, the tone of Moscow Mitch and Liz Cheney on 4th November is going to shock you.
I wanted to deport him because he committed a terrorist act not because of his name.
But as someone has just pointed out...there's not much left of him to deport.
This game of trying to twist peoples' words so you can shout racist at them for instead of coming up with a reasonable counter-argument is incredibly tedious now.
Denmark are doing it, it's really not that outrageous. And maybe those people killed yesterday would still be alive now (not that actual real people matter when there's a chance to score points off people you don't know on the internet).
Let's make this very simple so that even you can understand it.
Mansour was Moroccan. He was granted Danish citizenship as an adult. Denmark revoked his citizenship and expelled him. That is *entirely* different to what you are suggesting which is to deport citizens who having been born here have no prior citizenship anywhere else.
You can't 'send them back where they came from' when that is Leeds. If British citizens commit crimes in Britain then their treatment is one for Britain to deal with.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?
Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers. I thought I'd add that context before Topping gets me banned.
That doesn't change the fact you want to deport a British citizen born in Britain because of his name. 🤦🏻♂️
This is getting ridiculous.
I wanted to deport him because he committed a terrorist act not because of his name.
But as someone has just pointed out...there's not much left of him to deport.
This game of trying to twist peoples' words so you can shout racist at them for instead of coming up with a reasonable counter-argument is incredibly tedious now.
Denmark are doing it, it's really not that outrageous. And maybe those people killed yesterday would still be alive now (not that actual real people matter when there's a chance to score points off people you don't know on the internet).
Then why did you make such a point of his name not sounding "native English". Why not simply say that if at all possible he should have been deported? It's the use of the phrase "native English" that outs you.
Oh geez more mock outrage, it is literally endless.
While people are more agitated over trying to find non-existent racism in posts rather than actual people getting machined gunned or beheaded on the streets, any discussion on this is completely pointless.
It's just never-ending accusations of racism from halfwits.
Honestly itd be hilarious if Biden wins, not even by much, and Trump shocked everyone by reacting gracefully.
Wont happen, his schtick is no act, as seems to have shocked many who worked for him, but it would be amusing to see his supporters' reaction to gracefully defeat
Still, I'm a Biden better, as someone coined it, so no chickens counted.
I had this bizarre dream last night of that actually happening. He called Biden to concede, warned him that it would be a difficult ride, and wished him well.
Of course, there is zero chance of that happening!
The thing with Trump is he can actually be like that e.g. death of RBG. Most of time, Trump is totally predictable with his reactions, but from time to time he can shock with sounding decent.
The time when he paid Hillary Clinton a genuine compliment stood out in the 2016 debates.
Shit, my name Irish, I don't think that passes muster either.
Is it one of those Irish names that is spelt nothing like it sounds?
Because I'm all in favour of deporting people like that?
I had an employee called 'Kiva' but spelt 'Caoimhe'
That was a bloody nightmare.
That's only becausde your eddication isn't broad enough. You can pronounce French. What's wrong with the Gaelic?
As a rootless cosmopolitan I can speak seven languages, all of them have some sort of logic, including the French with their plethora of things like accent aigus, Gaelic has no logic.
Oh, why do you think that? Seriously?
Probably because I've tried to learn to speak Gaelic.
And yet I have this Gaelic grammar in the bookcase downstairs, so it certainly has its logic!
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?
Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers. I thought I'd add that context before Topping gets me banned.
Yes and he was born in Leeds.
We seem to have this precise same conversation on PB every few weeks, usually with the same participants.
Being slightly sceptical here but let's say you wanted to discredit Trump - surely this is the sort of thing you would do?
Always defending the bigots, why am I not surprised.
I'd watch your words @TSE. I'm not defending any bigots. What I am questioning is "cui bono" this is.
No what you are doing is wheeling out the Trumpton "Fake News" response to any inconvenient fact. It's so predictable I think I could have guessed how long it would be before one of you came out with it.
To repeat - again. What I asked was cui bono.
This could be Trump's supporters. What I said was that, if it was, it would be counter-productive given it has been widely publicised and there is a close race in Florida where there are many Jewish voters.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?
Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers. I thought I'd add that context before Topping gets me banned.
That doesn't change the fact you want to deport a British citizen born in Britain because of his name. 🤦🏻♂️
This is getting ridiculous.
I wanted to deport him because he committed a terrorist act not because of his name.
But as someone has just pointed out...there's not much left of him to deport.
This game of trying to twist peoples' words so you can shout racist at them for instead of coming up with a reasonable counter-argument is incredibly tedious now.
Denmark are doing it, it's really not that outrageous. And maybe those people killed yesterday would still be alive now (not that actual real people matter when there's a chance to score points off people you don't know on the internet).
I posted the below on the previous thread in response to you @DAlexander However I suspect the post is pointless. I couple of days ago I challenged you and @contrarian to actually come out with what you really think about stuff. The pair of you are blatantly holding back on the keyboard but I think most of us can clearly see what your views really are on stuff, but it would be good to really hear it. I suspect most Conservatives on this site would not want to be associated with your views, but we don't really know until you tell us.
___________________________________
Where do you want to draw the line; parents, grandparents, great grandparents .... Are you going to deport people back to Normandy?
If a person is British they are British. It is of no relevance what their parents are/were.
Just to give you an example of how silly that is I have a friend whose father is Yugoslavian. She was born here and has never been to the Balkans, can't speak the language, has a Mancunian accent and is 66. What would you do with her? She is about as Yugoslavian as I am.
Oh and her name is unpronounceable (a lack of vowels) so clearly not British.
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton. Assuming: People vote according to their registrations The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%) then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split. Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump) Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
FYI Sumter is at 81% turnout and will likely go higher. Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1
Fake news?
Party Ballots Cast Percent of Ballots Cast Democrat 20,172 23.45% Republican 50,691 58.93% No Party Affiliation 14,584 16.95% Other 575 0.67%
He's talking about election day votes only, it's currently 67.27% Rep to 14.39% for the Dems. So at 4.8 to 1
He didn't write that though – seriously misleading on a betting site.
Trump won Sumpter 68/29 in 2016 . If he matches that or is close it will mean hes not losing the older voters in the numbers some were suggesting which will also mean he's very likely to hold the state. On the other hand if he is down around 60-62% there that's not a good sign for him statewide. I don't expect him to be much higher than 68 but it will be interesting to see how the NPAs fall as well
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton. Assuming: People vote according to their registrations The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%) then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split. Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump) Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
FYI Sumter is at 81% turnout and will likely go higher. Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1
Fake news?
Party Ballots Cast Percent of Ballots Cast Democrat 20,172 23.45% Republican 50,691 58.93% No Party Affiliation 14,584 16.95% Other 575 0.67%
He's talking about election day votes only, it's currently 67.27% Rep to 14.39% for the Dems. So at 4.8 to 1
He didn't write that though – seriously misleading on a betting site.
Trump won Sumpter 68/29 in 2016 . If he matches that or is close it will mean hes not losing the older voters in the numbers some were suggesting which will also mean he's very likely to hold the state. On the other hand if he is down around 60-62% there that's not a good sign for him statewide. I don't expect him to be much higher than 68 but it will be interesting to see how the NPAs fall as well
Older GOP voters going Dem over covid will presumably still be registered GOP, so we'll have to wait for the count to know whether they've flipped.
I've just been taking a look at the final POTUS election forecast from Trafalgar Group who, alone, were spot on in 2016 when they predicted a comfortable win for Trump against Clinton. As then, they are again claiming to have identified a clear and significant proportion of "shy trumpsters" who, they claim, will deliver a second term in office for the incumbent as a result of him winning 306 ECVs compared with only 232 for Biden. The half-hour video accompanying their forecast which is in long, laboured and very muddled is intended to impress the viewer with its so-called methodology - but which I found it anything but impressive. Indeed, I was left with the distinct impression that it would be very difficult indeed for Biden to lose this election. This is perhaps best demonstrated by 3 states, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin which have been chalked up as being in the Trump camp, despite the fact that they are all considered to be near certain wins for Biden. These three states have a combined total of 46 Electoral College Votes. Deduct this number from the Red team and add it to the Blue team and as if by magic, Biden becomes the winner by 278 votes to 260 votes. If, by some miracle, Trump were to win one of these three states, there are at least another 4 or 5 which Trafalgar show as being Republican wins, but which virtually every other pollster shows the Democrats winning. God help the U.S. polling industry is all I would add were Trafalgar, against all the odds, to be proved right yet again
Yes but for Biden to get the same % lead as Clinton did in 2016, either the unaffiliateds have to split to him at least 60/40 or voters registered as Republicans have to be unfaithful in large numbers. Could be.
In 2016 Clinton 553,000 Trump 261,000
By party turnoit DEM: 446,000 GOP: 194,000 UNA: 194,000
Honestly itd be hilarious if Biden wins, not even by much, and Trump shocked everyone by reacting gracefully.
Wont happen, his schtick is no act, as seems to have shocked many who worked for him, but it would be amusing to see his supporters' reaction to gracefully defeat
Still, I'm a Biden better, as someone coined it, so no chickens counted.
I had this bizarre dream last night of that actually happening. He called Biden to concede, warned him that it would be a difficult ride, and wished him well.
Of course, there is zero chance of that happening!
The thing with Trump is he can actually be like that e.g. death of RBG. Most of time, Trump is totally predictable with his reactions, but from time to time he can shock with sounding decent.
"Can once in a blue moon shock by sounding decent" - lol.
If Trump loses and Biden only wins narrowly I would certainly expect Trump to run again in 2024.
No other Republican would likely be able to beat him for the nomination and Harris would be an easier opponent for him than Biden and he could paint her as radical left in a way he could not do for the former Vice President, assuming Biden will be too old to run again.
It would take a Biden-Harris landslide of LBJ 1964 levels and Trump to face the worst GOP defeat since Goldwater for him to leave the scene even if defeated
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton. Assuming: People vote according to their registrations The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%) then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split. Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump) Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
FYI Sumter is at 81% turnout and will likely go higher. Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1
Fake news?
Party Ballots Cast Percent of Ballots Cast Democrat 20,172 23.45% Republican 50,691 58.93% No Party Affiliation 14,584 16.95% Other 575 0.67%
He's talking about election day votes only, it's currently 67.27% Rep to 14.39% for the Dems. So at 4.8 to 1
He didn't write that though – seriously misleading on a betting site.
Trump won Sumpter 68/29 in 2016 . If he matches that or is close it will mean hes not losing the older voters in the numbers some were suggesting which will also mean he's very likely to hold the state. On the other hand if he is down around 60-62% there that's not a good sign for him statewide. I don't expect him to be much higher than 68 but it will be interesting to see how the NPAs fall as well
If he's down to 60% in Sumpter then it is all over.
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton. Assuming: People vote according to their registrations The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%) then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split. Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump) Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
FYI Sumter is at 81% turnout and will likely go higher. Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1
Fake news?
Party Ballots Cast Percent of Ballots Cast Democrat 20,172 23.45% Republican 50,691 58.93% No Party Affiliation 14,584 16.95% Other 575 0.67%
He's talking about election day votes only, it's currently 67.27% Rep to 14.39% for the Dems. So at 4.8 to 1
He didn't write that though – seriously misleading on a betting site.
When you pointed it out @Anabobazina I corrected that I should have said it was early day votes more explicitly.
However, the sentence i Wrote was "Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1"
So it would have not taken too much to work out I was talking about in-person votes today.
I don't think you really this is misleading, I think you are just trying to create issues for someone whose political views you disagree with. Rather distasteful and, I would argue, seriously misleading for a betting site.
This is remarkable (or maybe y'all knew about it already) - you can look at Florida voting patterns in real time. This for example is Pinellas country, which in 2016 split pretty much evenly Trump/Clinton. You can see the registered Dem early advantage, but more GOP-registered voting today:
Last time, Pinellas County went 50.6% Trump, 49.4% Clinton. Assuming: People vote according to their registrations The unaffliated split 50/50 Trump/Biden The turnout is 77% (last time was 77%) then the result in this county would be 50.8% Trump, 49.2% Biden (basically same as last time)
It is very sensitive to turnout and unaffiliated split. Turnout of 80% gives 51.4% Trump 48.6% Biden (as voters on the day favour Trump) Unaffliated split 40/60 Trump/Biden and 80% turnout gives 49.0% Trump, 51.0% Biden.
My feel on this small amount of data on just one county in Florida is that it favours Trump holding Florida.
FYI Sumter is at 81% turnout and will likely go higher. Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1
Fake news?
Party Ballots Cast Percent of Ballots Cast Democrat 20,172 23.45% Republican 50,691 58.93% No Party Affiliation 14,584 16.95% Other 575 0.67%
He's talking about election day votes only, it's currently 67.27% Rep to 14.39% for the Dems. So at 4.8 to 1
He didn't write that though – seriously misleading on a betting site.
Trump won Sumpter 68/29 in 2016 . If he matches that or is close it will mean hes not losing the older voters in the numbers some were suggesting which will also mean he's very likely to hold the state. On the other hand if he is down around 60-62% there that's not a good sign for him statewide. I don't expect him to be much higher than 68 but it will be interesting to see how the NPAs fall as well
Older GOP voters going Dem over covid will presumably still be registered GOP, so we'll have to wait for the count to know whether they've flipped.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?
Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers. I thought I'd add that context before Topping gets me banned.
That doesn't change the fact you want to deport a British citizen born in Britain because of his name. 🤦🏻♂️
This is getting ridiculous.
I wanted to deport him because he committed a terrorist act not because of his name.
But as someone has just pointed out...there's not much left of him to deport.
This game of trying to twist peoples' words so you can shout racist at them for instead of coming up with a reasonable counter-argument is incredibly tedious now.
Denmark are doing it, it's really not that outrageous. And maybe those people killed yesterday would still be alive now (not that actual real people matter when there's a chance to score points off people you don't know on the internet).
I posted the below on the previous thread in response to you @DAlexander However I suspect the post is pointless. I couple of days ago I challenged you and @contrarian to actually come out with what you really think about stuff. The pair of you are blatantly holding back on the keyboard but I think most of us can clearly see what your views really are on stuff, but it would be good to really hear it. I suspect most Conservatives on this site would not want to be associated with your views, but we don't really know until you tell us.
___________________________________
Where do you want to draw the line; parents, grandparents, great grandparents .... Are you going to deport people back to Normandy?
If a person is British they are British. It is of no relevance what their parents are/were.
Just to give you an example of how silly that is I have a friend whose father is Yugoslavian. She was born here and has never been to the Balkans, can't speak the language, has a Mancunian accent and is 66. What would you do with her? She is about as Yugoslavian as I am.
Oh and her name is unpronounceable (a lack of vowels) so clearly not British.
The solution is simple - there is nothing we can do to unpick the horrendous mistake of allowing mass immigration from Islamic countries to Europe, so we will have to put up with the consequences of it.
Where do you want to draw the line; parents, grandparents, great grandparents .... Are you going to deport people back to Normandy?
If a person is British they are British. It is of no relevance what their parents are/were.
Just to give you an example of how silly that is I have a friend whose father is Yugoslavian. She was born here and has never been to the Balkans, can't speak the language, has a Mancunian accent and is 66. What would you do with her? She is about as Yugoslavian as I am.
Oh and her name is unpronounceable (a lack of vowels) so clearly not British.
This is getting ridiculous.
What would I do with your friend? Nothing of course as she's not a terrorist!
I honestly wonder if people are actually capable of reading, I think on certain subjects it is clear that they are not.
Anyway I'm not going to comment on this anymore as it is cluttering up the site on election day (I tried to confine it to the other thread for this very reason, but of course Topping when he thought he found a gotcha went pasting it on this one too to try and shame me like all good lefties do).
I've just been taking a look at the final POTUS election forecast from Trafalgar Group who, alone, were spot on in 2016 when they predicted a comfortable win for Trump against Clinton. As then, they are again claiming to have identified a clear and significant proportion of "shy trumpsters" who, they claim, will deliver a second term in office for the incumbent as a result of him winning 306 ECVs compared with only 232 for Biden. The half-hour video accompanying their forecast which is in long, laboured and very muddled is intended to impress the viewer with its so-called methodology - but which I found it anything but impressive. Indeed, I was left with the distinct impression that it would be very difficult indeed for Biden to lose this election. This is perhaps best demonstrated by 3 states, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin which have been chalked up as being in the Trump camp, despite the fact that they are all considered to be near certain wins for Biden. These three states have a combined total of 46 Electoral College Votes. Deduct this number from the Red team and add it to the Blue team and as if by magic, Biden becomes the winner by 278 votes to 260 votes. If, by some miracle, Trump were to win one of these three states, there are at least another 4 or 5 which Trafalgar show as being Republican wins, but which virtually every other pollster shows the Democrats winning. God help the U.S. polling industry is all I would add were Trafalgar, against all the odds, to be proved right yet again
I think we need to sit you in a room with a certain poster on here and video your discussion re Trafalgar.
I wonder what will happen to the lincoln project after Trump loses?
I imagine they'll want to take back the GOP.
Betting tip. If it only takes GOP eight years to recover from this nadir, Liz Cheney stands a chance to be next Republican President. What odds do you have today?
No wonder Moscow Mitch been looking so uncomfortable the last few weeks, he’s the guy who has to press the button under the table summoning the praetorian guard.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?
Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers. I thought I'd add that context before Topping gets me banned.
That doesn't change the fact you want to deport a British citizen born in Britain because of his name. 🤦🏻♂️
This is getting ridiculous.
I wanted to deport him because he committed a terrorist act not because of his name.
But as someone has just pointed out...there's not much left of him to deport.
This game of trying to twist peoples' words so you can shout racist at them for instead of coming up with a reasonable counter-argument is incredibly tedious now.
Denmark are doing it, it's really not that outrageous. And maybe those people killed yesterday would still be alive now (not that actual real people matter when there's a chance to score points off people you don't know on the internet).
I posted the below on the previous thread in response to you @DAlexander However I suspect the post is pointless. I couple of days ago I challenged you and @contrarian to actually come out with what you really think about stuff. The pair of you are blatantly holding back on the keyboard but I think most of us can clearly see what your views really are on stuff, but it would be good to really hear it. I suspect most Conservatives on this site would not want to be associated with your views, but we don't really know until you tell us.
___________________________________
Where do you want to draw the line; parents, grandparents, great grandparents .... Are you going to deport people back to Normandy?
If a person is British they are British. It is of no relevance what their parents are/were.
Just to give you an example of how silly that is I have a friend whose father is Yugoslavian. She was born here and has never been to the Balkans, can't speak the language, has a Mancunian accent and is 66. What would you do with her? She is about as Yugoslavian as I am.
Oh and her name is unpronounceable (a lack of vowels) so clearly not British.
How does this policy work for people who are half English half foreign country? Is it six months in each, do we split them in two, or seeing as we seem to be going back a hundred years or more in outlook, does the dads nationality take priority?
Yes but for Biden to get the same % lead as Clinton did in 2016, either the unaffiliateds have to split to him at least 60/40 or voters registered as Republicans have to be unfaithful in large numbers. Could be.
In 2016 Clinton 553,000 Trump 261,000
By party turnoit DEM: 446,000 GOP: 194,000 UNA: 194,000
Illustrates my point. Assume the UNA split 50/50 and add 97,000 to each of the DEM and GOP numbers and compare with 2016.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?
Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers. I thought I'd add that context before Topping gets me banned.
That doesn't change the fact you want to deport a British citizen born in Britain because of his name. 🤦🏻♂️
This is getting ridiculous.
I wanted to deport him because he committed a terrorist act not because of his name.
But as someone has just pointed out...there's not much left of him to deport.
This game of trying to twist peoples' words so you can shout racist at them for instead of coming up with a reasonable counter-argument is incredibly tedious now.
Denmark are doing it, it's really not that outrageous. And maybe those people killed yesterday would still be alive now (not that actual real people matter when there's a chance to score points off people you don't know on the internet).
I posted the below on the previous thread in response to you @DAlexander However I suspect the post is pointless. I couple of days ago I challenged you and @contrarian to actually come out with what you really think about stuff. The pair of you are blatantly holding back on the keyboard but I think most of us can clearly see what your views really are on stuff, but it would be good to really hear it. I suspect most Conservatives on this site would not want to be associated with your views, but we don't really know until you tell us.
___________________________________
Where do you want to draw the line; parents, grandparents, great grandparents .... Are you going to deport people back to Normandy?
If a person is British they are British. It is of no relevance what their parents are/were.
Just to give you an example of how silly that is I have a friend whose father is Yugoslavian. She was born here and has never been to the Balkans, can't speak the language, has a Mancunian accent and is 66. What would you do with her? She is about as Yugoslavian as I am.
Oh and her name is unpronounceable (a lack of vowels) so clearly not British.
How does this policy work for people who are half English half foreign country? Is it six months in each, do we split them in two, or seeing as we seem to be going back a hundred years or more in outlook, does the dads nationality take priority?
I think we go for the King Solomon solution. That will teach the bastards for being born half British.
This site will be in absolute turmoil if Trump wins, I can imagine posters needing counselling for PTSD.
I will be mildly surprised, and deeply disappointed in the US public.
Most posters seem to put his chances at 5-25%. Mild surprise is the right outcome in terms of probabilities, very few think he has no chance even if they make Biden extremely good value.
George MacDonald Fraser pointed out that no-one familiar with the Scottish border would have been surprised by the way Nixon behaved. The Nixons were exported to Ireland, en-masse, as part of the shutting down of the border feuding system. Their reputation was somewhat.... er... tricky?
Honestly itd be hilarious if Biden wins, not even by much, and Trump shocked everyone by reacting gracefully.
Wont happen, his schtick is no act, as seems to have shocked many who worked for him, but it would be amusing to see his supporters' reaction to gracefully defeat
Still, I'm a Biden better, as someone coined it, so no chickens counted.
I had this bizarre dream last night of that actually happening. He called Biden to concede, warned him that it would be a difficult ride, and wished him well.
Of course, there is zero chance of that happening!
The thing with Trump is he can actually be like that e.g. death of RBG. Most of time, Trump is totally predictable with his reactions, but from time to time he can shock with sounding decent.
He practically jumped into RBG's grave with glee at the fact that she had died so he could nominate a Justice.
No, his piece to camera was decent. Shockingly so for Trump.
Went to my favourite cafe for an omelette earlier - while we were sitting there an old girl came in, must have been in her eighties. The waitress brought her a cup of coffee over before she had ordered so obv a regular. She chatted with her for about ten mins, mask on. I cant help thinking that a winter lockdown will be very bad for those who don't get out much and go to places like that for a bit of company.
So PB experts, should how much should we read into the on the day Florida vote tallies posted?
That right now, Florida is tighter than a duck's arse.
On current sparse county data I'm calling it for Trump. But on Betfair the money has been going on Biden who has moved from 2.44 to 2.36 in the last half hour.
Where do you want to draw the line; parents, grandparents, great grandparents .... Are you going to deport people back to Normandy?
If a person is British they are British. It is of no relevance what their parents are/were.
Just to give you an example of how silly that is I have a friend whose father is Yugoslavian. She was born here and has never been to the Balkans, can't speak the language, has a Mancunian accent and is 66. What would you do with her? She is about as Yugoslavian as I am.
Oh and her name is unpronounceable (a lack of vowels) so clearly not British.
This is getting ridiculous.
What would I do with your friend? Nothing of course as she's not a terrorist!
I honestly wonder if people are actually capable of reading, I think on certain subjects it is clear that they are not.
Anyway I'm not going to comment on this anymore as it is cluttering up the site on election day (I tried to confine it to the other thread for this very reason, but of course Topping when he thought he found a gotcha went pasting it on this one too to try and shame me like all good lefties do).
OK she has just blown something up. Now what are you going to do with her?
See you didn't respond to a frank disclosure of your views.
As only Corbyn’s luck would have it, he in fact spent the best part of an hour in the company of local activist Stephen Smith, who is currently also suspended by the Labour Party and under investigation after being accused of “antisemitism” on social media. Only days ago Smith shared a cartoon of the Israeli Prime Minister flying an IDF jet which was firing “defamation” missiles at Corbyn.
Now my understanding of the rules are you can leave a higher Tier to a lower Tier to go on holiday.l (but shouldn't make unnecessary journies and especially not to a lower tier in your normal day to day life...yes its dumb as )..but it is very clear you should spend that holiday with just your own household.
I've just been taking a look at the final POTUS election forecast from Trafalgar Group who, alone, were spot on in 2016 when they predicted a comfortable win for Trump against Clinton. As then, they are again claiming to have identified a clear and significant proportion of "shy trumpsters" who, they claim, will deliver a second term in office for the incumbent as a result of him winning 306 ECVs compared with only 232 for Biden. The half-hour video accompanying their forecast which is in long, laboured and very muddled is intended to impress the viewer with its so-called methodology - but which I found it anything but impressive. Indeed, I was left with the distinct impression that it would be very difficult indeed for Biden to lose this election. This is perhaps best demonstrated by 3 states, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin which have been chalked up as being in the Trump camp, despite the fact that they are all considered to be near certain wins for Biden. These three states have a combined total of 46 Electoral College Votes. Deduct this number from the Red team and add it to the Blue team and as if by magic, Biden becomes the winner by 278 votes to 260 votes. If, by some miracle, Trump were to win one of these three states, there are at least another 4 or 5 which Trafalgar show as being Republican wins, but which virtually every other pollster shows the Democrats winning. God help the U.S. polling industry is all I would add were Trafalgar, against all the odds, to be proved right yet again
If Trafalgar had made their case based on Trump losing WI and MI but holding everything else and PA being the genuine tipping point. I could have given them some credence. However simply saying that Trump will overturn a 7/8/9% defecit in the other two states 'because they found more shy trumpers' is just making it up. PA is within the realms of possibly staying red, I dont believe either of the other two are
Yes but for Biden to get the same % lead as Clinton did in 2016, either the unaffiliateds have to split to him at least 60/40 or voters registered as Republicans have to be unfaithful in large numbers. Could be.
In 2016 Clinton 553,000 Trump 261,000
By party turnoit DEM: 446,000 GOP: 194,000 UNA: 194,000
Illustrates my point. Assume the UNA split 50/50 and add 97,000 to each of the DEM and GOP numbers and compare with 2016.
Quite a jump with no change in GOP Now reading DEM: 459,000 GOP: 194,000 UNA: 209,000
Honestly itd be hilarious if Biden wins, not even by much, and Trump shocked everyone by reacting gracefully.
Wont happen, his schtick is no act, as seems to have shocked many who worked for him, but it would be amusing to see his supporters' reaction to gracefully defeat
Still, I'm a Biden better, as someone coined it, so no chickens counted.
I had this bizarre dream last night of that actually happening. He called Biden to concede, warned him that it would be a difficult ride, and wished him well.
Of course, there is zero chance of that happening!
The thing with Trump is he can actually be like that e.g. death of RBG. Most of time, Trump is totally predictable with his reactions, but from time to time he can shock with sounding decent.
He practically jumped into RBG's grave with glee at the fact that she had died so he could nominate a Justice.
No, his piece to camera was decent. Shockingly so for Trump.
Vienna gunman, 20, who killed four and wounded 17 was released early from prison on terror charges because of his age, had wanted to join ISIS in Syria - but 'was deemed incapable of an attack'
FFS this sums up European handling of the problem.
Had they tried to keep him in jail I can imagine all sorts of human rights lawyers taking the government to the cleaners.
You want to defend western democratic values against islamism by ripping up the rule of law, its very foundation?
You my friend may want to think that through.
I could have guessed that you would have supported releasing this bloke to allow him to go on a gun rampage.
I don't want to rip up the rule of law, I want the law changed to stop people like this getting released for a very long time before being deported.
Again, stop putting words in my mouth.
If you want to change the law that's fine, but stop whinging about "human rights lawyers" who are simply ensuring that the Government operates within the law as it currently is.
Why is it wrong to complain about lawyers using every trick to pervert the system?
How is that any different to complaining about aggressive tax avoidance?
Are lawyers perverting the system within the law any better than accountants doing the same?
If someone is lawfully avoiding paying taxes by their accountants using every trick in the book - or if someone is lawfully avoiding deportation by their lawyers using every trick in the book - should governments, campaigners and voters just accept that? Or should they identify the problem and look to fix it by closing the loopholes?
Because this isn't about money, this is about people's liberty.
People like @DAlexander are very quick to criticise but very slow to produce any actual solutions.
If you want to dis-apply the Human Rights Act to "terrorism" suspects you then are into the territory of what constitutes a "terrorist" - is it simply at the whim of the Government? The court? Are you comfortable that your human rights could be similarly taken away, almost on an arbitrary basis?
You may be comfortable with that but people like @DAlexander never want to discuss the hard questions.
The bloke tried to join ISIS, I think it's a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that he should be behind bars.
Forever?
And please note I am not defending this bloke. I'm not defending him whatsoever. I am defending "human rights lawyers".
Until at the very least he's deemed no longer a danger to the public.
The problem isn't lawyers who get involved when there is a clear case of the law not being implemented correctly, but that isn't what happens. There are a group of human rights lawyers who target these particular cases and use every legal loophole and trick in the book to get them out of jail.
Isn't that exactly what happened in this case? He was deemed no longer a danger to the public.
See you don't actually have a solution at all. You just like to whine about "lefty human rights lawyers".
He was released early because of his age.
My solution for Islamic terrorists is jail and then deportation at the end of the sentence.
What about the 7/7 perpetrators. Where in Leeds or Bucks would you have deported them to?
Well for example Mohammad Sidique Khan could be deported back to Pakistan.
Surprised you didn't manage to work out that Mohammad Sidique Khan isn't a native English name.
That's got to be worth a sin-bin surely?
Mohammad Sidique Khan is one of the 7/7 bombers. I thought I'd add that context before Topping gets me banned.
That doesn't change the fact you want to deport a British citizen born in Britain because of his name. 🤦🏻♂️
This is getting ridiculous.
I wanted to deport him because he committed a terrorist act not because of his name.
But as someone has just pointed out...there's not much left of him to deport.
This game of trying to twist peoples' words so you can shout racist at them for instead of coming up with a reasonable counter-argument is incredibly tedious now.
Denmark are doing it, it's really not that outrageous. And maybe those people killed yesterday would still be alive now (not that actual real people matter when there's a chance to score points off people you don't know on the internet).
I posted the below on the previous thread in response to you @DAlexander However I suspect the post is pointless. I couple of days ago I challenged you and @contrarian to actually come out with what you really think about stuff. The pair of you are blatantly holding back on the keyboard but I think most of us can clearly see what your views really are on stuff, but it would be good to really hear it. I suspect most Conservatives on this site would not want to be associated with your views, but we don't really know until you tell us.
___________________________________
Where do you want to draw the line; parents, grandparents, great grandparents .... Are you going to deport people back to Normandy?
If a person is British they are British. It is of no relevance what their parents are/were.
Just to give you an example of how silly that is I have a friend whose father is Yugoslavian. She was born here and has never been to the Balkans, can't speak the language, has a Mancunian accent and is 66. What would you do with her? She is about as Yugoslavian as I am.
Oh and her name is unpronounceable (a lack of vowels) so clearly not British.
The solution is simple - there is nothing we can do to unpick the horrendous mistake of allowing mass immigration from Islamic countries to Europe, so we will have to put up with the consequences of it.
Education, education, education. The more educated people are the more clearly they can see the myths of organised religion contain many falsehoods and that the fundamentalist versions that seek to impose their versions on the rest of the world are extremely dangerous.
Comments
Get the tumbrils rolling for the great purge.
I'm all for booting him out to be honest, he can go as well for all I care. Not that he's ever going to get out, so it's completely irrelevant.
Because I'm all in favour of deporting people like that.
I had an employee called 'Kiva' but spelt 'Caoimhe'
That was a bloody nightmare.
Party Ballots Cast Percent of Ballots Cast
Democrat 20,172 23.45%
Republican 50,691 58.93%
No Party Affiliation 14,584 16.95%
Other 575 0.67%
I couldn't give a monkey's what ethic background British citizens have, what their name is, what their faith is. We are all subject to the same laws and that means not being deported to a country you aren't a citizen of. There is a problem at the moment with Islamic terror as there was Irish terror before them. The solution to the IRA wasn't to arrest people at Holyhead for having Irish names and fitting them up for terror offences, and the solution to ISIS isn't arresting "Mohammad Sidique Khan" for having a Pakistani name.
In a country named after Germanic migrants we really should know better about castigating anyone who looks / sounds foreign. That was us a few millennia ago
But you are right, I should have made that clear
I had this bizarre dream last night of that actually happening. He called Biden to concede, warned him that it would be a difficult ride, and wished him well.
Of course, there is zero chance of that happening!
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1323625727418355714?s=19
I wanted to deport him because he committed a terrorist act not because of his name.
But as someone has just pointed out...there's not much left of him to deport.
This game of trying to twist peoples' words so you can shout racist at them for instead of coming up with a reasonable counter-argument is incredibly tedious now.
Denmark are doing it, it's really not that outrageous. And maybe those people killed yesterday would still be alive now (not that actual real people matter when there's a chance to score points off people you don't know on the internet).
I think about 80% of all reg voters there have early voted and FL rules mean those votes will have been counted. So I'd expect that county's results not too long after polls close.
In 2016 Trump won 68% to 29% or so there. If he's in similar shape this time its a good indicator that he's doing well in FL . On the other hand if he's in the low 60s he could well be in trouble in the state as it would indicate a chunk of older voters have deserted him.
It's only one indicator but most agree that if Trump loses FL hes pretty much done. So this might be an early indicator of how FL is looking, on the other hand,,,,it might be 66/34 and tell us , not much at all
Brigadier Smith : Nein.
Lieutenant George : Nine! Well, the cap's got his work cut out, then.
I'm really quite surprised.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/rz40pni7x9/Copy of BBCNW_GreaterManchesterResults_October2020.pdf
Golf.
https://youtu.be/knlJWu815C0
https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1323607959990054912?s=20
The GOP are now Wise to him. They are ready to move on him, just a matter of hours now.
If you genuinely believe what you have written, the tone of Moscow Mitch and Liz Cheney on 4th November is going to shock you.
Mansour was Moroccan. He was granted Danish citizenship as an adult. Denmark revoked his citizenship and expelled him. That is *entirely* different to what you are suggesting which is to deport citizens who having been born here have no prior citizenship anywhere else.
You can't 'send them back where they came from' when that is Leeds. If British citizens commit crimes in Britain then their treatment is one for Britain to deal with.
While people are more agitated over trying to find non-existent racism in posts rather than actual people getting machined gunned or beheaded on the streets, any discussion on this is completely pointless.
It's just never-ending accusations of racism from halfwits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJlnxbO5N2g
This could be Trump's supporters. What I said was that, if it was, it would be counter-productive given it has been widely publicised and there is a close race in Florida where there are many Jewish voters.
___________________________________
Where do you want to draw the line; parents, grandparents, great grandparents .... Are you going to deport people back to Normandy?
If a person is British they are British. It is of no relevance what their parents are/were.
Just to give you an example of how silly that is I have a friend whose father is Yugoslavian. She was born here and has never been to the Balkans, can't speak the language, has a Mancunian accent and is 66. What would you do with her? She is about as Yugoslavian as I am.
Oh and her name is unpronounceable (a lack of vowels) so clearly not British.
I've just been taking a look at the final POTUS election forecast from Trafalgar Group who, alone, were spot on in 2016 when they predicted a comfortable win for Trump against Clinton.
As then, they are again claiming to have identified a clear and significant proportion of "shy trumpsters" who, they claim, will deliver a second term in office for the incumbent as a result of him winning 306 ECVs compared with only 232 for Biden.
The half-hour video accompanying their forecast which is in long, laboured and very muddled is intended to impress the viewer with its so-called methodology - but which I found it anything but impressive.
Indeed, I was left with the distinct impression that it would be very difficult indeed for Biden to lose this election.
This is perhaps best demonstrated by 3 states, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin which have been chalked up as being in the Trump camp, despite the fact that they are all considered to be near certain wins for Biden. These three states have a combined total of 46 Electoral College Votes. Deduct this number from the Red team and add it to the Blue team and as if by magic, Biden becomes the winner by 278 votes to 260 votes. If, by some miracle, Trump were to win one of these three states, there are at least another 4 or 5 which Trafalgar show as being Republican wins, but which virtually every other pollster shows the Democrats winning.
God help the U.S. polling industry is all I would add were Trafalgar, against all the odds, to be proved right yet again
Clinton 553,000
Trump 261,000
By party turnoit
DEM: 446,000
GOP: 194,000
UNA: 194,000
Exactly.
However, the sentence i Wrote was "Not so many in-person votes yet but Republicans leading Democrats by registration by nearly 5 to 1"
So it would have not taken too much to work out I was talking about in-person votes today.
I don't think you really this is misleading, I think you are just trying to create issues for someone whose political views you disagree with. Rather distasteful and, I would argue, seriously misleading for a betting site.
What would I do with your friend? Nothing of course as she's not a terrorist!
I honestly wonder if people are actually capable of reading, I think on certain subjects it is clear that they are not.
Anyway I'm not going to comment on this anymore as it is cluttering up the site on election day (I tried to confine it to the other thread for this very reason, but of course Topping when he thought he found a gotcha went pasting it on this one too to try and shame me like all good lefties do).
No wonder Moscow Mitch been looking so uncomfortable the last few weeks, he’s the guy who has to press the button under the table summoning the praetorian guard.
Closed some of my hedges for a profit & will try to re-hedge later on.
See you didn't respond to a frank disclosure of your views.
https://order-order.com/2020/11/03/holidaying-corbyn-hangs-out-with-nudist-suspended-from-labour-party-over-antisemitism/
Now my understanding of the rules are you can leave a higher Tier to a lower Tier to go on holiday.l (but shouldn't make unnecessary journies and especially not to a lower tier in your normal day to day life...yes its dumb as )..but it is very clear you should spend that holiday with just your own household.
DEM: 459,000
GOP: 194,000
UNA: 209,000
Since every word that issues from his mouth is more likely a lie than not, I remain unconvinced by its sincerity.