Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A week to go until Iowa: the Great American Gamble – to Tru

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited January 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A week to go until Iowa: the Great American Gamble – to Trump or No Trump

7 days till Iowa. How the polls did in previous elections
https://t.co/d28erYivkh pic.twitter.com/iTFgroQNXF

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    edited January 2016
    1st. All aboard the Trump train.

    Almost unbelievable that he could be the next POTUS.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    7 days before the 2012 race was Christmas day. I really do think the public holiday affected things. Post-Christmas polls showed Santorum between 2 and 8 points off the lead, a decent third.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    2nd LetsTrumpet that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    MP_SE said:

    1st. All aboard the Trump train.

    Almost unbelievable that he could be the next POTUS.

    So could Sanders if latest polls are to be believed
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Sanders is very dependent on people who may not actually vote, let alone take part in a caucus:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/upshot/bernie-sanders-is-very-dependent-on-infrequent-voters.html

    The same may be true of Trump, but I suspect less so.

    Hillary should win Iowa. Sanders will probably win NH but I expect the Sanders Surge to subside thereafter. The nomination is in the bag for Hillary, unless the emails get her.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    If the establishment can unify with a week to go before Super Tuesday, then game on. But think: Rubio leads the votes; Bush leads the money and the endorsements; Kasich could win 2nd in New Hampshire.

    That's the 23rd February.

    Ne Hampshire goes to the polls on February 9. So two weeks for someone to be crowned the Establishment victor.

    I just don't see it.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited January 2016
    September 6th:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoJn8TJhJzA

    Today:
    https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/691369109905235968
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Sanders is very dependent on people who may not actually vote, let alone take part in a caucus:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/upshot/bernie-sanders-is-very-dependent-on-infrequent-voters.html

    The same may be true of Trump, but I suspect less so.

    Hillary should win Iowa. Sanders will probably win NH but I expect the Sanders Surge to subside thereafter. The nomination is in the bag for Hillary, unless the emails get her.

    I've posted many times on value... but I must admit the threat of indictment, a sort of axe on the head suddenly of all possible winnings, looms large even though it is unlikely.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    'This Presidential candidate, who, still has a good chance of winning made a gay porn back in the day. Several people know he did it, but so far the recording has remained elusive. It won’t forever.'

    http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2016/01/blind-item-1-1210.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    If the establishment can unify with a week to go before Super Tuesday, then game on. But think: Rubio leads the votes; Bush leads the money and the endorsements; Kasich could win 2nd in New Hampshire.

    That's the 23rd February.

    Ne Hampshire goes to the polls on February 9. So two weeks for someone to be crowned the Establishment victor.

    I just don't see it.

    About as much chance as the Cooper-Burnham-Kendall pact stopping the Corbyn express!
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    HYUFD said:

    'This Presidential candidate, who, still has a good chance of winning made a gay porn back in the day. Several people know he did it, but so far the recording has remained elusive. It won’t forever.'

    http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2016/01/blind-item-1-1210.html

    Look if you want to talk about rumours ok.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-what-was-marco-rubio-arrested-age-18-miami-2276157

    And the rumour has it he got arrested with a gay hustler, but of course no one knows because the police file got destroyed as the rumour goes.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Sanders is very dependent on people who may not actually vote, let alone take part in a caucus:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/upshot/bernie-sanders-is-very-dependent-on-infrequent-voters.html

    The same may be true of Trump, but I suspect less so.

    Hillary should win Iowa. Sanders will probably win NH but I expect the Sanders Surge to subside thereafter. The nomination is in the bag for Hillary, unless the emails get her.

    The problem in Iowa is different, the democrats do a public vote (not a secret ballot like republicans) and a second round system that excludes those who get less that 15% (O'Malley).
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    Labour MP Simon Danczuk is reported to the police and Parliament over thousands of pounds of 'fraudulent' expenses claims

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3416056/Labour-MP-Simon-Danczuk-reported-fraudulent-expenses-claims.html
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    Zogby national general election

    Clinton 45% Trump 45%
    Clinton 44% Bush 39%
    Clinton 44% Carson 40%
    Clinton 45% Rubio 39%
    Clinton 44% Kasich 38%
    Clinton 44% Christie 40%

    Sanders 45.5% Trump 44.5%
    Sanders 46% Bush 36%
    Sanders 44% Carson 35%
    Sanders 44% Rubio 37%
    Sanders 46% Kasich 32%
    Sanders 44% Christie 37%
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2016/01/25/zogby-analytics-clinton-45-trump-45/#74e17c7ba226
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    'This Presidential candidate, who, still has a good chance of winning made a gay porn back in the day. Several people know he did it, but so far the recording has remained elusive. It won’t forever.'

    http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2016/01/blind-item-1-1210.html

    Look if you want to talk about rumours ok.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-what-was-marco-rubio-arrested-age-18-miami-2276157

    And the rumour has it he got arrested with a gay hustler, but of course no one knows because the police file got destroyed as the rumour goes.
    I couldn't possibly comment!
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    HYUFD said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    If the establishment can unify with a week to go before Super Tuesday, then game on. But think: Rubio leads the votes; Bush leads the money and the endorsements; Kasich could win 2nd in New Hampshire.

    That's the 23rd February.

    Ne Hampshire goes to the polls on February 9. So two weeks for someone to be crowned the Establishment victor.

    I just don't see it.

    About as much chance as the Cooper-Burnham-Kendall pact stopping the Corbyn express!
    They will drop out not just too late, but *way* too late. A few weeks after Super Tuesday, perhaps.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    7 days before the 2012 race was Christmas day. I really do think the public holiday affected things. Post-Christmas polls showed Santorum between 2 and 8 points off the lead, a decent third.

    I remember it very well.
    Ron Paul was on his way to victory but Romney got him with some racist newsletters.
    Paul couldn't respond as it was Christmas, and the evangelicals gathered for Christmas and New Year parties and meetings and decided to support Santorum.

    Romney was caught flat footed, there wasn't any time for him to get rid of Santorum like he got rid of everyone else, although he did manage to delay the publication of Santorum's victory until way after.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    'This Presidential candidate, who, still has a good chance of winning made a gay porn back in the day. Several people know he did it, but so far the recording has remained elusive. It won’t forever.'

    http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2016/01/blind-item-1-1210.html

    Look if you want to talk about rumours ok.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-what-was-marco-rubio-arrested-age-18-miami-2276157

    And the rumour has it he got arrested with a gay hustler, but of course no one knows because the police file got destroyed as the rumour goes.
    I couldn't possibly comment!
    There is a lot of crap going around Rubio, a lot of rumours all of them contradictory.
    If you post a rumour, I'll post a rumour, but it's better we don't since it's all crap at this point.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,834
    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,809
    Lab Peers turning out more in the Lords - they had an exceptional 84% last week on the Trade Union Bill - shows they can deliver that kind of level if they really care about the issue.

    Now today they had 71% - not spectacular but a bit higher than the 66% ish level they have had on some important votes in recent months.

    Con peers were 72% today - significantly lower than the 80% area they have hit several times recently - so they didn't make a big effort today. They would have lost today anyway given the Crossbenchers were heavily with Lab.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    'This Presidential candidate, who, still has a good chance of winning made a gay porn back in the day. Several people know he did it, but so far the recording has remained elusive. It won’t forever.'

    http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2016/01/blind-item-1-1210.html

    Look if you want to talk about rumours ok.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-what-was-marco-rubio-arrested-age-18-miami-2276157

    And the rumour has it he got arrested with a gay hustler, but of course no one knows because the police file got destroyed as the rumour goes.
    I couldn't possibly comment!
    There is a lot of crap going around Rubio, a lot of rumours all of them contradictory.
    If you post a rumour, I'll post a rumour, but it's better we don't since it's all crap at this point.
    The only bit of crap you need to know about Rubio is his campaign.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    Speedy said:

    HYUFD said:

    'This Presidential candidate, who, still has a good chance of winning made a gay porn back in the day. Several people know he did it, but so far the recording has remained elusive. It won’t forever.'

    http://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2016/01/blind-item-1-1210.html

    Look if you want to talk about rumours ok.

    http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-what-was-marco-rubio-arrested-age-18-miami-2276157

    And the rumour has it he got arrested with a gay hustler, but of course no one knows because the police file got destroyed as the rumour goes.
    I couldn't possibly comment!
    There is a lot of crap going around Rubio, a lot of rumours all of them contradictory.
    If you post a rumour, I'll post a rumour, but it's better we don't since it's all crap at this point.
    We shall see not yet certain if it is even discussing him or someone else
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    HYUFD said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    If the establishment can unify with a week to go before Super Tuesday, then game on. But think: Rubio leads the votes; Bush leads the money and the endorsements; Kasich could win 2nd in New Hampshire.

    That's the 23rd February.

    Ne Hampshire goes to the polls on February 9. So two weeks for someone to be crowned the Establishment victor.

    I just don't see it.

    About as much chance as the Cooper-Burnham-Kendall pact stopping the Corbyn express!
    They will drop out not just too late, but *way* too late. A few weeks after Super Tuesday, perhaps.
    Indeed, the train will have long since left the station
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    If Sanders does not beat him to it first!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    In bridge I always prefer to play no trumps. In politics also.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,740
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    If the establishment can unify with a week to go before Super Tuesday, then game on. But think: Rubio leads the votes; Bush leads the money and the endorsements; Kasich could win 2nd in New Hampshire.

    That's the 23rd February.

    Ne Hampshire goes to the polls on February 9. So two weeks for someone to be crowned the Establishment victor.

    I just don't see it.

    Even so the establishment can't unite where it counts: votes. Loads of Bush voters will choose Trump over Kasich, Rubio, Christie, etc.
    They would have to conspire to stay in the race, winning delegates who will vote for the top candidate among them
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,740
    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
  • isamisam Posts: 42,271
    @SeanT new book title

    I think you mentioned this on twitter once, and I still suggest

    "My Eyes Have Seen You"

    although re reading your plot summary it could be "Son of Rebecca"!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,834
    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    I think that's right. Don't get me wrong: I'm sure there would be some wall building in the areas where there are the biggest problems with illegal border crossings. Similarly, I'm sure he would impose extra restrictions on would be (permanent) immigrants from troubled countries. Basically, he'd do all the easy middle of the road things.

    But ultimately, he's a liberal with a fabulous sense of self-promotion.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,360
    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    there is always the temptation, when somebody tells you they are going to do something unusual or outrageous, to laugh it off and think that that cannot possibly be true.

    He may, quite simply, mean every word he says.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,834
    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    there is always the temptation, when somebody tells you they are going to do something unusual or outrageous, to laugh it off and think that that cannot possibly be true.

    He may, quite simply, mean every word he says.

    How would he get the Mexicans to hand over 20% of GDP to build the wall?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    edited January 2016
    The new poll shows a 16 point gender gap with Trump leading among men 50%-42% and Clinton ahead among women 48%-40%. Clinton has wide support among 18-29 year olds (57%-25%) and holds a seven point lead among 30-49 year olds (49%-42%), but Trump is ahead among 50-64 year olds (50%-44%) and has a two to one edge among voters over 65 (61%-30%).

    While Clinton is where she needs to be with fellow Democrats (82%-13%), Trump does equally well with fellow Republicans (81% to 8%). As for now, Trump has a nine point edge with independents (46%-37%). Both liberals (88%-8%) and moderates (51%-38%) support Clinton, however (leading conservatives arguing otherwise) conservative voters are backing Trump (73%-18%). Clinton relies on both Hispanic voters (58%-33%) and African American voters (77%-12%) to offset her deficit with white voters (Trump leads 53%-36%).

    Trump is ahead among Catholics – a group that Democrats have won every election since 1992. He also draws an impressive 66% support among evangelicals (to Clinton’s 25%). He also leads among NASCAR Fans (48%-42%), Investor Class voters (49%-44%) and Weekly Wal-Mart Shoppers (50%-42%) – a group President Barack Obama won twice. Trump even is drawing 37% of union households (to Clinton’s 56%).
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnzogby/2016/01/25/zogby-analytics-clinton-45-trump-45/#74e17c7ba226
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    The above was an advert for president Trump.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/trump-is-the-nightmare-version-of-gop-reform.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/opinion/sunday/confessions-of-a-columnist.html?_r=1

    "that faction has turned out to include precisely the kind of voters Romney needed in 2012 and who stayed home instead: Blue-collar whites with moderate views on economics and a weak attachment to the institutional G.O.P. (So weak, a recent New York Times analysis makes clear, that many are still registered Democrats.) These “missing white voters” might not have put Romney over the top, but they certainly would have helped his chances in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan — all places where Trump is running strongly at the moment."

    The reality is that the average voter doesn't really care about abortion and conservative orthodoxy if his wallet is empty.
    Trump is winning because he promises to fill those wallets by pinching money from the corrupt class and foreigners.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,360
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    there is always the temptation, when somebody tells you they are going to do something unusual or outrageous, to laugh it off and think that that cannot possibly be true.

    He may, quite simply, mean every word he says.

    How would he get the Mexicans to hand over 20% of GDP to build the wall?
    I don't know. But POTUS has guns and money. You can do a lot with guns and money.

  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited January 2016
    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    If people actually believed that he's not going to do anything of what his whole campaign is about, then he would collapse in the polls.
    If he wins the presidency, he would still need to deliver for his re-election.

    Obama still delivered on healthcare in time for his re-election, even if it was a mess.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,834
    viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    there is always the temptation, when somebody tells you they are going to do something unusual or outrageous, to laugh it off and think that that cannot possibly be true.

    He may, quite simply, mean every word he says.

    How would he get the Mexicans to hand over 20% of GDP to build the wall?
    I don't know. But POTUS has guns and money. You can do a lot with guns and money.

    The reality is, he might build the wall. He might even get some token Mexican commitment to help - perhaps some some Mexican construction company working on a bit of the wall, paid for by the Mexican government.

    But it would bankrupt the Mexican economy to pay for all of it. And no Mexican politician would get re-elected if they agreed to fund the wall. Imagine a politician who said "Ladies and gentlemen, because the US has forced us - with threats of invasion - to pay for this wall, income tax will increase by 5%".
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,834
    Speedy said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    If people actually believed that he's not going to do anything of what his whole campaign is about, then he would collapse in the polls.
    If he wins the presidency, he would still need to deliver for his re-election.

    Obama still delivered on healthcare in time for his re-election, even if it was a mess.
    He cannot deliver on making Apple move iPhone production to the US.
    He cannot deliver on making Mexico pay for the wall.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Omnium said:
    'Hats off to Cecil Parkinson.

    The sort of politician that makes politics an acceptable profession.'

    A smarmy odious little creep. Bloody good riddance as he joins Thatcher in the pits of Hell!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,196
    edited January 2016
    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    The above was an advert for president Trump.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/trump-is-the-nightmare-version-of-gop-reform.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/03/opinion/sunday/confessions-of-a-columnist.html?_r=1

    "that faction has turned out to include precisely the kind of voters Romney needed in 2012 and who stayed home instead: Blue-collar whites with moderate views on economics and a weak attachment to the institutional G.O.P. (So weak, a recent New York Times analysis makes clear, that many are still registered Democrats.) These “missing white voters” might not have put Romney over the top, but they certainly would have helped his chances in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan — all places where Trump is running strongly at the moment."

    The reality is that the average voter doesn't really care about abortion and conservative orthodoxy if his wallet is empty.
    Trump is winning because he promises to fill those wallets by pinching money from the corrupt class and foreigners.
    Sanders is tapping into a similar anti establishment mood, just while Trump mainly blames immigrants and foreigners, Sanders blames Wall Street. It could well be a Farage v Corbyn battle which would have reverberations over here (with Bloomberg as the Blairite/Cameroon in the middle!)
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    there is always the temptation, when somebody tells you they are going to do something unusual or outrageous, to laugh it off and think that that cannot possibly be true.

    He may, quite simply, mean every word he says.

    How would he get the Mexicans to hand over 20% of GDP to build the wall?
    The first thing he can do is tariffs, of course he might not get his wish on tariffs but I suspect he can issue an executive order to close down the US-Mexican border on all traffic citing "security" reasons until he gets the money or at least a down payment.

    Or he could get the president of Mexico in an embarrassing situation that forces him to sign a deal.
    With Trump you could never know, but I suspect that nothing will stop him from getting his way.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,733
    justin124 said:


    Omnium said:
    'Hats off to Cecil Parkinson.

    The sort of politician that makes politics an acceptable profession.'

    A smarmy odious little creep. Bloody good riddance as he joins Thatcher in the pits of Hell!

    A new, kinder politics...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,834
    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    there is always the temptation, when somebody tells you they are going to do something unusual or outrageous, to laugh it off and think that that cannot possibly be true.

    He may, quite simply, mean every word he says.

    How would he get the Mexicans to hand over 20% of GDP to build the wall?
    The first thing he can do is tariffs, of course he might not get his wish on tariffs but I suspect he can issue an executive order to close down the US-Mexican border on all traffic citing "security" reasons until he gets the money or at least a down payment.

    Or he could get the president of Mexico in an embarrassing situation that forces him to sign a deal.
    With Trump you could never know, but I suspect that nothing will stop him from getting his way.
    The problem is that the sums are too vast for the Mexican government. This isn't a few billions dollars here or there: it's 20% of Mexican GDP.

    I don't believe Trump has the slightest intention of getting Mexico to bankrupt itself. Do remember that Mexican exports to the US are part of US companies supply chains. Closing off the Mexican border to try and force the government there would turn an ally into an enemy and cause mass disruption to companies in the US.

    He'll build the wall. He'll get the Mexican government to contribute or help. But, ultimately, the US government will pay, because there would be a revolution in Mexico if they hiked taxes to pay for Trump's wall.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    there is always the temptation, when somebody tells you they are going to do something unusual or outrageous, to laugh it off and think that that cannot possibly be true.

    He may, quite simply, mean every word he says.

    How would he get the Mexicans to hand over 20% of GDP to build the wall?
    The first thing he can do is tariffs, of course he might not get his wish on tariffs but I suspect he can issue an executive order to close down the US-Mexican border on all traffic citing "security" reasons until he gets the money or at least a down payment.

    Or he could get the president of Mexico in an embarrassing situation that forces him to sign a deal.
    With Trump you could never know, but I suspect that nothing will stop him from getting his way.
    He'd have to invade Mexico. Not that there isn't a precedent for that.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,834
    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    there is always the temptation, when somebody tells you they are going to do something unusual or outrageous, to laugh it off and think that that cannot possibly be true.

    He may, quite simply, mean every word he says.

    How would he get the Mexicans to hand over 20% of GDP to build the wall?
    The first thing he can do is tariffs, of course he might not get his wish on tariffs but I suspect he can issue an executive order to close down the US-Mexican border on all traffic citing "security" reasons until he gets the money or at least a down payment.

    Or he could get the president of Mexico in an embarrassing situation that forces him to sign a deal.
    With Trump you could never know, but I suspect that nothing will stop him from getting his way.
    The problem is that the sums are too vast for the Mexican government. This isn't a few billions dollars here or there: it's 20% of Mexican GDP.

    I don't believe Trump has the slightest intention of getting Mexico to bankrupt itself. Do remember that Mexican exports to the US are part of US companies supply chains. Closing off the Mexican border to try and force the government there would turn an ally into an enemy and cause mass disruption to companies in the US.

    He'll build the wall. He'll get the Mexican government to contribute or help. But, ultimately, the US government will pay, because there would be a revolution in Mexico if they hiked taxes to pay for Trump's wall.
    Just to add: a Mexican bankrupcy would also imperil the financial stability of the US banking system.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    If people actually believed that he's not going to do anything of what his whole campaign is about, then he would collapse in the polls.
    If he wins the presidency, he would still need to deliver for his re-election.

    Obama still delivered on healthcare in time for his re-election, even if it was a mess.
    He cannot deliver on making Apple move iPhone production to the US.
    He cannot deliver on making Mexico pay for the wall.
    We shall see.
    He can definitely find a way to squeeze Mexico, it's within his powers as president regarding foreign affairs.

    Apple is a private company though, it will require a lot of cunning, but I suspect that he will mount an all out publicity campaign on Apple so at least to make it's stock tumble, like what he did to Macy's.
    Their stock halved in value since Trump declared war on it in July.

    Of course he might find other ways too, Apple is dependant on bond sales since they can't get hold on their cash, since Ichan will be his treasury secretary he'll know all the tricks to bring down a company financially.

    But of course all this is speculation at this point.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,364
    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    If people actually believed that he's not going to do anything of what his whole campaign is about, then he would collapse in the polls.
    If he wins the presidency, he would still need to deliver for his re-election.

    Obama still delivered on healthcare in time for his re-election, even if it was a mess.
    He cannot deliver on making Apple move iPhone production to the US.
    He cannot deliver on making Mexico pay for the wall.
    Could the US govt do a deal with Apple? If Apple build factories in the US (something Jobs was very fond of - look back at his Next days), allow them to return some of their $180-odd billion offshore cash to the US at a reduced tax? The vast majority of their capital is abroad, and unavailable to shareholders.

    As an example, reduce the corporation tax rate down from 35% to 25%, in return for a quarter of their world production in value being moved to the US? Reduce it more for more world production.

    Shareholders, Apple, the US government, and US employees would all benefit.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    justin124 said:


    Omnium said:
    'Hats off to Cecil Parkinson.

    The sort of politician that makes politics an acceptable profession.'

    A smarmy odious little creep. Bloody good riddance as he joins Thatcher in the pits of Hell!

    Does anyone know if he ever got round to see the daughter he fathered ?
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    justin124 said:


    Omnium said:
    'Hats off to Cecil Parkinson.

    The sort of politician that makes politics an acceptable profession.'

    A smarmy odious little creep. Bloody good riddance as he joins Thatcher in the pits of Hell!

    Silly child.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Ultimately, Congress will have to approve any spending. One house could be Democrat controlled.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited January 2016
    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    there is always the temptation, when somebody tells you they are going to do something unusual or outrageous, to laugh it off and think that that cannot possibly be true.

    He may, quite simply, mean every word he says.

    How would he get the Mexicans to hand over 20% of GDP to build the wall?
    The first thing he can do is tariffs, of course he might not get his wish on tariffs but I suspect he can issue an executive order to close down the US-Mexican border on all traffic citing "security" reasons until he gets the money or at least a down payment.

    Or he could get the president of Mexico in an embarrassing situation that forces him to sign a deal.
    With Trump you could never know, but I suspect that nothing will stop him from getting his way.
    The problem is that the sums are too vast for the Mexican government. This isn't a few billions dollars here or there: it's 20% of Mexican GDP.

    I don't believe Trump has the slightest intention of getting Mexico to bankrupt itself. Do remember that Mexican exports to the US are part of US companies supply chains. Closing off the Mexican border to try and force the government there would turn an ally into an enemy and cause mass disruption to companies in the US.

    He'll build the wall. He'll get the Mexican government to contribute or help. But, ultimately, the US government will pay, because there would be a revolution in Mexico if they hiked taxes to pay for Trump's wall.
    15$ billion is not 20% of Mexico's GDP.
    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/09/this-is-what-trumps-border-wall-could-cost-us.html

    It's 1.2% .
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    They say people become more conservative as they get older.

    Why shouldn't it apply to the Donald :D
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Imagine had it been Penelope Cruz instead off that fella, there would be no need for sodding polls.

    Even I would brave the wind chill to give her..........my vote !
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,364
    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    If people actually believed that he's not going to do anything of what his whole campaign is about, then he would collapse in the polls.
    If he wins the presidency, he would still need to deliver for his re-election.

    Obama still delivered on healthcare in time for his re-election, even if it was a mess.
    He cannot deliver on making Apple move iPhone production to the US.
    He cannot deliver on making Mexico pay for the wall.
    We shall see.
    He can definitely find a way to squeeze Mexico, it's within his powers as president regarding foreign affairs.

    Apple is a private company though, it will require a lot of cunning, but I suspect that he will mount an all out publicity campaign on Apple so at least to make it's stock tumble, like what he did to Macy's.
    Their stock halved in value since Trump declared war on it in July.

    Of course he might find other ways too, Apple is dependant on bond sales since they can't get hold on their cash, since Ichan will be his treasury secretary he'll know all the tricks to bring down a company financially.

    But of course all this is speculation at this point.
    In a battle between Apple and Trump, Apple would win. They are far too popular with people in general (especially the chattering classes) and the media.

    Also, brining Apple even partially down might cause more damage to the US economy than the benefit of the factories would bring.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    If Donald Trump wins in Iowa, he will be anointed the hair apparent.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited January 2016
    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    there is always the temptation, when somebody tells you they are going to do something unusual or outrageous, to laugh it off and think that that cannot possibly be true.

    He may, quite simply, mean every word he says.

    How would he get the Mexicans to hand over 20% of GDP to build the wall?
    I don't know. But POTUS has guns and money. You can do a lot with guns and money.

    The reality is, he might build the wall. He might even get some token Mexican commitment to help - perhaps some some Mexican construction company working on a bit of the wall, paid for by the Mexican government.

    But it would bankrupt the Mexican economy to pay for all of it. And no Mexican politician would get re-elected if they agreed to fund the wall. Imagine a politician who said "Ladies and gentlemen, because the US has forced us - with threats of invasion - to pay for this wall, income tax will increase by 5%".
    Bearing in mind that one of the major problems is the Mexican drug gangsters fighting for the lucrative US drug trade, would an impermeable Mexican border reduce this trade? or turn Mexico into a failed state as they look for new outlets?

    The Mexican border used to be very permeable. I drove from Tuscon to Puerto Vallatta on one road trip, crossing the border at Nogales. No one looked at my passport on either side of thd border, maybe because I was riding in a car with Arizona plates. It did cause a bit of trouble when I next went to the USA as they thought I was an overstayer on previous visit. The Mexican exit stamp convinced them.

    The Sonora desert was beautiful, and the train to the Copper Canyon one of the most scenic rail jouneys ever. I think the line is closed now.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    AlastairMeeks said:

    If Donald Trump wins in Iowa, he will be anointed the hair apparent.

    You should be able to do better than that !
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    surbiton said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    If Donald Trump wins in Iowa, he will be anointed the hair apparent.

    You should be able to do better than that !
    No, I really am that low standard.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,834
    JosiasJessop said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    EPG said:

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id

    If people actually believed that he's not going to do anything of what his whole campaign is about, then he would collapse in the polls.
    If he wins the presidency, he would still need to deliver for his re-election.

    Obama still delivered on healthcare in time for his re-election, even if it was a mess.
    He cannot deliver on making Apple move iPhone production to the US.
    He cannot deliver on making Mexico pay for the wall.
    Could the US govt do a deal with Apple? If Apple build factories in the US (something Jobs was very fond of - look back at his Next days), allow them to return some of their $180-odd billion offshore cash to the US at a reduced tax? The vast majority of their capital is abroad, and unavailable to shareholders.

    As an example, reduce the corporation tax rate down from 35% to 25%, in return for a quarter of their world production in value being moved to the US? Reduce it more for more world production.

    Shareholders, Apple, the US government, and US employees would all benefit.
    Well, first Apple doesn't make iPhones, Hon Hai / Foxconn does.

    But the reason they build them in China is not principally because wages are lower there (although that helps), it's because the entire supply chain has been build around the factories. You could build a factory in the US, but you would then be 5,000 miles from where your LCD panel was made, your chips were fabricated, your flash was made, etc. Those distances are the problem.

    Right now, Hon Hai / Foxconn can run with essentially zero inventory because they tell SMIC to increase producion, and the hit the factory 24-36 hours later. If you insert a 5,000 mile supply chain into the equation - with goods needing to go through ports and inspection processes and the like - you remove a massive amount of flexibility. Either you increase the amount of inventory carried by 10s of billions of dollars, or you deal with sometimes being out of stock, or you pay your suppliers more to deal with the hassle. Plus you'd increase your transport costs markedly: better to ship one finished iPhone to the US, then to deal with Flash, various component chips, etc. separately. (Not to mention the fact that tariffs on many of these items are *higher* than on fully completed iPhones.)
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    JosiasJessop said:

    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    If people actually believed that he's not going to do anything of what his whole campaign is about, then he would collapse in the polls.
    If he wins the presidency, he would still need to deliver for his re-election.

    Obama still delivered on healthcare in time for his re-election, even if it was a mess.
    He cannot deliver on making Apple move iPhone production to the US.
    He cannot deliver on making Mexico pay for the wall.
    We shall see.
    He can definitely find a way to squeeze Mexico, it's within his powers as president regarding foreign affairs.

    Apple is a private company though, it will require a lot of cunning, but I suspect that he will mount an all out publicity campaign on Apple so at least to make it's stock tumble, like what he did to Macy's.
    Their stock halved in value since Trump declared war on it in July.

    Of course he might find other ways too, Apple is dependant on bond sales since they can't get hold on their cash, since Ichan will be his treasury secretary he'll know all the tricks to bring down a company financially.

    But of course all this is speculation at this point.
    In a battle between Apple and Trump, Apple would win. They are far too popular with people in general (especially the chattering classes) and the media.

    Also, brining Apple even partially down might cause more damage to the US economy than the benefit of the factories would bring.
    They don't generate any domestic value, they don't pay taxes, they only have 80 thousand employed in the US.
    It will cripple the chinese economy and Apple bondholders though.

    It will be a relative test of how much a company that bases it's entire production out of a country, pays no taxes and has few employed, can affect a country's economy if something happens to it.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    AlastairMeeks said:

    surbiton said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    If Donald Trump wins in Iowa, he will be anointed the hair apparent.

    You should be able to do better than that !
    No, I really am that low standard.
    I still think Trump is hair today; gone tommorow!
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    foxinsoxuk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    there is always the temptation, when somebody tells you they are going to do something unusual or outrageous, to laugh it off and think that that cannot possibly be true.

    He may, quite simply, mean every word he says.

    How would he get the Mexicans to hand over 20% of GDP to build the wall?
    I don't know. But POTUS has guns and money. You can do a lot with guns and money.

    The reality is, he might build the wall. He might even get some token Mexican commitment to help - perhaps some some Mexican construction company working on a bit of the wall, paid for by the Mexican government.

    But it would bankrupt the Mexican economy to pay for all of it. And no Mexican politician would get re-elected if they agreed to fund the wall. Imagine a politician who said "Ladies and gentlemen, because the US has forced us - with threats of invasion - to pay for this wall, income tax will increase by 5%".
    Bearing in mind that one of the major problems is the Mexican drug gangsters fighting for the lucrative US drug trade, would an impermeable Mexican border reduce this trade? or turn Mexico into a failed state as they look for new outlets?

    The Mexican border used to be very permeable. I drove from Tuscon to Puerto Vallatta on one road trip, crossing the border at Nogales. No one looked at my passport on either side of thd border, maybe because I was riding in a car with Arizona plates. It did cause a bit of trouble when I next went to the USA as they thought I was an overstayer on previous visit. The Mexican exit stamp convinced them.

    The Sonora desert was beautiful, and the train to the Copper Canyon one of the most scenic rail jouneys ever. I think the line is closed now.
    A wall would be perfect cover to dig tunnels underneath. How many border guards - East German style - will Uncle Sam employ ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,834
    Speedy said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    If people actually believed that he's not going to do anything of what his whole campaign is about, then he would collapse in the polls.
    If he wins the presidency, he would still need to deliver for his re-election.

    Obama still delivered on healthcare in time for his re-election, even if it was a mess.
    He cannot deliver on making Apple move iPhone production to the US.
    He cannot deliver on making Mexico pay for the wall.
    We shall see.
    He can definitely find a way to squeeze Mexico, it's within his powers as president regarding foreign affairs.

    Apple is a private company though, it will require a lot of cunning, but I suspect that he will mount an all out publicity campaign on Apple so at least to make it's stock tumble, like what he did to Macy's.
    Their stock halved in value since Trump declared war on it in July.

    Of course he might find other ways too, Apple is dependant on bond sales since they can't get hold on their cash, since Ichan will be his treasury secretary he'll know all the tricks to bring down a company financially.

    But of course all this is speculation at this point.
    In a battle between Apple and Trump, Apple would win. They are far too popular with people in general (especially the chattering classes) and the media.

    Also, brining Apple even partially down might cause more damage to the US economy than the benefit of the factories would bring.
    They don't generate any domestic value, they don't pay taxes, they only have 80 thousand employed in the US.
    It will cripple the chinese economy and Apple bondholders though.

    It will be a relative test of how much a company that bases it's entire production out of a country, pays no taxes and has few employed, can affect a country's economy if something happens to it.
    It wouldn't cripple Apple bond holders; Apple has far more cash (albeit abroad) than it has debt.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    If people actually believed that he's not going to do anything of what his whole campaign is about, then he would collapse in the polls.
    If he wins the presidency, he would still need to deliver for his re-election.

    Obama still delivered on healthcare in time for his re-election, even if it was a mess.
    He cannot deliver on making Apple move iPhone production to the US.
    He cannot deliver on making Mexico pay for the wall.
    We shall see.
    He can definitely find a way to squeeze Mexico, it's within his powers as president regarding foreign affairs.

    Apple is a private company though, it will require a lot of cunning, but I suspect that he will mount an all out publicity campaign on Apple so at least to make it's stock tumble, like what he did to Macy's.
    Their stock halved in value since Trump declared war on it in July.

    Of course he might find other ways too, Apple is dependant on bond sales since they can't get hold on their cash, since Ichan will be his treasury secretary he'll know all the tricks to bring down a company financially.

    But of course all this is speculation at this point.
    In a battle between Apple and Trump, Apple would win. They are far too popular with people in general (especially the chattering classes) and the media.

    Also, brining Apple even partially down might cause more damage to the US economy than the benefit of the factories would bring.
    They don't generate any domestic value, they don't pay taxes, they only have 80 thousand employed in the US.
    It will cripple the chinese economy and Apple bondholders though.

    It will be a relative test of how much a company that bases it's entire production out of a country, pays no taxes and has few employed, can affect a country's economy if something happens to it.
    It wouldn't cripple Apple bond holders; Apple has far more cash (albeit abroad) than it has debt.
    But they can't access that cash for tax reasons, that's why they issue bonds to fund themselves.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,834
    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    EPG said:

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id

    If people actually believed that he's not going to do anything of what his whole campaign is about, then he would collapse in the polls.
    If he wins the presidency, he would still need to deliver for his re-election.

    Obama still delivered on healthcare in time for his re-election, even if it was a mess.
    He cannot deliver on making Apple move iPhone production to the US.
    He cannot deliver on making Mexico pay for the wall.
    We shall see.
    He can definitely find a way to squeeze Mexico, it's within his powers as president regarding foreign affairs.

    Apple is a private company though, it will require a lot of cunning, but I suspect that he will mount an all out publicity campaign on Apple so at least to make it's stock tumble, like what he did to Macy's.
    Their stock halved in value since Trump declared war on it in July.

    Of course he might find other ways too, Apple is dependant on bond sales since they can't get hold on their cash, since Ichan will be his treasury secretary he'll know all the tricks to bring down a company financially.

    But of course all this is speculation at this point.
    In a battle between Apple and Trump, Apple would win. They are far too popular with people in general (especially the chattering classes) and the media.

    Also, brining Apple even partially down might cause more damage to the US economy than the benefit of the factories would bring.
    They don't generate any domestic value, they don't pay taxes, they only have 80 thousand employed in the US.
    It will cripple the chinese economy and Apple bondholders though.

    It will be a relative test of how much a company that bases it's entire production out of a country, pays no taxes and has few employed, can affect a country's economy if something happens to it.
    It wouldn't cripple Apple bond holders; Apple has far more cash (albeit abroad) than it has debt.
    But they can't access that cash for tax reasons, that's why they issue bonds to fund themselves.
    They would repatriate cash to repay bond holders rather than go bust.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    Well, Panorama have been having fun digging up the dirt on Putin. No tummy kissing yet.

    LovelyBoyski1983 and MoscowBob will be apoplectic.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,555
    DavidL said:

    In bridge I always prefer to play no trumps. In politics also.

    If Donald wins would that be a trump coup?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,360
    foxinsoxuk said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    surbiton said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    If Donald Trump wins in Iowa, he will be anointed the hair apparent.

    You should be able to do better than that !
    No, I really am that low standard.
    I still think Trump is hair today; gone tommorow!
    The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind...the answer is blowing in the wind
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    Speedy said:

    September 6th:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoJn8TJhJzA

    Today:
    https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/691369109905235968

    53 seconds in "Peak Trump" proclaimed.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,082
    surbiton said:

    justin124 said:


    Omnium said:
    'Hats off to Cecil Parkinson.

    The sort of politician that makes politics an acceptable profession.'

    A smarmy odious little creep. Bloody good riddance as he joins Thatcher in the pits of Hell!

    Does anyone know if he ever got round to see the daughter he fathered ?
    "It was noted in the press that Parkinson had never met her and presumably had no intention of doing so. While he had financially assisted with Flora's education and upkeep, it was publicly pointed out that he had never sent her a birthday card and that her mother assumed that Flora could never expect to receive one."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Keays
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id


    Obama still delivered on healthcare in time for his re-election, even if it was a mess.
    He cannot deliver on making Apple move iPhone production to the US.
    He cannot deliver on making Mexico pay for the wall.



    Of course he might find other ways too, Apple is dependant on bond sales since they can't get hold on their cash, since Ichan will be his treasury secretary he'll know all the tricks to bring down a company financially.

    But of course all this is speculation at this point.
    In a battle between Apple and Trump, Apple would win. They are far too popular with people in general (especially the chattering classes) and the media.

    Also, brining Apple even partially down might cause more damage to the US economy than the benefit of the factories would bring.
    They don't generate any domestic value, they don't pay taxes, they only have 80 thousand employed in the US.
    It will cripple the chinese economy and Apple bondholders though.

    It will be a relative test of how much a company that bases it's entire production out of a country, pays no taxes and has few employed, can affect a country's economy if something happens to it.
    It wouldn't cripple Apple bond holders; Apple has far more cash (albeit abroad) than it has debt.
    But they can't access that cash for tax reasons, that's why they issue bonds to fund themselves.
    What stops them borrowing from abroad ? Since that is not repatriation of profits, it should work. OK there is a small risk with currencies but the cash reserves would be a perfect hedge anyway.

    However, they would have to repay from the US any funds borrowed into the US.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    JosiasJessop said:

    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Speedy said:

    EPG said:

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id

    If people actually believed that he's not going to do anything of what his whole campaign is about, then he would collapse in the polls.
    If he wins the presidency, he would still need to deliver for his re-election.

    Obama still delivered on healthcare in time for his re-election, even if it was a mess.
    He cannot deliver on making Apple move iPhone production to the US.
    He cannot deliver on making Mexico pay for the wall.


    Of course he might find other ways too, Apple is dependant on bond sales since they can't get hold on their cash, since Ichan will be his treasury secretary he'll know all the tricks to bring down a company financially.

    But of course all this is speculation at this point.
    In a battle between Apple and Trump, Apple would win. They are far too popular with people in general (especially the chattering classes) and the media.

    Also, brining Apple even partially down might cause more damage to the US economy than the benefit of the factories would bring.
    They don't generate any domestic value, they don't pay taxes, they only have 80 thousand employed in the US.
    It will cripple the chinese economy and Apple bondholders though.

    It will be a relative test of how much a company that bases it's entire production out of a country, pays no taxes and has few employed, can affect a country's economy if something happens to it.
    It wouldn't cripple Apple bond holders; Apple has far more cash (albeit abroad) than it has debt.
    But they can't access that cash for tax reasons, that's why they issue bonds to fund themselves.
    They would repatriate cash to repay bond holders rather than go bust.
    And hand Trump a victory as they will finally have to pay taxes on the mountain of cash they have.

    Trump will plaster it all over the papers: "Trump forces Apple to finally pay taxes"
    Perhaps that's his plan.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    edited January 2016
    foxinsoxuk said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    surbiton said:

    AlastairMeeks said:

    If Donald Trump wins in Iowa, he will be anointed the hair apparent.

    You should be able to do better than that !
    No, I really am that low standard.
    I still think Trump is hair today; gone tommorow!
    "They"

    'They' wrote off the Tories
    'They' wrote off Corbyn
    'They' wrote off Trump.
    'They' wrote off Leicester xD
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    logical_song said:

    surbiton said:

    justin124 said:


    Omnium said:
    'Hats off to Cecil Parkinson.

    The sort of politician that makes politics an acceptable profession.'

    A smarmy odious little creep. Bloody good riddance as he joins Thatcher in the pits of Hell!

    Does anyone know if he ever got round to see the daughter he fathered ?
    "It was noted in the press that Parkinson had never met her and presumably had no intention of doing so. While he had financially assisted with Flora's education and upkeep, it was publicly pointed out that he had never sent her a birthday card and that her mother assumed that Flora could never expect to receive one."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Keays
    That is truly sad. Whatever the circumstances, the child [ now grown-up ] was surely innocent.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,000
    Verulamius said:

    DavidL said:

    In bridge I always prefer to play no trumps. In politics also.

    If Donald wins would that be a trump coup?
    I think it would be a missed trick myself.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @JohnRentoul: How good is @JananGanesh? This good https://t.co/mCYm4goqrt https://t.co/j8SJEvvJTx
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    DavidL said:

    Verulamius said:

    DavidL said:

    In bridge I always prefer to play no trumps. In politics also.

    If Donald wins would that be a trump coup?
    I think it would be a missed trick myself.
    If he wins in Iowa the Republican field next morning would be vulnerable and at least four down.
  • pbr2013pbr2013 Posts: 649
    Watching Panorama. Is there betting on which Putinista will be first on to denounce it?
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited January 2016
    pbr2013 said:

    Watching Panorama. Is there betting on which Putinista will be first on to denounce it?

    Probably a new friend of Vlad, warming up to join the love-in.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    pbr2013 said:

    Watching Panorama. Is there betting on which Putinista will be first on to denounce it?

    And, indeed, on the line of attack. I reckon the BBC, as a public body, will be denounced as a wing of government.
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Pulpstar said:

    Speedy said:

    September 6th:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoJn8TJhJzA

    Today:
    https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/691369109905235968

    53 seconds in "Peak Trump" proclaimed.
    That's September 6th.
    I'm trying to find the oldest one.
    Here's one from July 17th:

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/17/trump-wont-win-but-yes-he-matters.html

    "This reporter is already on record pledging to eat a bag of rusty nails if the real estate tycoon with the high hair manages to snag the GOP nomination, much less takes down likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton next fall."
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    Scott_P said:

    @JohnRentoul: How good is @JananGanesh? This good https://t.co/mCYm4goqrt https://t.co/j8SJEvvJTx

    I like Janan Ganesh's stuff very much. He has a great turn of phrase and cuts through to the heart of a subject.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,364
    rcs1000 said:

    Well, first Apple doesn't make iPhones, Hon Hai / Foxconn does.

    But the reason they build them in China is not principally because wages are lower there (although that helps), it's because the entire supply chain has been build around the factories. You could build a factory in the US, but you would then be 5,000 miles from where your LCD panel was made, your chips were fabricated, your flash was made, etc. Those distances are the problem.

    Right now, Hon Hai / Foxconn can run with essentially zero inventory because they tell SMIC to increase producion, and the hit the factory 24-36 hours later. If you insert a 5,000 mile supply chain into the equation - with goods needing to go through ports and inspection processes and the like - you remove a massive amount of flexibility. Either you increase the amount of inventory carried by 10s of billions of dollars, or you deal with sometimes being out of stock, or you pay your suppliers more to deal with the hassle. Plus you'd increase your transport costs markedly: better to ship one finished iPhone to the US, then to deal with Flash, various component chips, etc. separately. (Not to mention the fact that tariffs on many of these items are *higher* than on fully completed iPhones.)

    Indeed. Then encouraging Apple to move production back to the US has the benefit of encouraging the local component supply businesses. It's even possible - shock, horror - that the the Chinese and others might open factories in the US as well.

    AIUI one of the first thing Jobs did when he came back to Apple in 1997 was reduce the amount of stock held, and introduced JIT working for some suppliers.

    The tariff problem you mention is one we also suffer from, as Raspberry Pi found out:
    I’d like to draw attention to one cost in particular that really created problems for us in Britain. Simply put, if we build the Raspberry Pi in Britain, we have to pay a lot more tax. If a British company imports components, it has to pay tax on those (and most components are not made in the UK). If, however, a completed device is made abroad and imported into the UK – with all of those components soldered onto it – it does not attract any import duty at all. This means that it’s really, really tax inefficient for an electronics company to do its manufacturing in Britain, and it’s one of the reasons that so much of our manufacturing goes overseas. Right now, the way things stand means that a company doing its manufacturing abroad, depriving the UK economy, gets a tax break. It’s an absolutely mad way for the Inland Revenue to be running things, and it’s an issue we’ve taken up with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
    Although they are made in the UK (Wales, I think) now. I don't know if the tariff problem was sorted.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    London Mayoral Contest, spot the missing words round.

    http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/ken-livingstone-london-needs-to-vote-for-jeremy-corbyn-s-vision-of-a-better-city-a3164281.html


  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,834
    AlastairMeeks said:

    pbr2013 said:

    Watching Panorama. Is there betting on which Putinista will be first on to denounce it?

    And, indeed, on the line of attack. I reckon the BBC, as a public body, will be denounced as a wing of government.
    Rosneft is not the biggest oil company in the world. Saudi Aramco is bigger
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138
    Wanderer said:

    Speedy said:

    rcs1000 said:

    viewcode said:

    EPG said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The video at the top of the page is why so many Trump backers are going to be distraught when Trump become President. He's going to be a namby-pamby New York liberal, who throws a few populist bones to the people.

    E.g., there is no chance he would actually build a wall versus Mexico
    And there is little chance he would actually bar Muslim tourists, cleaners, academics, etc
    He has simply worked out that the route to power for a moderate Republican is through the id
    there is always the temptation, when somebody tells you they are going to do something unusual or outrageous, to laugh it off and think that that cannot possibly be true.

    He may, quite simply, mean every word he says.

    How would he get the Mexicans to hand over 20% of GDP to build the wall?
    The first thing he can do is tariffs, of course he might not get his wish on tariffs but I suspect he can issue an executive order to close down the US-Mexican border on all traffic citing "security" reasons until he gets the money or at least a down payment.

    Or he could get the president of Mexico in an embarrassing situation that forces him to sign a deal.
    With Trump you could never know, but I suspect that nothing will stop him from getting his way.
    He'd have to invade Mexico. Not that there isn't a precedent for that.
    Of course, but why bother when the Mexicn government is already under the thumb of Washington?

    And there is a heck of a lot of US investment in Mexico, which would be a hostage to fortune.

    Getting money out of Mexican taxpayers is, of course, a completely different story.

    And some people seem to be forgetting NAFTA. Which operates almost entirely in the interests of of the USA.
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    AlastairMeeks said:

    pbr2013 said:

    Watching Panorama. Is there betting on which Putinista will be first on to denounce it?

    And, indeed, on the line of attack. I reckon the BBC, as a public body, will be denounced as a wing of government.
    Are we going to get a repeat of the Litvinenko-was-asking-for-it thread?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,364
    surbiton said:

    logical_song said:

    surbiton said:

    justin124 said:


    Omnium said:
    'Hats off to Cecil Parkinson.

    The sort of politician that makes politics an acceptable profession.'

    A smarmy odious little creep. Bloody good riddance as he joins Thatcher in the pits of Hell!

    Does anyone know if he ever got round to see the daughter he fathered ?
    "It was noted in the press that Parkinson had never met her and presumably had no intention of doing so. While he had financially assisted with Flora's education and upkeep, it was publicly pointed out that he had never sent her a birthday card and that her mother assumed that Flora could never expect to receive one."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Keays
    That is truly sad. Whatever the circumstances, the child [ now grown-up ] was surely innocent.
    It should be noted that the sainted Steve Jobs treated his first daughter in a similar manner for many years, and very publicly:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Brennan-Jobs
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Speedy said:

    September 6th:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoJn8TJhJzA

    Today:
    https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/691369109905235968

    53 seconds in "Peak Trump" proclaimed.
    That's September 6th.
    I'm trying to find the oldest one.
    Here's one from July 17th:

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/17/trump-wont-win-but-yes-he-matters.html

    "This reporter is already on record pledging to eat a bag of rusty nails if the real estate tycoon with the high hair manages to snag the GOP nomination, much less takes down likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton next fall."
    Bring up Rubio and Walker
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,555
    AlastairMeeks said:

    DavidL said:

    Verulamius said:

    DavidL said:

    In bridge I always prefer to play no trumps. In politics also.

    If Donald wins would that be a trump coup?
    I think it would be a missed trick myself.
    If he wins in Iowa the Republican field next morning would be vulnerable and at least four down.
    But could Bloomberg win the hand with a trump squeeze?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    ST...fpt..Cains Boy

  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    edited January 2016
    I seem to remember the Sun, back in 1983, complaining that Cecil Parkinson had dimmed the glory of "the victor of June 9th". Can't find that with Google though.

    And who described him as "a self-confessed adulterer and a damned fool"? (That will be Googleable but I'm sure someone here will know anyway.)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,782
    pbr2013 said:

    Watching Panorama. Is there betting on which Putinista will be first on to denounce it?

    I'm not a Putinista but I can only think it's the Tories starving the corporation of cash that has tempted threm to put out such a poorly researched piece of work. It was pretty indistinguishable from 'ITV's Dispatches
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,321
    edited January 2016
    @Wanderer

    http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/15th-october-1983/5/notebook

    Ivor Stanbrook.

    Google helped me find that quote.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Wanderer said:

    I seem to remember the Sun, back in 1983, complaining that Cecil Parkinson had dimmed the glory of "the victor of June 9th". Can't find that with Google though.

    And who described him as "a self-confessed adulterer and a damned fool"?

    Perhaps his ruthlessness with his former mistress and illegitimate child was all part of his political mojo. No time for sentimentality, he had a revolution to lead.

    I note that Jezza seems to get through spouses and concubines too, as did Bojo and Red Ken.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,364
    Roger said:

    pbr2013 said:

    Watching Panorama. Is there betting on which Putinista will be first on to denounce it?

    I'm not a Putinista but I can only think it's the Tories starving the corporation of cash that has tempted threm to put out such a poorly researched piece of work. It was pretty indistinguishable from 'ITV's Dispatches
    What was poorly researched about it?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,782
    OT. Does anyone know if John Leech ex MP for Withington was one of only two Lib Dem MP's who voted against the coalition agreement (the other being Charles Kennedy)? I can't find it in wikipedia....
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    edited January 2016
    Pulpstar said:

    Speedy said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Speedy said:

    September 6th:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoJn8TJhJzA

    Today:
    https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/691369109905235968

    53 seconds in "Peak Trump" proclaimed.
    That's September 6th.
    I'm trying to find the oldest one.
    Here's one from July 17th:

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/17/trump-wont-win-but-yes-he-matters.html

    "This reporter is already on record pledging to eat a bag of rusty nails if the real estate tycoon with the high hair manages to snag the GOP nomination, much less takes down likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton next fall."
    Bring up Rubio and Walker
    As you wish:

    June 1st:
    http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/scott-walker-maintains-healthy-lead-in-gop-poll-454853187847

    "He's solidified his position in Iowa"
    "Scott Walker is where he wants to be right now"
    "Marco Rubio has a lot of room to grow"
    "Bush has bad numbers" (the only thing consistent)
  • WandererWanderer Posts: 3,838
    edited January 2016
    dr_spyn said:

    @Wanderer

    http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/15th-october-1983/5/notebook

    Ivor Stanbrook.

    Google helped me find that quote.

    If we are going to have social conservatism that's how I want it. Turn the hypocrisy up to 11 and get stuck into the adulterers.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,364
    Roger said:

    OT. Does anyone know if John Leech ex MP for Withington was one of only two Lib Dem MP's who voted against the coalition agreement (the other being Charles Kennedy)? I can't find it in wikipedia....

    Sounds like he abstained. Perhaps:
    http://bracknellblog.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/john-leech-mp-told-me-he-abstained-from.html
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Jeremy Corbyn played a central role in leading a purge of moderate Labour councillors in 1982, according to newly unearthed reports from the time.

    The Labour leader was involved in moves to deselect at least 20 London councillors while another 130 Labour moderates stepped down after the party moved radically to the left.

    The revelation is likely to increase fears among moderate Labour councillors and the central wing of the parliamentary Labour party that Corbynistas may seek to oust them

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4674271.ece
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025