politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The last time Hillary Clinton fought New Hampshire the poll
Comments
-
Farmers?Plato_Says said:Andrew Neil
Best avoid France tomorrow: taxi drivers, farmers, air-traffic controllers and civil servants all set to strike.0 -
This will sound awful, but I'm very good at it. Either cause or redundancy. Let couple of hundred plus go and not a single tribunal. Inc civil service.
Regularly asked to give references. It all boils down to honesty and respect.Tim_B said:
Firing someone for cause is easy, so long as you have your facts and documentation straight.Charles said:
That was my immediate assumption as well!Plato_Says said:When I held two staff meetings to discuss redundancy, one lot were staying. I did a lot of these.
Scott_P said:
@MediaGuido: Guardian company meeting split into two parts - one at 11am, second at 2pm - because they have so many staff https://t.co/3IS4eLyXTAPlato_Says said:Beth Rigby
#Guardian. 2012 @arusbridger announces he has to cut 70-100 jobs to stem losses. Three years to March 2016, Guardian hires 479 staff.
Fortunately I've never had to sack a lot of people. They are pretty horrible conversations to have
The worst thing of all is having to do layoffs. That is simply awful.
Firing someone in France is an adventure of exploration, frustration, danger and excitement0 -
Sounds like your mate is a jinx.Charles said:
I was chatting to someone the other day who has closed down 3 factories in France over the years (for 3 different companies)Tim_B said:
Firing someone for cause is easy, so long as you have your facts and documentation straight.Charles said:
That was my immediate assumption as well!Plato_Says said:When I held two staff meetings to discuss redundancy, one lot were staying. I did a lot of these.
Scott_P said:
@MediaGuido: Guardian company meeting split into two parts - one at 11am, second at 2pm - because they have so many staff https://t.co/3IS4eLyXTAPlato_Says said:Beth Rigby
#Guardian. 2012 @arusbridger announces he has to cut 70-100 jobs to stem losses. Three years to March 2016, Guardian hires 479 staff.
Fortunately I've never had to sack a lot of people. They are pretty horrible conversations to have
The worst thing of all is having to do layoffs. That is simply awful.
Firing someone in France is an adventure of exploration, frustration, danger and excitement
The last time he was summoned for a personal conversation with the Minister of Labour...0 -
They are reaping what they sowed......blackburn63 said:
Farmers?Plato_Says said:Andrew Neil
Best avoid France tomorrow: taxi drivers, farmers, air-traffic controllers and civil servants all set to strike.0 -
Lol, I bet she doesn't realise that the origin of Xe and Xyr are a 4chan joke based on Final Fantasy. These people are delusional.MaxPB said:Plato_Says said:Penny Red is delusional
"Today, gender-neutral pronouns like “they” and “xe” are gradually slipping into common use"
Only in Guardianland.
https://t.co/wHgCqGZCgm
'bae' is the one I've seen slipping in to common usage ...
{Before Anyone Else}0 -
I can believe it. Firing even one person there is a nightmare and takes forever.Charles said:
I was chatting to someone the other day who has closed down 3 factories in France over the years (for 3 different companies)Tim_B said:
Firing someone for cause is easy, so long as you have your facts and documentation straight.Charles said:
That was my immediate assumption as well!Plato_Says said:When I held two staff meetings to discuss redundancy, one lot were staying. I did a lot of these.
Scott_P said:
@MediaGuido: Guardian company meeting split into two parts - one at 11am, second at 2pm - because they have so many staff https://t.co/3IS4eLyXTAPlato_Says said:Beth Rigby
#Guardian. 2012 @arusbridger announces he has to cut 70-100 jobs to stem losses. Three years to March 2016, Guardian hires 479 staff.
Fortunately I've never had to sack a lot of people. They are pretty horrible conversations to have
The worst thing of all is having to do layoffs. That is simply awful.
Firing someone in France is an adventure of exploration, frustration, danger and excitement
The last time he was summoned for a personal conversation with the Minister of Labour...0 -
Interesting article on the bewilderment of the GOP in NH:
They noted the Republicans who have won the New Hampshire primary in recent years: Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush. ... For Trump to really be on the verge of victory, wouldn't that mean the state of New Hampshire somehow had a total political personality transplant in the four years since Romney's victory? Is that really possible?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-gop-fear-and-loathing-in-new-hampshire/article/2581329
0 -
Only been on the receiving end of redundancy once, but it was handled very well and it was obvious to everyone affected that it was necessary as the recession changed the medium term plans of the company. I would go back and work for them tomorrow given the chance.Plato_Says said:This will sound awful, but I'm very good at it. Either cause or redundancy. Let couple of hundred plus go and not a single tribunal. Inc civil service.
Regularly asked to give references. It all boils down to honesty and respect.Tim_B said:
Firing someone for cause is easy, so long as you have your facts and documentation straight.Charles said:
That was my immediate assumption as well!Plato_Says said:When I held two staff meetings to discuss redundancy, one lot were staying. I did a lot of these.
Scott_P said:
@MediaGuido: Guardian company meeting split into two parts - one at 11am, second at 2pm - because they have so many staff https://t.co/3IS4eLyXTAPlato_Says said:Beth Rigby
#Guardian. 2012 @arusbridger announces he has to cut 70-100 jobs to stem losses. Three years to March 2016, Guardian hires 479 staff.
Fortunately I've never had to sack a lot of people. They are pretty horrible conversations to have
The worst thing of all is having to do layoffs. That is simply awful.
Firing someone in France is an adventure of exploration, frustration, danger and excitement0 -
'bae' is the one I've seen slipping in to common usage ...Pulpstar said:
Lol, I bet she doesn't realise that the origin of Xe and Xyr are a 4chan joke based on Final Fantasy. These people are delusional.MaxPB said:Plato_Says said:Penny Red is delusional
"Today, gender-neutral pronouns like “they” and “xe” are gradually slipping into common use"
Only in Guardianland.
https://t.co/wHgCqGZCgm
{Before Anyone Else}
My daughter uses that. I look determinedly puzzled every time.0 -
Anyone who thinks Tory Urgh is just a Corbynista phenomenon
Stephen Bush
Reminded of @debmattinson's excellent book again today. https://t.co/dJA4pRh6RK0 -
They blockade roads and Autoroutes with farm machinery, straw bales, piles of tires. And stand around chatting with the Gendarmes who arrive on scene for show.blackburn63 said:
Farmers?Plato_Says said:Andrew Neil
Best avoid France tomorrow: taxi drivers, farmers, air-traffic controllers and civil servants all set to strike.0 -
And ludicrous. If you give the front runner a clear road while the rest attack each other, there'll only be one outcome.Tim_B said:
Jeb is running anti-Rubio ads here.Pulpstar said:
Trump is the anti-establishment candidate, Cruz is the very right wing conservative choice. Jeb isn't even the establishment 1st choice any more. Poor Jeb.Tim_B said:FPT -
someone mentioned that there are 'moderates in both parties' - after 7 years of Obama the Democrats have moved so far left that moderates are hard to find. The fact that a self-confessed socialist is running under their banner, and the crowds and excitement he generates compared to Clinton's smaller crowds and distinct lack of excitement, tells you all you need to know. That would have been inconceivable in 2008 - one reason that Obama ran with hardly any policies at all other than 'hope and change'. If he'd said how he wanted to change the country he very possibly would not have won. Over 75% of the country thinks Obama is leading it in the wrong direction.
The Republicans have realized that they need to pivot to get more women, blacks and hispanics to vote for them. This year will tell us how far they have succeeded.
The whole 'Trump as right winger thing' puzzles me somewhat. He wants to build a wall - it's popular. He wants limit muslim immigration temporarily until the government figures out what the hell is going on. It's popular, but also unconstitutional. if he changed it to Syrians it'd be a home run.
Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
Trump went to the Wharton School at Penn. He is a very smart, very intelligent man. Do not underestimate him. He could easily monster Bloomberg on a debate stage. Bloomberg is a BIG nanny state fan, and Trump will have much material.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
Sanders said he would not run negative ads about Clinton - but is getting ever closer to the line.
NOBODY is running anti-Trump ads. Almost unprecedented for the front-runner to be not attacked.0 -
Charles (FPT)
'Poll dancers' = Angela Eagle and Diane Abbott
do you mean pole dancers? "
Either I've been spending too much time on this site or you've spent too much time at pole dancing clubs
And knowing you to be a banker the suspect morality that I was talking about wasn't the behaviour of the bankers but the lauding of those who made a fortune betting against them.0 -
This is super satire, or deranged
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12119810/Your-panda-video-is-a-victory-for-Communist-propaganda.html
The Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
0 -
The Labour party here has gone from Tony Blair to Jeremy CorbynRichard_Nabavi said:Interesting article on the bewilderment of the GOP in NH:
They noted the Republicans who have won the New Hampshire primary in recent years: Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush. ... For Trump to really be on the verge of victory, wouldn't that mean the state of New Hampshire somehow had a total political personality transplant in the four years since Romney's victory? Is that really possible?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-gop-fear-and-loathing-in-new-hampshire/article/2581329
0 -
Good afternoon all. For years I thought I didn't like the French. Having spent a good deal of time in the Ariege I realised I was wrong - I simply don't like Parisians.Pulpstar said:
Such a nice country too. Real shame the French live there.rcs1000 said:
I think he could simply have stopped his tweet after the third wordPlato_Says said:Andrew Neil
Best avoid France tomorrow: taxi drivers, farmers, air-traffic controllers and civil servants all set to strike.0 -
Do you not think there's something of an elephant in the room here though? Once the story has become Corbyn not attending then the longer he goes on not attending the longer the story will run and the more that will be made of it. And Corbyn does seem to be deliberately isolating himself from the PLP - the specific plays into the narrative.NickPalmer said:
The idea that the weekly PLP meeting is a regular chance for MPs to fence with the leader is simply wrong: that isn't how the meeting works. It's normally a briefing by one shadow minister on their area, without other members of the Shadow Cabinet present. Otherwise, every discussion on every subject would get sidetracked into a general policy discussion. Tony and Gordon would normally come to a PLP meeting a few times a year to give an overall view.Plato_Says said:Frit 3x in a row
Kevin Schofield
Jeremy Corbyn won't be attending the weekly PLP meeting tonight, I'm told.0 -
The Des Moines Register endorses Clinton and Rubio.
Quelle surprise, as the French farmers would say.
- or would they say 'Zut Alors mon brave!'?0 -
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.Tim_B said:Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.0 -
Voters, as they proved in the last couple of years, are not stupid. They have a pretty good sense of what’s what. When they tune in and work out that Jeremy Corbyn is actively anti-British, Labour will be extremely lucky to get 25% of the vote at the next general election.
http://capx.co/does-jeremy-corbyn-hate-britain/-1 -
Personally, find it difficult to see the Giant Panda as an example of successful evolution. It doesn’t mate easily and eats something which dies off every so often, so the animals starve.Plato_Says said:This is super satire, or deranged
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12119810/Your-panda-video-is-a-victory-for-Communist-propaganda.htmlThe Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
0 -
What is his answer to Trump or Sanders asking "do you want a Wall St insider telling you who to vote for?"rcs1000 said:
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.Tim_B said:Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.0 -
Nor do the French, of course.John_M said:Good afternoon all. For years I thought I didn't like the French. Having spent a good deal of time in the Ariege I realised I was wrong - I simply don't like Parisians.
0 -
Well quite.david_herdson said:
Do you not think there's something of an elephant in the room here though? Once the story has become Corbyn not attending then the longer he goes on not attending the longer the story will run and the more that will be made of it. And Corbyn does seem to be deliberately isolating himself from the PLP - the specific plays into the narrative.NickPalmer said:
The idea that the weekly PLP meeting is a regular chance for MPs to fence with the leader is simply wrong: that isn't how the meeting works. It's normally a briefing by one shadow minister on their area, without other members of the Shadow Cabinet present. Otherwise, every discussion on every subject would get sidetracked into a general policy discussion. Tony and Gordon would normally come to a PLP meeting a few times a year to give an overall view.Plato_Says said:Frit 3x in a row
Kevin Schofield
Jeremy Corbyn won't be attending the weekly PLP meeting tonight, I'm told.0 -
Hillary Clinton is the ultimate Wall Street insider.david_herdson said:
What is his answer to Trump or Sanders asking "do you want a Wall St insider telling you who to vote for?"rcs1000 said:
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.Tim_B said:Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.0 -
Based on my years of punting experience, before hitting "confirm" on the cashout, it's worth reframing the question in your mind.david_herdson said:
The trick there is knowing when to cash out. Same if anyone backed Biden at the triple-digit odds that were available a while ago.Richard_Nabavi said:My £2 on Bloomberg for Prez at 514.8 is not looking like the worst bet in my portfolio!
Do I want to bet AGAINST Biden/Bloomberg/etc at these (new, reduced) odds?
Am I prepared to LOSE £x (potential winnings) if Biden/Bloomberg becomes POTUS?0 -
He loses that share of the population. But it seems to me that's fine: Trump and Sanders are going for the anti-elitist, anti-Wall Street vote. So long as 40% of the population trusts Wall Street he's going to do OK.david_herdson said:
What is his answer to Trump or Sanders asking "do you want a Wall St insider telling you who to vote for?"rcs1000 said:
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.Tim_B said:Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.0 -
I made this error laying Corbyn at 250-1 or so.Pong said:
Reframe the question.david_herdson said:
The trick there is knowing when to cash out. Same if anyone backed Biden at the triple-digit odds that were available a while ago.Richard_Nabavi said:My £2 on Bloomberg for Prez at 514.8 is not looking like the worst bet in my portfolio!
Do I want to bet AGAINST Biden/Bloomberg/etc at these (new, reduced) odds?
Am I prepared to LOSE £x (potential winnings) if Biden/Bloomberg becomes POTUS?0 -
Both teams drifting in odds, as the draw comes in to 2.4.
England are definitely the underdogs from here, but 15.5 seems a little long. Next hour is crucial to the result.0 -
Lol, I bet she doesn't realise that the origin of Xe and Xyr are a 4chan joke based on Final Fantasy. These people are delusional.MaxPB said:Plato_Says said:Penny Red is delusional
"Today, gender-neutral pronouns like “they” and “xe” are gradually slipping into common use"
Only in Guardianland.
https://t.co/wHgCqGZCgm
"stupid posh-kid uniforms"
Even if I were inclined to agree with her, which I'm not particularly, using phrases like that in an article demanding equality for all would put me off
Sounds like she's a victim of 'common people' syndrome... Private school educated desperate to be working class0 -
Stuff we don't see reported on the mainland so often
Mr J
More than 100 petrol bombs thrown at police last night in Lurgan also number of shots fired at them - @PSNICraigavon how many AEP'S FIRED ?0 -
I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.
And I'd high hopes for him.rcs1000 said:
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.Tim_B said:Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.0 -
Pandas used for populist propaganda? The people of Scotland will surely be appalled by thisPlato_Says said:This is super satire, or deranged
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12119810/Your-panda-video-is-a-victory-for-Communist-propaganda.htmlThe Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
0 -
Pandas used for populist propoganda? The people of Scotland will surely be appalled by thisPro_Rata said:
Personally, find it difficult to see the Giant Panda as an example of successful evolution. It doesn’t mate easily and eats something which dies off every so often, so the animals starve.OldKingCole said:Plato_Says said:This is super satire, or deranged
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12119810/Your-panda-video-is-a-victory-for-Communist-propaganda.htmlThe Smithsonian's picture caption went on to admit: "Giant pandas have thick woolly coats that keep them warm in the snowy mountains of China." This is your clue. We all liked to see TianTian rolling in the snow, for sure, but let's not imagine he was giving a vote of approval to the Smithsonian. He wasn't excited about being in a zoo, he was pining for the home for which evolution had prepared him, and from which he has been stolen to serve the purposes of Communist propaganda.
0 -
Does it matter that he's Jewish?rcs1000 said:
He loses that share of the population. But it seems to me that's fine: Trump and Sanders are going for the anti-elitist, anti-Wall Street vote. So long as 40% of the population trusts Wall Street he's going to do OK.david_herdson said:
What is his answer to Trump or Sanders asking "do you want a Wall St insider telling you who to vote for?"rcs1000 said:
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.Tim_B said:Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.0 -
She is the ultimate political insider. Bloomberg still trumps her on Wall St. That said, I deliberately left her out of those I had asking the question as she's too establishment in whatever form to be able to put it credibly.Tim_B said:
Hillary Clinton is the ultimate Wall Street insider.david_herdson said:
What is his answer to Trump or Sanders asking "do you want a Wall St insider telling you who to vote for?"rcs1000 said:
In many ways Trump is a moderate, with a few populist views. He's also deeply cynical: he knows that he cannot force Mexico to pay for a wall, but he knows that if he promises it, it'll keep him in the headline. He knows he cannot prevent *all* Muslims from entering the US, but he knows that by proposing it, it will keep him in the headlines. He knows that he can't - by Presidential edict - force Apple to build factories in the US and move iPhone production there. (Hopefully, he realises that it is Foxconn/Hon Hai that assembles them, but that's another story.) Again: he promises the impossible, knowing that that is what keeps in the headlight, and denudes the other candidates of airtime.Tim_B said:Looking at his record he's been on both sides of most issues over the years, so it's hard to tell just how 'conservative' or not he genuinely is.
The right winger is not Trump, but Cruz.
He is a fabulous and clever self-publicist, who would probably be a surprisingly successful President. But he would also - as much as Obama - endlessly disappoint his supporters. Muslims still able to enter the US... Mexicans not having stumped up for the fall... etc.
I also suspect Bloomberg would not be a great debater. He's a fabulous manager, and a fabulous technocrat. But he's not a bruiser. Trump could well monster him in a debate, as he's monstered everyone else.
But I do think a Bloomberg campaign would be the best funded in US Presidential history. Trump scares traditional pro-business Republican donors. Because for most of them, protectionism is both ethically abhorrent and economically suicidal. They will not contribute to Sanders, and they are sceptical of Hillary. Bloomberg is their ideal candidate.
My source tells me Bloomberg is currently doing the rounds of governors, ex-Vice Presidents and the like, and is looking to collect 100 serious endorsements - split between Democrats and Republicans - for launch. This would be combined with the endorsement of some of the richest and most sucessful people in the US (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, the Google boys???).
We shall see. I think those that dismiss him before he spends many billions on a campaign are being short-sighted.0 -
Not playing, but are you sure ?Sandpit said:
England are definitely the underdogs from here, but 15.5 seems a little long.
332-4 is enourmous in 4th innings terms. With 4 bowlers they probably don't declare before tea.
England gladly take a draw here, which is the other problem.0 -
They blocked the TdF one year and the cyclists all stopped and had a glass of wine with them.watford30 said:
They blockade roads and Autoroutes with farm machinery, straw bales, piles of tires. And stand around chatting with the Gendarmes who arrive on scene for show.blackburn63 said:
Farmers?Plato_Says said:Andrew Neil
Best avoid France tomorrow: taxi drivers, farmers, air-traffic controllers and civil servants all set to strike.0 -
My thinking is that against the four bowlers a few quick runs for England will see that price fall sharply.Pulpstar said:
Not playing, but are you sure ?Sandpit said:
England are definitely the underdogs from here, but 15.5 seems a little long.
332-4 is enourmous in 4th innings terms. With 4 bowlers they probably don't declare before tea.
England gladly take a draw here, which is the other problem.
I don't think we can win from here but nothing's impossible. With SA 200/4, 350 could be a possible chase if they declare too early. With each extra run and extra minute England's small chance gets smaller.0 -
French farmers burning British sheep alive is something I'll neverever forgive.BannedInParis said:
They blocked the TdF one year and the cyclists all stopped and had a glass of wine with them.watford30 said:
They blockade roads and Autoroutes with farm machinery, straw bales, piles of tires. And stand around chatting with the Gendarmes who arrive on scene for show.blackburn63 said:
Farmers?Plato_Says said:Andrew Neil
Best avoid France tomorrow: taxi drivers, farmers, air-traffic controllers and civil servants all set to strike.0 -
@daily_politics: .@RachelReevesMP accuses Labour’s leadership of a “dereliction of duty” by "focusing inwardly" on issues like Trident #bbcdp0
-
Ouch.Pulpstar said:
I made this error laying Corbyn at 250-1 or so.Pong said:
Reframe the question.david_herdson said:
The trick there is knowing when to cash out. Same if anyone backed Biden at the triple-digit odds that were available a while ago.Richard_Nabavi said:My £2 on Bloomberg for Prez at 514.8 is not looking like the worst bet in my portfolio!
Do I want to bet AGAINST Biden/Bloomberg/etc at these (new, reduced) odds?
Am I prepared to LOSE £x (potential winnings) if Biden/Bloomberg becomes POTUS?0 -
And those are very good questions (or perhaps two good ways of putting the same question).Pong said:
Based on my years of punting experience, before hitting "confirm" on the cashout, it's worth reframing the question in your mind.david_herdson said:
The trick there is knowing when to cash out. Same if anyone backed Biden at the triple-digit odds that were available a while ago.Richard_Nabavi said:My £2 on Bloomberg for Prez at 514.8 is not looking like the worst bet in my portfolio!
Do I want to bet AGAINST Biden/Bloomberg/etc at these (new, reduced) odds?
Am I prepared to LOSE £x (potential winnings) if Biden/Bloomberg becomes POTUS?
As I said in my column at the weekend, I think Sanders has taken the value out of Biden's odds. Biden started as first-reserve to Hillary were she to fall under a political bus (or any other, for that matter). However, if Sanders starts winning some states and picking up 30, 35, 40% in others then it becomes far harder for anyone else to be parachuted in, both on practical grounds - Sanders will be picking up delegates with those shares - and on grounds of legitimacy.
For Bloomberg, he's currently best at 40/1 with 10Bet (who they?) or 33/1 with established names. I just don't see the value there and as such should be a layer but a 3% return over 10 months with a 100% capital risk isn't attractive. Firstly, he has to decide to run, then he has to win. The first part is probably still odds-against but the second seems nigh-on impossible. No matter how much money he and others throw at a campaign, he surely just has too many red lights. On top of which - as rcs1000 says downthread - there's a good chance he could be heavily defeated in debates. And that's before all the logistical and political problems a genuine third-party candidate faces (even if he did win some states, the House would surely still back the Democrat or Republican?; he'd have to win the Electoral College outright).0 -
Is tea in 10 minutes ?Sandpit said:
My thinking is that against the four bowlers a few quick runs for England will see that price fall sharply.Pulpstar said:
Not playing, but are you sure ?Sandpit said:
England are definitely the underdogs from here, but 15.5 seems a little long.
332-4 is enourmous in 4th innings terms. With 4 bowlers they probably don't declare before tea.
England gladly take a draw here, which is the other problem.
I don't think we can win from here but nothing's impossible. With SA 200/4, 350 could be a possible chase if they declare too early. With each extra run and extra minute England's small chance gets smaller.
You must be hoping AB does the http://preview.tinyurl.com/declarationteatime right thing.0 -
After backing him at 500s. And obviously rebacked. But laying just because someone drops gives up profits.Pong said:
Ouch.Pulpstar said:
I made this error laying Corbyn at 250-1 or so.Pong said:
Reframe the question.david_herdson said:
The trick there is knowing when to cash out. Same if anyone backed Biden at the triple-digit odds that were available a while ago.Richard_Nabavi said:My £2 on Bloomberg for Prez at 514.8 is not looking like the worst bet in my portfolio!
Do I want to bet AGAINST Biden/Bloomberg/etc at these (new, reduced) odds?
Am I prepared to LOSE £x (potential winnings) if Biden/Bloomberg becomes POTUS?0 -
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.0 -
40 per cent trusting Wall Street might be a lot. At this distance, I get the impression Americans were more likely to blame bankers than the government (or ours) for the financial crisis.rcs1000 said:
He loses that share of the population. But it seems to me that's fine: Trump and Sanders are going for the anti-elitist, anti-Wall Street vote. So long as 40% of the population trusts Wall Street he's going to do OK.
Whether Americans, American businesses or Republicans find protectionism abhorrent is also open to doubt, given how often it is practised. Admittedly they usually have the decency to invent spurious reasons of national security (also a cunning guise for state subsidies).
In fact, it might be nice if our government of whatever stripe took a leaf out of the American book from time to time. Americans understand markets: we are too often simply in thrall to them.0 -
In the 10-day test match on the 1939 tour, South Africa were effectively 400/0 at one point yet England were set to win by the end, had it not been for the shipping schedule.Sandpit said:
My thinking is that against the four bowlers a few quick runs for England will see that price fall sharply.Pulpstar said:
Not playing, but are you sure ?Sandpit said:
England are definitely the underdogs from here, but 15.5 seems a little long.
332-4 is enourmous in 4th innings terms. With 4 bowlers they probably don't declare before tea.
England gladly take a draw here, which is the other problem.
I don't think we can win from here but nothing's impossible. With SA 200/4, 350 could be a possible chase if they declare too early. With each extra run and extra minute England's small chance gets smaller.0 -
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...Plato_Says said:
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!0 -
Remember though Hillary was ahead in MY until Obama won Iowa his surge in the state just petered out that said I expect Sanders to win the state even if Clinton wins Iowa0
-
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?taffys said:''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.0 -
Pat Buchanan beat Dole in New Hampshire in 1996Richard_Nabavi said:Interesting article on the bewilderment of the GOP in NH:
They noted the Republicans who have won the New Hampshire primary in recent years: Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush. ... For Trump to really be on the verge of victory, wouldn't that mean the state of New Hampshire somehow had a total political personality transplant in the four years since Romney's victory? Is that really possible?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-gop-fear-and-loathing-in-new-hampshire/article/25813290 -
Man of the people - apparently Trump spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express in Iowa. His comment was "Nice. Clean. Good mattress". It's from MsNBC so treat it with caution.0
-
Does that apply to foreigners too?Tim_B said:
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?taffys said:''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
Whether it does or not, Trump can always look to introduce the legislation and kick the ball into Congress' court, or - if successful there - to the Supreme Court.0 -
Net of any morality? You're being silly now.taffys said:
''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.0 -
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)Tim_B said:
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?taffys said:''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.0 -
The key with US polls is read the demographic information.
I know I have banged on about it a lot but look at the demographic information of the CNN/ORC "Oabam lost the debate to Romney" poll. It is jaw dropping - they only polled rich, white, college educated southeners. No ethnic minorities, no poor people, no-one from any other part of the country. It was a laughably poor poll but it drove the media narrative for the week.0 -
All he needs to do is to change the immigration quotas to limit folks from Syria etc and he's legal and will have much the same effect.david_herdson said:
Does that apply to foreigners too?Tim_B said:
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?taffys said:''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
Whether it does or not, Trump can always look to introduce the legislation and kick the ball into Congress' court, or - if successful there - to the Supreme Court.0 -
Bloomberg has a net worth of $37 billion compared to Trump's $4. 5 billion, he could easily fund his own campaign. It looks like he will only run if Hillary loses to Sanders which would offer him the chance to hoover up the independent and moderate vote and I would expect both the Clintons and Bushes to vote for him, Hillary has said she will win the nomination to save him having to run. We shall see, Trump has said Bloomberg used to be a friend maybe not now and has attacked his position on guns and abortion, Sanders has said he can't wait to face 2 New York billionaires0
-
I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.0 -
Afternoon all
As someone who would be more on the left than the majority on here, I find Donald Trump a puzzle. In some ways, it's the old adage of having a businessman running the Government. The problem is businessmen are used to coerce, cajole and command but in Government they have to argue, persuade and convince and many of them aren't very good at the latter.
Even if Trump wins, it's possible he will face a hostile Senate and/or Congress and if not in 2017 then in 2019. How would Trump manage this deadlock or would he be reaching for the veto stamp every day ?
I'm more concerned about that idiot Palin as a potential VP but not even Trump would be that stupid as to put her on the ticket. We've still to see anything approaching detail - the populist generalities are beyond credibility in my view but the punters lap it up. It's easy for a populist to say what his constituency wants to hear but to convince the less persuadable is harder.
It's interesting to see some of the Conservatives on here swinging behind Trump - is this more an anti-Clinton bias ? Needless to say, the Republicans are claiming without much solid evidence that the Democrats "have shifted to the left". HIllary has always seemed like the shrewder and smarter of Team Clinton but the residual anti-Clinton bias won't be shifted.
Interesting to see oil prices drifting back toward $30 following the Draghi Bounce last Thursday. A mild winter (despite the weekend blizzard) in much of the Northern Hemisphere has further dampened demand for oil but the gamblers know that as long as Draghi runs the house, they won't lose their shirts.
So, Corbyn, Calais and immigration - presumably those waiting at Calais who can prove a connection to Britain might be allowed in anyway but, as others have said, that isn't really the point. Merkel's economic-based policy has had disastrous social, political and cultural consequences and sometimes the benefit in one area masks the damage in others.I sense that after a long period where political policy was dominated by economic considerations in terms of improving the material wellbeing of the country, there is a shift toward a more cultural-based policy approach in which the preservation of society and community is deemed more important than material advancement.
Put simply, the cultural and social disbenefits of immigration are now seen as more important than the perceived economic benefits.0 -
Please read my post before replying, as otherwise it wastes both our time. I didn't say it was illegal, I said it was unconstitutional.Pulpstar said:
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)Tim_B said:
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?taffys said:''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.0 -
Afternoon all,CarlottaVance said:
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...Plato_Says said:
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
What a mess. Who on earth thought that a load of whitewash would work or that the real results wouldn't leak? This is the straight talking, new politics in action.
Seems the voters will have to try again to get their message across to Labour. No doubt they will do so in May.0 -
The Scottish Conservatives were offered that choice at the last leadership election but went with the safe, comfortable option instead.david_herdson said:
I still think that the Scottish Tories should be given independence from the UK party and rebrand. It might make little difference in the short term but may increase the number of voters prepared to give them a hearing as time goes on.0 -
Tbh I'm not sure there was a great deal of difference in substance between the two reports; I'm not really a fan of focus groups though.CarlottaVance said:
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...Plato_Says said:
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!0 -
Point of order OGH, Hillary won N.H. in 2008 and beat the polls because she made people feel sorry for her at the very last moment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqGl-pDnYMQ
The pollsters didn't have the time to poll after this Oscar worthy performance.0 -
It's a very interesting report. Labour's negativity worked against them too, endless whining about a declining nation and economy conflicting with the reality of what the electorate were experiencing.CarlottaVance said:
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...Plato_Says said:
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
You look at the conclusions and realise Labour are completely screwed. The suggestions of what to change to win, are utterly at odds with Ken Corbyn's, or is it Jeremy Livingstone's beliefs.0 -
Wasn't that tested in the courts and found it could apply to nationalities - in that case Iranians - but not religions - so Christian Iranians were banned too?Pulpstar said:
8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)Tim_B said:
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?taffys said:''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.0 -
I'm at a loss why Beckett whitewashed. Lying to yourself is a guaranteed loser when you've been trounced.rottenborough said:
Afternoon all,CarlottaVance said:
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...Plato_Says said:
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
What a mess. Who on earth thought that a load of whitewash would work or that the real results wouldn't leak? This is the straight talking, new politics in action.
Seems the voters will have to try again to get their message across to Labour. No doubt they will do so in May.0 -
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.Pulpstar said:I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.0 -
That's true for American citizens or residents who are Muslim, but not true for immigrants and tourists. The POTUS has executive power to ban immigrants or entry of any non-American on the basis of national security.Tim_B said:
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?taffys said:''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.0 -
Interesting, but surely Biden will jump in if Hillary is seen to be falling, or more likely the FBI have indicted for something or other? Will Bloomberg still run against Biden?HYUFD said:Bloomberg has a net worth of $37 billion compared to Trump's $4. 5 billion, he could easily fund his own campaign. It looks like he will only run if Hillary loses to Sanders which would offer him the chance to hoover up the independent and moderate vote and I would expect both the Clintons and Bushes to vote for him, Hillary has said she will win the nomination to save him having to run. We shall see, Trump has said Bloomberg used to be a friend maybe not now and has attacked his position on guns and abortion, Sanders has said he can't wait to face 2 New York billionaires
0 -
Should've gone to SpecSavers.
Do you really think we're that stupid on here to swallow this nonsense?DecrepitJohnL said:
Tbh I'm not sure there was a great deal of difference in substance between the two reports; I'm not really a fan of focus groups though.CarlottaVance said:
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...Plato_Says said:
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!0 -
Somewhere in a dusty basement is a report by the Betamax marketing team, that looks very much like Labour's secret report.CarlottaVance said:
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...Plato_Says said:
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
"We know our Betamax product is brilliant and will be the benchmark against which all other systems are judged.
Unfortunately, people aren't buying our product because - mistakenly - they believe there is a better product on the market..."0 -
One can only think it is the old story of Labour sentimentality. They didn't want to upset Ed M for example.Plato_Says said:I'm at a loss why Beckett whitewashed. Lying to yourself is a guaranteed loser when you've been trounced.
rottenborough said:
Afternoon all,CarlottaVance said:
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...Plato_Says said:
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
What a mess. Who on earth thought that a load of whitewash would work or that the real results wouldn't leak? This is the straight talking, new politics in action.
Seems the voters will have to try again to get their message across to Labour. No doubt they will do so in May.0 -
I was puzzled when I heard it - he has a luxurious bedroom on his 757.HYUFD said:
He parked his private jet around the backTim_B said:Man of the people - apparently Trump spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express in Iowa. His comment was "Nice. Clean. Good mattress". It's from MsNBC so treat it with caution.
0 -
But not on grounds of religion. Thanks to Obama, executive power is a dicey subject thanks to over reach.MaxPB said:
That's true for American citizens or residents who are Muslim, but not true for immigrants and tourists. The POTUS has executive power to ban immigrants or entry of any non-American on the basis of national security.Tim_B said:
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?taffys said:''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.0 -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.Tim_B said:
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.Pulpstar said:I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?0 -
It was reported that EdM edited Beckett's report before it was publishedrottenborough said:One can only think it is the old story of Labour sentimentality. They didn't want to upset Ed M for example.
0 -
It may be my aspirational mindset, but the differential between Tory and Labour was this.
It made me vote Labour in 1997 and twice again. Moaning and knocking isn't appealing.
Corbyn moans mostly for people who don't even live here. His agenda is STW.watford30 said:
It's a very interesting report. Labour's negativity worked against them too, endless whining about a declining nation and economy conflicting with the reality of what the electorate were experiencing.CarlottaVance said:
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...Plato_Says said:
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
You look at the conclusions and realise Labour are completely screwed. The suggestions of what to change to win, are utterly at odds with Ken Corbyn's, or is it Jeremy Livingstone's beliefs.0 -
Bloomberg will only run if Sanders is the nominee in all likelihood not against Clinton or Biden as he would have less of a chance but if Sanders wins Iowa and NH it is game over, he is nominee, regardless of what Biden doesrottenborough said:
Interesting, but surely Biden will jump in if Hillary is seen to be falling, or more likely the FBI have indicted for something or other? Will Bloomberg still run against Biden?HYUFD said:Bloomberg has a net worth of $37 billion compared to Trump's $4. 5 billion, he could easily fund his own campaign. It looks like he will only run if Hillary loses to Sanders which would offer him the chance to hoover up the independent and moderate vote and I would expect both the Clintons and Bushes to vote for him, Hillary has said she will win the nomination to save him having to run. We shall see, Trump has said Bloomberg used to be a friend maybe not now and has attacked his position on guns and abortion, Sanders has said he can't wait to face 2 New York billionaires
0 -
Nah, I get served by English bar staff all the time in Camden. I don't think the situation in the service/hospitality industry is as lamentable as people make out.MaxPB said:AndyJS said:Although — let's be honest — the level of service has improved considerably where Eastern Europeans have replaced British people.
Plato_Says said:I totally agree. I saw a report at the weekend, where tourists in Central London wondered where the Brits were. Can honestly say I can't recall being served in a bar, restaurant or hotel by someone British in years.
There is also another good piece from Nicholas Soames and Frank Field in today's Telegraph.HurstLlama said:Plato_Says said:Labour voters are similarly sceptical, with 61 per cent of those who backed Mr Corbyn's party in 2015 feeling that Britain shouldn't welcome any of the migrants camping near Calais.
The motivation these migrants have for coming to Britain is viewed with suspicion. Most of the Britons polled (76 per cent) say that asylum seekers want to come to Britain as they believe it has "more generous welfare benefits". That means the Labour leader is casting himself as an ally of people few think deserve to come to the country.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12115521/This-open-door-immigration-policy-cant-go-on.html
Cameron's complete and abject failure to get a grip on immigration, despite his promises, is damaging to the fabric of the nation, even if, through the absence of any real alternatives, it is not hurting the Conservative Party's re-election chances.
When people from apparent opposite sides of the political spectrum such as Soames and Field are in accord then there really is a problem that needs to be addressed with actions and not just words.
I was, literally, just being served in a West End pub by an Englishman as I read Plato's post.0 -
I expect he had his butler on tap in the next roomTim_B said:
I was puzzled when I heard it - he has a luxurious bedroom on his 757.HYUFD said:
He parked his private jet around the backTim_B said:Man of the people - apparently Trump spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express in Iowa. His comment was "Nice. Clean. Good mattress". It's from MsNBC so treat it with caution.
0 -
And the right timeframe.MarqueeMark said:
Somewhere in a dusty basement is a report by the Betamax marketing team, that looks very much like Labour's secret report.CarlottaVance said:
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...Plato_Says said:
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
"We know our Betamax product is brilliant and will be the benchmark against which all other systems are judged.
Unfortunately, people aren't buying our product because - mistakenly - they believe there is a better product on the market..."0 -
Leaving the personal abuse to one side, I see no great difference between the reports saying that voters thought EM did not look PM material like DC; that English voters were worried by SNP influence; that voters blamed Labour for the crash.Plato_Says said:
Should've gone to SpecSavers.
Do you really think we're that stupid on here to swallow this nonsense?DecrepitJohnL said:
Tbh I'm not sure there was a great deal of difference in substance between the two reports; I'm not really a fan of focus groups though.CarlottaVance said:
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...Plato_Says said:
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!0 -
Just as a matter of interest how many muslims immigrate to the US each year? And how many muslim tourists are there?Tim_B said:
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.Pulpstar said:I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
We've heard what, half a dozen complaints from UK citizens0 -
The constitution makes no mention on the grounds to which the POTUS can ban entry of people and the first amendment only applies to US citizens and residents. It doesn't give rights to people outside of the US. I'm no expert and I'm sure the ACLU will be the first to take any executive order to the SCOTUS for a hearing, but my simplistic view is that he could ban immigration and entry of non-American Muslims on the basis that Islamic terrorism is a threat to the state. A rather broad brush and unworthy of a the office of the President, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional, if it is applied to non-Americans only.Tim_B said:
But not on grounds of religion. Thanks to Obama, executive power is a dicey subject thanks to over reach.MaxPB said:
That's true for American citizens or residents who are Muslim, but not true for immigrants and tourists. The POTUS has executive power to ban immigrants or entry of any non-American on the basis of national security.Tim_B said:
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?taffys said:''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.0 -
Beckett The voters/Tory media need to changeDecrepitJohnL said:
Tbh I'm not sure there was a great deal of difference in substance between the two reports; I'm not really a fan of focus groups though.CarlottaVance said:
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...Plato_Says said:
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
Mattison Labour need to change
Which one has a greater chance of success?0 -
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.Pulpstar said:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.Tim_B said:
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.Pulpstar said:I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?0 -
0
-
For an honest report that would help Labour face reality, Ed was the last person that should have been involved in its publication imho. - Not that the ‘weak and bumbling leader’ had much of reputation to uphold, but still...Scott_P said:
It was reported that EdM edited Beckett's report before it was publishedrottenborough said:One can only think it is the old story of Labour sentimentality. They didn't want to upset Ed M for example.
0 -
Yes. They ought to think again in the light of new opportunities. The last time they were given the option was before the 2014-5 earthquake (though it was after the 2011 one).Alistair said:
The Scottish Conservatives were offered that choice at the last leadership election but went with the safe, comfortable option instead.david_herdson said:
I still think that the Scottish Tories should be given independence from the UK party and rebrand. It might make little difference in the short term but may increase the number of voters prepared to give them a hearing as time goes on.0 -
Also: Donald Trump knows that prohibiting Muslims from even entering the US would damage US interests in the Middle East. The US has a naval base in Bahrain, for instance. We can reasonably assume that as President he would ban people from certain countries, and that would likely be it.Tim_B said:
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.Pulpstar said:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.Tim_B said:
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.Pulpstar said:I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?0 -
He doesn't have a butler - he has a flight attendant who is a very nice lady.HYUFD said:
I expect he had his butler on tap in the next roomTim_B said:
I was puzzled when I heard it - he has a luxurious bedroom on his 757.HYUFD said:
He parked his private jet around the backTim_B said:Man of the people - apparently Trump spent last night in a Holiday Inn Express in Iowa. His comment was "Nice. Clean. Good mattress". It's from MsNBC so treat it with caution.
Snide comments don't become you. You should cease.0 -
King Abdullah of Jordan was actually in the US when Trump originally proposed this!rcs1000 said:
Also: Donald Trump knows that prohibiting Muslims from even entering the US would damage US interests in the Middle East. The US has a naval base in Bahrain, for instance. We can reasonably assume that as President he would ban people from certain countries, and that would likely be it.Tim_B said:
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.Pulpstar said:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.Tim_B said:
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.Pulpstar said:I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?0 -
Legal, constitutional, damaging, not able to be done in practice is my reading.rcs1000 said:
Also: Donald Trump knows that prohibiting Muslims from even entering the US would damage US interests in the Middle East. The US has a naval base in Bahrain, for instance. We can reasonably assume that as President he would ban people from certain countries, and that would likely be it.Tim_B said:
Every legal eagle talking head on Fox, CNN and the Sunday shows says the same thing - you can keep out Syrians, Irish or Turks - but you cannot discriminate on religious grounds. By keeping out the Muslims, you presumably are prohibiting their free exercise of it in the US.Pulpstar said:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the closest I'm getting in reading the (1st amendment) constitution.Tim_B said:
You're clearly not following this. Trump has explained several times that as a resident alien or naturalized citizen you're fine after the proverbial trip to Canada - it's the new immigration he wants to temporarily halt.Pulpstar said:I don't see how Trump bans US muslim citizens from re-entering the US after say a holiday to Canada.
But he can do as he likes with us 'aliens'.
It's a stretch to go from that to saying what Trump is doing is unconstituional.
Can you point me specifically to the part of the constitution that Trump is breaking here ?
Just because something is not unconstitutional doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Am with @MaxpB on this one.0 -
Betamax (well Betacam, it's professional sibling) was the most profitable tape recording system ever released! Much more successful than VHS.MarqueeMark said:
Somewhere in a dusty basement is a report by the Betamax marketing team, that looks very much like Labour's secret report.CarlottaVance said:
After they decided to suppress it it was inevitable that it would leak...Plato_Says said:
Beckett: The voters got it wrong
Mattison We got it wrong
On Scotland the most revealing comment was that Scots blamed English voters for not voting Labour!
"We know our Betamax product is brilliant and will be the benchmark against which all other systems are judged.
Unfortunately, people aren't buying our product because - mistakenly - they believe there is a better product on the market..."
Sony were laughing all the way to the bank when JVC destroyed the margins in consumer video recording giving them a virtual monopoly in the broadcast and professional video recording market.0 -
Kiss of death - Rick Perry has endorsed Ted Cruz.0
-
Which on a practical level my be what he does do but it doesn't answer the question. I don't see why the constitutional rights (e.g. equal protection of the law) should apply to non-citizens living in another country, even if they want to come to the US.Tim_B said:
All he needs to do is to change the immigration quotas to limit folks from Syria etc and he's legal and will have much the same effect.david_herdson said:
Does that apply to foreigners too?Tim_B said:
How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?taffys said:''I'm not at all concerned about Trump winning. Obama is a terrible teleprompter empty suit.''
Donald Trump is popular because he dares to offer the American people things they might want, net of any morality.
How can a giant wall be stupid or immoral if American people want it? How can banning muslims be 'impossible' if many Americans think its a good idea?
For Trump, there's no such thing as a bad idea, if enough people will vote for it.
Because it's unconstitutional, as I said earlier. You can't discriminate on grounds of religion.
Whether it does or not, Trump can always look to introduce the legislation and kick the ball into Congress' court, or - if successful there - to the Supreme Court.0
