If they're so worried, give us a good deal to present to the UK electorate!
I don't think Deutsche Bank has that kind of power! (Not to mention the fact that the DB investment bank is pretty much all in London; it's the old Morgan Grenfell)
Nowt of Morgans left except the address. It's all Bankers Trust now
Almost all the greats in the London fund management industry are ex Morgan Grenfell, it was clearly a great place to learn
Unfortunately for Rubio, who otherwise would be well-placed to break out of the also-ran pack, it looks as though Kasich is going to shaft him in NH. At least that is how it looks at the moment.
Fingers crossed
In all serious per BurnhamCooperKendall people are inclined to leave things far too late and do too little. Add in a strong performance for Kasich in NH, there's 0% chance he drops out.
I think Bush 2020 is more likely, TBH.
Bush or some other moderate Republican may do well in 2020 if Trump or Cruz get the nomination and then get 'Goldwatered' this time.
At some point Bush surely will price his chances in 2020 better than 2015.
Jeb ain't coming back.
Considering he bottled a run in 2012, is he the David Miliband of the Republicans?
Unfortunately for Rubio, who otherwise would be well-placed to break out of the also-ran pack, it looks as though Kasich is going to shaft him in NH. At least that is how it looks at the moment.
Fingers crossed
In all serious per BurnhamCooperKendall people are inclined to leave things far too late and do too little. Add in a strong performance for Kasich in NH, there's 0% chance he drops out.
I think Bush 2020 is more likely, TBH.
Bush or some other moderate Republican may do well in 2020 if Trump or Cruz get the nomination and then get 'Goldwatered' this time.
Who is going to Goldwater them? Were they facing Obama-08 then possibly, but Sanders or Hillary-16 is a very different (indeed, beatable) prospect.
Hillary versus Trump could be an easy win for Hillary. "But Trump would start at a disadvantage: Most Americans just really don’t like the guy.
Contra Rupert Murdoch’s assertion about Trump having crossover appeal, Trump is extraordinarily unpopular with independent voters and Democrats."
"Gallup polling conducted over the past six weeks found Trump with a -27-percentage-point net favorability rating among independent voters, and a -70-point net rating among Democrats; both marks are easily the worst in the GOP field. "
I don't think it's quite that simple. There's a very long way to go between here and November and the polls can change, not least because there are also a lot of people who really don't like Hillary either. She is Washington entitlement personified and Trump has a lot he can throw at her on that score.
Would Hillary win against Trump? As things stand, yes. Given all probable developments before November, she still should do but it's likely to be close and Trump could well do it. As you say, his figures right now are dire but those aren't the voters he's pitching to at the moment.
One thing which people don't seem to be factoring in to calculations about the November election is the distinct possibility of an economic slowdown. Since Hillary is happily pitching herself as the "third term Obama" candidate, I can't see how that wouldn't be a massive blow to her chances.
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
Rather touching that they think anyone in Britain cares about whether Europe will be a 'second rate power'. It's the thought of them becoming a 1st rate one that gives me the shudders.
Unfortunately for Rubio, who otherwise would be well-placed to break out of the also-ran pack, it looks as though Kasich is going to shaft him in NH. At least that is how it looks at the moment.
Fingers crossed
In all serious per BurnhamCooperKendall people are inclined to leave things far too late and do too little. Add in a strong performance for Kasich in NH, there's 0% chance he drops out.
I think Bush 2020 is more likely, TBH.
Bush or some other moderate Republican may do well in 2020 if Trump or Cruz get the nomination and then get 'Goldwatered' this time.
At some point Bush surely will price his chances in 2020 better than 2015.
Jeb ain't coming back.
Considering he bottled a run in 2012, is he the David Miliband of the Republicans?
Well at least Jeb Bush has run, even if he is going to get walloped.
David Miliband is sub Jeb, sub Corbyn, sub Ed, sub Kendall.
Reading the comments below the Mail's latest comments on Cameron's meetings with Merkel, it strikes me that the very sight of him pitching to a foreign leader for changes in the UK is worth twice to OUT that any concessions he might get are to IN.
He'd have been better off defending the status quo, which would have meant zero grovelling missions to foreign leaders.
Unfortunately for Rubio, who otherwise would be well-placed to break out of the also-ran pack, it looks as though Kasich is going to shaft him in NH. At least that is how it looks at the moment.
Fingers crossed
In all serious per BurnhamCooperKendall people are inclined to leave things far too late and do too little. Add in a strong performance for Kasich in NH, there's 0% chance he drops out.
I think Bush 2020 is more likely, TBH.
Bush or some other moderate Republican may do well in 2020 if Trump or Cruz get the nomination and then get 'Goldwatered' this time.
At some point Bush surely will price his chances in 2020 better than 2015.
Jeb ain't coming back.
Considering he bottled a run in 2012, is he the David Miliband of the Republicans?
David Miliband looks a political colossus next to Jeb.
Unfortunately for Rubio, who otherwise would be well-placed to break out of the also-ran pack, it looks as though Kasich is going to shaft him in NH. At least that is how it looks at the moment.
Fingers crossed
In all serious per BurnhamCooperKendall people are inclined to leave things far too late and do too little. Add in a strong performance for Kasich in NH, there's 0% chance he drops out.
I think Bush 2020 is more likely, TBH.
Bush or some other moderate Republican may do well in 2020 if Trump or Cruz get the nomination and then get 'Goldwatered' this time.
At some point Bush surely will price his chances in 2020 better than 2015.
Jeb ain't coming back.
Considering he bottled a run in 2012, is he the David Miliband of the Republicans?
Well at least Jeb Bush has run, even if he is going to get walloped.
David Miliband is sub Jeb, sub Corbyn, sub Ed, sub Kendall.
A bottler to the very last.
He ran against his brother and came pretty damn close. Should have won of course but was probably too arrogant. I am no great admirer but it is hard to believe a DM led Labour party would have done worse than an EM led one.
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
It needs to be. There are great powers and there are powers that exist at the whim of great powers. There are no others.
Unfortunately for Rubio, who otherwise would be well-placed to break out of the also-ran pack, it looks as though Kasich is going to shaft him in NH. At least that is how it looks at the moment.
Fingers crossed
In all serious per BurnhamCooperKendall people are inclined to leave things far too late and do too little. Add in a strong performance for Kasich in NH, there's 0% chance he drops out.
I think Bush 2020 is more likely, TBH.
Bush or some other moderate Republican may do well in 2020 if Trump or Cruz get the nomination and then get 'Goldwatered' this time.
Who is going to Goldwater them? Were they facing Obama-08 then possibly, but Sanders or Hillary-16 is a very different (indeed, beatable) prospect.
Correct. No candidate is going to win 486 EC votes to 52.
In fact, the only Republican State in 2012 that looks vulnerable to me is North Carolina, I could see Trump doing worse in Florida, Virginia, Colarado, and Nevada than Romney did, but conversely, I'd see Rust Belt States like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin coming into play.
For all the talk about how the Republicans supposedly hit their ceiling with white working class voters in 2012, it's often forgotten there was a crucial section of the WWC vote which they didn't do so well in that year: the blue-collar industrial workers from the Rust Belt, who thought Romney would lay them off and ship their jobs out to China to maximise his own profits. As you say, Trump could do much better with those voters.
A candidate closely associated with Big Business didn't win in 2012, and such a candidate would probably do worse overall this time around.
I think the political Zeitgeist matters more than specific big business links. Would any of the other republicans have done better in 2012?
Romney did better than any of the others could have done. However, I don't think he did as well as he could have done. After a very impressive primaries campaign, he completely went off the boil from about May to September. Some downtime might have been necessary, as might fundraising for the general, but even his campaigning misfired badly. Add in his 47% comment and he probably cost himself the election.
Unfortunately for Rubio, who otherwise would be well-placed to break out of the also-ran pack, it looks as though Kasich is going to shaft him in NH. At least that is how it looks at the moment.
Fingers crossed
In all serious per BurnhamCooperKendall people are inclined to leave things far too late and do too little. Add in a strong performance for Kasich in NH, there's 0% chance he drops out.
I think Bush 2020 is more likely, TBH.
Bush or some other moderate Republican may do well in 2020 if Trump or Cruz get the nomination and then get 'Goldwatered' this time.
At some point Bush surely will price his chances in 2020 better than 2015.
Jeb ain't coming back.
Poor Jeb - just because he's from a Presidential family he's been brainwashed into running for President even though he would be a good President and can win.
Reading the comments below the Mail's latest comments on Cameron's meetings with Merkel, it strikes me that the very sight of him pitching to a foreign leader for changes in the UK is worth twice to OUT that any concessions he might get are to IN.
He'd have been better off defending the status quo, which would have meant zero grovelling missions to foreign leaders.
I'm not sure. Much as I hate to admit it, people quite like Cameron's stance on EU matters - the attempted "veto" of the Eurozone bailout, the attempt to stop Juncker - that the attempts failed in the end doesn't seem to matter, people just like that we made ourselves heard.#
My sense is that the public are content enough with Britain being a constant nuisance in the backseat of the EU car, occasionally giving Mummy Merkel's seat in front a kick, but without ever quite plucking up the courage to get out of the car and start hitchhiking with unknowns.
Reading the comments below the Mail's latest comments on Cameron's meetings with Merkel, it strikes me that the very sight of him pitching to a foreign leader for changes in the UK is worth twice to OUT that any concessions he might get are to IN.
He'd have been better off defending the status quo, which would have meant zero grovelling missions to foreign leaders.
I'm not sure. Much as I hate to admit it, people quite like Cameron's stance on EU matters - the attempted "veto" of the Eurozone bailout, the attempt to stop Juncker - that the attempts failed in the end doesn't seem to matter, people just like that we made ourselves heard.#
My sense is that the public are content enough with Britain being a constant nuisance in the back of the EU car, but without ever quite plucking up the courage to get out of the car and start hitchhiking with unknowns.
We are a nation of grumblers, as well as shopkeepers.
''My sense is that the public are content enough with Britain being a constant nuisance in the back of the EU car, but without ever quite plucking up the courage to get out of the car and start hitchhiking with unknowns. ''
Great analogy, and before the refugee crisis, I would have agreed with you 100%. Now, it just ain't funny any more, because the car is being driven towards a cliff by a reckless German lunatic.
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
Rather touching that they think anyone in Britain cares about whether Europe will be a 'second rate power'. It's the thought of them becoming a 1st rate one that gives me the shudders.
Do you think that would change the relationship between Russia and Europe?
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
It needs to be. There are great powers and there are powers that exist at the whim of great powers. There are no others.
Lovinputin1983 thinks Russia should be the European great power
BBC - Denmark approves controversial migrant assets bill
The Danish parliament has backed a controversial proposal to confiscate asylum seekers' valuables to pay for their upkeep. - Denmark says the policy brings migrants in line with jobless Danes, who must sell assets above a certain level to claim benefits.
Why is it being reported as ‘controversial’ if the ruling already applies to home grown Danes?
BBC - Denmark approves controversial migrant assets bill
The Danish parliament has backed a controversial proposal to confiscate asylum seekers' valuables to pay for their upkeep. - Denmark says the policy brings migrants in line with jobless Danes, who must sell assets above a certain level to claim benefits.
Why is it being reported as ‘controversial’ if the ruling already applies to home grown Danes?
Are the asylum seekers allowed to work? (Genuine q.)
Bit rubbish not having 3rd = 10, would be far more interesting then.
The only value would be in a sell if you thought there was a real chance of either Sadiq or Zac not making the starting line.
EDIT: Actually, Galloway is a buy as per Betfair. (49.5/0.5 = 99/1, and that's not taking into account 2nd place). 60.0 to lay.
Arrr. Why did you have to point that out?
Stake; £50
"Your bet has been referred to a trader, please wait for a response..."
"Sorry this is a time limited price"
New stake £18
That's all your doing (I don't expect anyone else has tried to play). Still a buy at 1 if you believe betfair (I don't).
lol.
Apologies for the aggressive post. Just a bit frustrating when you're trying to get on a bet and someone else posts the same logic and comes to the same conclusion while the trader is still umming & arring.
Why is it being reported as ‘controversial’ if the ruling already applies to home grown Danes?
Because the establishment disagrees with it?
I wonder whether we could do the same for spousal immigration. Want to bring your nearest and dearest from rural Pakistan?
OK, that'll be 150,000 grand please.
I've argued that simply having a fee would solve almost all immigration issues, while simultaneously bringing in much needed revenue and keeping bureaucracy to a minimum
For all the talk about how the Republicans supposedly hit their ceiling with white working class voters in 2012, it's often forgotten there was a crucial section of the WWC vote which they didn't do so well in that year: the blue-collar industrial workers from the Rust Belt, who thought Romney would lay them off and ship their jobs out to China to maximise his own profits. As you say, Trump could do much better with those voters.
A candidate closely associated with Big Business didn't win in 2012, and such a candidate would probably do worse overall this time around.
I think the political Zeitgeist matters more than specific big business links. Would any of the other republicans have done better in 2012?
Romney did better than any of the others could have done. However, I don't think he did as well as he could have done. After a very impressive primaries campaign, he completely went off the boil from about May to September. Some downtime might have been necessary, as might fundraising for the general, but even his campaigning misfired badly. Add in his 47% comment and he probably cost himself the election.
Sitting Presidents almost never lose. Carter was the last one and that took staggering levels of incompetence and humiliation by Iran along with a strong opposing candidate. In fact I am in my 50s and he is the only sitting President seeking re-election to lose (unless you count Gerald Ford but he was never elected).
To have beaten Obama would have required at least Reagan levels of exceptionality. Romney was not close to that although he possibly could have been had the primaries been less bruising. The incumbency bonus in the US is huge.
''My sense is that the public are content enough with Britain being a constant nuisance in the back of the EU car, but without ever quite plucking up the courage to get out of the car and start hitchhiking with unknowns. ''
Great analogy, and before the refugee crisis, I would have agreed with you 100%. Now, it just ain't funny any more, because the car is being driven towards a cliff by a reckless German lunatic.
We aren't in the back - we are locked in the boot.
Bit rubbish not having 3rd = 10, would be far more interesting then.
The only value would be in a sell if you thought there was a real chance of either Sadiq or Zac not making the starting line.
EDIT: Actually, Galloway is a buy as per Betfair. (49.5/0.5 = 99/1, and that's not taking into account 2nd place). 60.0 to lay.
Arrr. Why did you have to point that out?
Stake; £50
"Your bet has been referred to a trader, please wait for a response..."
"Sorry this is a time limited price"
New stake £18
That's all your doing (I don't expect anyone else has tried to play). Still a buy at 1 if you believe betfair (I don't).
lol.
Apologies for the aggressive post. Just a bit frustrating when you're trying to get on a bet and someone else posts the same logic and comes to the same conclusion while the trader is still umming & arring.
I didn't even try to get on! Regrettably my business isn't very welcome anywhere and tbh I'd rather tip on here than ruin the price for pennies.
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
It needs to be. There are great powers and there are powers that exist at the whim of great powers. There are no others.
Lovinputin1983 thinks Russia should be the European great power
I don't know where or how this debate started but currently there are 2 superpowers (USA, China) and 4 great powers (India, Germany, Russia, Japan), it is debatable if Brazil, France, Korea and the UK are in the great power category since although big they usually fall under the sphere of influence of another great power ( France, Korea, UK ) or are not strong enough militarily (Brazil).
''I've argued that simply having a fee would solve almost all immigration issues, while simultaneously bringing in much needed revenue and keeping bureaucracy to a minimum''
And it wouldn;t so much shoot UKIP's fox as hang draw and quarter it...
For all the talk about how the Republicans supposedly hit their ceiling with white working class voters in 2012, it's often forgotten there was a crucial section of the WWC vote which they didn't do so well in that year: the blue-collar industrial workers from the Rust Belt, who thought Romney would lay them off and ship their jobs out to China to maximise his own profits. As you say, Trump could do much better with those voters.
A candidate closely associated with Big Business didn't win in 2012, and such a candidate would probably do worse overall this time around.
I think the political Zeitgeist matters more than specific big business links. Would any of the other republicans have done better in 2012?
Romney did better than any of the others could have done. However, I don't think he did as well as he could have done. After a very impressive primaries campaign, he completely went off the boil from about May to September. Some downtime might have been necessary, as might fundraising for the general, but even his campaigning misfired badly. Add in his 47% comment and he probably cost himself the election.
Sitting Presidents almost never lose. Carter was the last one and that took staggering levels of incompetence and humiliation by Iran along with a strong opposing candidate. In fact I am in my 50s and he is the only sitting President seeking re-election to lose (unless you count Gerald Ford but he was never elected).
To have beaten Obama would have required at least Reagan levels of exceptionality. Romney was not close to that although he possibly could have been had the primaries been less bruising. The incumbency bonus in the US is huge.
BBC - Denmark approves controversial migrant assets bill
The Danish parliament has backed a controversial proposal to confiscate asylum seekers' valuables to pay for their upkeep. - Denmark says the policy brings migrants in line with jobless Danes, who must sell assets above a certain level to claim benefits.
Why is it being reported as ‘controversial’ if the ruling already applies to home grown Danes?
Are the asylum seekers allowed to work? (Genuine q.)
Good question, unfortunately Aunty does not provide the answer, but merely repeats accusations of likening the move to the confiscation of valuables from Jews during WWII.
There's an ill wind coming from a Trump nomination
Sunil J. Prasannan is calling for a total and complete shut-down of AV Threads entering PB.com, until our Forum's representatives can figure out what is going on!
That must be unconstitutional.
We've had this year's one and only AV thread.
If I do more than one AV thread per year, you'll get a sugar rush.
But fret not, there will be real excitement this year. Mike and I have both realised I will be guest editor during the EURef.
As we all know. nothing major happens when Mike goes on holiday.
AV threads stop me musing on what may or may not have happened on a motor bike holiday in East Germany some time ago.
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
It needs to be. There are great powers and there are powers that exist at the whim of great powers. There are no others.
To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?
Unfortunately for Rubio, who otherwise would be well-placed to break out of the also-ran pack, it looks as though Kasich is going to shaft him in NH. At least that is how it looks at the moment.
Fingers crossed
In all serious per BurnhamCooperKendall people are inclined to leave things far too late and do too little. Add in a strong performance for Kasich in NH, there's 0% chance he drops out.
I think Bush 2020 is more likely, TBH.
Bush or some other moderate Republican may do well in 2020 if Trump or Cruz get the nomination and then get 'Goldwatered' this time.
At some point Bush surely will price his chances in 2020 better than 2015.
Jeb ain't coming back.
Considering he bottled a run in 2012, is he the David Miliband of the Republicans?
Well at least Jeb Bush has run, even if he is going to get walloped.
David Miliband is sub Jeb, sub Corbyn, sub Ed, sub Kendall.
A bottler to the very last.
He ran against his brother and came pretty damn close. Should have won of course but was probably too arrogant. I am no great admirer but it is hard to believe a DM led Labour party would have done worse than an EM led one.
That's an interesting one to kick around - who did more damage, David Miliband as Foreign Secretary, or his kid brother at Energy and Climate Change?
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
For all the talk about how the Republicans supposedly hit their ceiling with white working class voters in 2012, it's often forgotten there was a crucial section of the WWC vote which they didn't do so well in that year: the blue-collar industrial workers from the Rust Belt, who thought Romney would lay them off and ship their jobs out to China to maximise his own profits. As you say, Trump could do much better with those voters.
A candidate closely associated with Big Business didn't win in 2012, and such a candidate would probably do worse overall this time around.
I think the political Zeitgeist matters more than specific big business links. Would any of the other republicans have done better in 2012?
Romney did better than any of the others could have done. However, I don't think he did as well as he could have done. After a very impressive primaries campaign, he completely went off the boil from about May to September. Some downtime might have been necessary, as might fundraising for the general, but even his campaigning misfired badly. Add in his 47% comment and he probably cost himself the election.
Sitting Presidents almost never lose. Carter was the last one and that took staggering levels of incompetence and humiliation by Iran along with a strong opposing candidate. In fact I am in my 50s and he is the only sitting President seeking re-election to lose (unless you count Gerald Ford but he was never elected).
To have beaten Obama would have required at least Reagan levels of exceptionality. Romney was not close to that although he possibly could have been had the primaries been less bruising. The incumbency bonus in the US is huge.
Poor old Bush Snr, lost and forgotten to boot
You're right! I had forgotten about him. By far the most competent of the Bush family too. Been all down hill since then.
David Lammy, the Mastermind Chump, has claimed that one million Indians died in WW2 for the European Project. You can hear the disgust from Steven Woolfe when he says “Did you just say they fought for the European Project?”
How seriously do we take this? Surely if five are ready to back Leave then they'd be willing to go public?
Presumably such a move would go down badly with the Labour establishment and may damage their chances in a subsequent election. It may also go down badly with the leadership, though Corbyn has hardly been effusive in support of the EU.
My instinct is that it's wishful thinking rather than genuine info.
For all the talk about how the Republicans supposedly hit their ceiling with white working class voters in 2012, it's often forgotten there was a crucial section of the WWC vote which they didn't do so well in that year: the blue-collar industrial workers from the Rust Belt, who thought Romney would lay them off and ship their jobs out to China to maximise his own profits. As you say, Trump could do much better with those voters.
A candidate closely associated with Big Business didn't win in 2012, and such a candidate would probably do worse overall this time around.
I think the political Zeitgeist matters more than specific big business links. Would any of the other republicans have done better in 2012?
Romney did better than any of the others could have done. However, I don't think he did as well as he could have done. After a very impressive primaries campaign, he completely went off the boil from about May to September. Some downtime might have been necessary, as might fundraising for the general, but even his campaigning misfired badly. Add in his 47% comment and he probably cost himself the election.
Sitting Presidents almost never lose. Carter was the last one and that took staggering levels of incompetence and humiliation by Iran along with a strong opposing candidate. In fact I am in my 50s and he is the only sitting President seeking re-election to lose (unless you count Gerald Ford but he was never elected).
To have beaten Obama would have required at least Reagan levels of exceptionality. Romney was not close to that although he possibly could have been had the primaries been less bruising. The incumbency bonus in the US is huge.
There's an ill wind coming from a Trump nomination
Sunil J. Prasannan is calling for a total and complete shut-down of AV Threads entering PB.com, until our Forum's representatives can figure out what is going on!
That must be unconstitutional.
We've had this year's one and only AV thread.
If I do more than one AV thread per year, you'll get a sugar rush.
But fret not, there will be real excitement this year. Mike and I have both realised I will be guest editor during the EURef.
As we all know. nothing major happens when Mike goes on holiday.
AV threads stop me musing on what may or may not have happened on a motor bike holiday in East Germany some time ago.
I keep meaning to do a Fifty Shades of Red thread.
For all the talk about how the Republicans supposedly hit their ceiling with white working class voters in 2012, it's often forgotten there was a crucial section of the WWC vote which they didn't do so well in that year: the blue-collar industrial workers from the Rust Belt, who thought Romney would lay them off and ship their jobs out to China to maximise his own profits. As you say, Trump could do much better with those voters.
A candidate closely associated with Big Business didn't win in 2012, and such a candidate would probably do worse overall this time around.
I think the political Zeitgeist matters more than specific big business links. Would any of the other republicans have done better in 2012?
Romney did better than any of the others could have done. However, I don't think he did as well as he could have done. After a very impressive primaries campaign, he completely went off the boil from about May to September. Some downtime might have been necessary, as might fundraising for the general, but even his campaigning misfired badly. Add in his 47% comment and he probably cost himself the election.
Sitting Presidents almost never lose. Carter was the last one and that took staggering levels of incompetence and humiliation by Iran along with a strong opposing candidate. In fact I am in my 50s and he is the only sitting President seeking re-election to lose (unless you count Gerald Ford but he was never elected).
To have beaten Obama would have required at least Reagan levels of exceptionality. Romney was not close to that although he possibly could have been had the primaries been less bruising. The incumbency bonus in the US is huge.
Poor old Bush Snr, lost and forgotten to boot
Johnson also sought re-election but withdrew after poor results in the 1968 primaries.
If they're so worried, give us a good deal to present to the UK electorate!
I don't think Deutsche Bank has that kind of power! (Not to mention the fact that the DB investment bank is pretty much all in London; it's the old Morgan Grenfell)
Nowt of Morgans left except the address. It's all Bankers Trust now
Almost all the greats in the London fund management industry are ex Morgan Grenfell, it was clearly a great place to learn
Thank you - I started my career working for Michael Dobson Morgan Grenfell & Co (not MGAM, but even so). You can tell alumni by the fact that many still wear a pink shirt on a Friday.
For all the talk about how the Republicans supposedly hit their ceiling with white working class voters in 2012, it's often forgotten there was a crucial section of the WWC vote which they didn't do so well in that year: the blue-collar industrial workers from the Rust Belt, who thought Romney would lay them off and ship their jobs out to China to maximise his own profits. As you say, Trump could do much better with those voters.
A candidate closely associated with Big Business didn't win in 2012, and such a candidate would probably do worse overall this time around.
I think the political Zeitgeist matters more than specific big business links. Would any of the other republicans have done better in 2012?
Romney did better than any of the others could have done. However, I don't think he did as well as he could have done. After a very impressive primaries campaign, he completely went off the boil from about May to September. Some downtime might have been necessary, as might fundraising for the general, but even his campaigning misfired badly. Add in his 47% comment and he probably cost himself the election.
Sitting Presidents almost never lose. Carter was the last one and that took staggering levels of incompetence and humiliation by Iran along with a strong opposing candidate. In fact I am in my 50s and he is the only sitting President seeking re-election to lose (unless you count Gerald Ford but he was never elected).
To have beaten Obama would have required at least Reagan levels of exceptionality. Romney was not close to that although he possibly could have been had the primaries been less bruising. The incumbency bonus in the US is huge.
He lost 53-47. Surely he could have found another 3% with a more competent campaign? (Slightly more in the swing states, I'll grant you).
How seriously do we take this? Surely if five are ready to back Leave then they'd be willing to go public?
Presumably such a move would go down badly with the Labour establishment and may damage their chances in a subsequent election. It may also go down badly with the leadership, though Corbyn has hardly been effusive in support of the EU.
My instinct is that it's wishful thinking rather than genuine info.
How seriously do we take this? Surely if five are ready to back Leave then they'd be willing to go public?
Presumably such a move would go down badly with the Labour establishment and may damage their chances in a subsequent election. It may also go down badly with the leadership, though Corbyn has hardly been effusive in support of the EU.
My instinct is that it's wishful thinking rather than genuine info.
For all the talk about how the Republicans supposedly hit their ceiling with white working class voters in 2012, it's often forgotten there was a crucial section of the WWC vote which they didn't do so well in that year: the blue-collar industrial workers from the Rust Belt, who thought Romney would lay them off and ship their jobs out to China to maximise his own profits. As you say, Trump could do much better with those voters.
A candidate closely associated with Big Business didn't win in 2012, and such a candidate would probably do worse overall this time around.
I think the political Zeitgeist matters more than specific big business links. Would any of the other republicans have done better in 2012?
Romney did better than any of the others could have done. However, I don't think he did as well as he could have done. After a very impressive primaries campaign, he completely went off the boil from about May to September. Some downtime might have been necessary, as might fundraising for the general, but even his campaigning misfired badly. Add in his 47% comment and he probably cost himself the election.
Sitting Presidents almost never lose. Carter was the last one and that took staggering levels of incompetence and humiliation by Iran along with a strong opposing candidate. In fact I am in my 50s and he is the only sitting President seeking re-election to lose (unless you count Gerald Ford but he was never elected).
To have beaten Obama would have required at least Reagan levels of exceptionality. Romney was not close to that although he possibly could have been had the primaries been less bruising. The incumbency bonus in the US is huge.
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
It needs to be. There are great powers and there are powers that exist at the whim of great powers. There are no others.
To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?
I don't think it's substantially different from the UK, though the manner in which people or communities are willing to make sacrifices varies. It might have been a stupid policy but the support for Merkel's immigration decision implied a significant willingness on the part of Germans to make sacrifices to allow them in.
As an aside, had the policy been decided on a European level rather than a German one, it probably wouldn't have happened at all. By contrast, if the EU didn't exist, there'd still be the same problem that there is. Borders have proven largely ineffective against the pull of her promise.
David Lammy, the Mastermind Chump, has claimed that one million Indians died in WW2 for the European Project. You can hear the disgust from Steven Woolfe when he says “Did you just say they fought for the European Project?”
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
There's an ill wind coming from a Trump nomination
Sunil J. Prasannan is calling for a total and complete shut-down of AV Threads entering PB.com, until our Forum's representatives can figure out what is going on!
That must be unconstitutional.
We've had this year's one and only AV thread.
If I do more than one AV thread per year, you'll get a sugar rush.
But fret not, there will be real excitement this year. Mike and I have both realised I will be guest editor during the EURef.
As we all know. nothing major happens when Mike goes on holiday.
AV threads stop me musing on what may or may not have happened on a motor bike holiday in East Germany some time ago.
I keep meaning to do a Fifty Shades of Red thread.
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
It needs to be. There are great powers and there are powers that exist at the whim of great powers. There are no others.
To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?
I don't think it's substantially different from the UK, though the manner in which people or communities are willing to make sacrifices varies. It might have been a stupid policy but the support for Merkel's immigration decision implied a significant willingness on the part of Germans to make sacrifices to allow them in.
As an aside, had the policy been decided on a European level rather than a German one, it probably wouldn't have happened at all. By contrast, if the EU didn't exist, there'd still be the same problem that there is. Borders have proven largely ineffective against the pull of her promise.
If the EU didn't exist there would have been six closed borders to pass so the initial Syrians wouldn't have got to Germany in large numbers to encourage the rest.
How seriously do we take this? Surely if five are ready to back Leave then they'd be willing to go public?
Presumably such a move would go down badly with the Labour establishment and may damage their chances in a subsequent election. It may also go down badly with the leadership, though Corbyn has hardly been effusive in support of the EU.
My instinct is that it's wishful thinking rather than genuine info.
There's an ill wind coming from a Trump nomination
Sunil J. Prasannan is calling for a total and complete shut-down of AV Threads entering PB.com, until our Forum's representatives can figure out what is going on!
That must be unconstitutional.
We've had this year's one and only AV thread.
If I do more than one AV thread per year, you'll get a sugar rush.
But fret not, there will be real excitement this year. Mike and I have both realised I will be guest editor during the EURef.
As we all know. nothing major happens when Mike goes on holiday.
AV threads stop me musing on what may or may not have happened on a motor bike holiday in East Germany some time ago.
I keep meaning to do a Fifty Shades of Red thread.
Now that sounds interesting.
I got a Fifty Shades of Grey reference in last year. Really proud of it.
Instead on May the 7th the Lib Dems ended up playing the role of Anastasia Steele to the electorate’s Christian Grey.
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
It needs to be. There are great powers and there are powers that exist at the whim of great powers. There are no others.
To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?
I don't think it's substantially different from the UK, though the manner in which people or communities are willing to make sacrifices varies. It might have been a stupid policy but the support for Merkel's immigration decision implied a significant willingness on the part of Germans to make sacrifices to allow them in.
As an aside, had the policy been decided on a European level rather than a German one, it probably wouldn't have happened at all. By contrast, if the EU didn't exist, there'd still be the same problem that there is. Borders have proven largely ineffective against the pull of her promise.
If the EU didn't exist there would have been six closed borders to pass so the initial Syrians wouldn't have got to Germany in large numbers to encourage the rest.
I'm not sure that's true. Borders have been basically open in western Europe since the second world war, and post communism, I'm sure eastern Europe would have been the same
How seriously do we take this? Surely if five are ready to back Leave then they'd be willing to go public?
Presumably such a move would go down badly with the Labour establishment and may damage their chances in a subsequent election. It may also go down badly with the leadership, though Corbyn has hardly been effusive in support of the EU.
My instinct is that it's wishful thinking rather than genuine info.
Lammy really shouldn't be allowed out without a handler carrying a tranquilliser gun...
What Lammy said might be defensible if you factor in that Winston Churchill arguably was an EU founder but surely what most of the critics missed is that the number of Indian deaths is out by a factor of 10.
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
It needs to be. There are great powers and there are powers that exist at the whim of great powers. There are no others.
To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?
I don't think it's substantially different from the UK, though the manner in which people or communities are willing to make sacrifices varies. It might have been a stupid policy but the support for Merkel's immigration decision implied a significant willingness on the part of Germans to make sacrifices to allow them in.
As an aside, had the policy been decided on a European level rather than a German one, it probably wouldn't have happened at all. By contrast, if the EU didn't exist, there'd still be the same problem that there is. Borders have proven largely ineffective against the pull of her promise.
If the EU didn't exist there would have been six closed borders to pass so the initial Syrians wouldn't have got to Germany in large numbers to encourage the rest.
You mean like the closed border between Greece and Turkey? The closed border between Greece and Macedonia? The border between Macedonia and Serbia, or between Serbia and Hungary?
In each case, the borders were breached in huge numbers (Hungary had 460k illegal border crossings in 2015) and illegal immigration permitted because it was the easiest thing to do for the states in question and because they knew the migrants were transiting rather than seeking to stay.
The existence of the EU and/or Schengen is irrelevant because the same pressures and dynamics would have applied.
How seriously do we take this? Surely if five are ready to back Leave then they'd be willing to go public?
Presumably such a move would go down badly with the Labour establishment and may damage their chances in a subsequent election. It may also go down badly with the leadership, though Corbyn has hardly been effusive in support of the EU.
My instinct is that it's wishful thinking rather than genuine info.
As I have been arguing on here for ages these issues are the key to continued EU membership and the arguments about benefits etc are frankly a trivial distraction. Can we get constitutional protections from dominance by the EZ bloc? For me this is the decisive question. And the answer seems to be no.
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
It needs to be. There are great powers and there are powers that exist at the whim of great powers. There are no others.
Lovinputin1983 thinks Russia should be the European great power
I would really appreciate you explaining to me why you feel I deserve this sort of rhetoric. Ta.
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
It needs to be. There are great powers and there are powers that exist at the whim of great powers. There are no others.
To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?
I don't think it's substantially different from the UK, though the manner in which people or communities are willing to make sacrifices varies. It might have been a stupid policy but the support for Merkel's immigration decision implied a significant willingness on the part of Germans to make sacrifices to allow them in.
As an aside, had the policy been decided on a European level rather than a German one, it probably wouldn't have happened at all. By contrast, if the EU didn't exist, there'd still be the same problem that there is. Borders have proven largely ineffective against the pull of her promise.
If the EU didn't exist there would have been six closed borders to pass so the initial Syrians wouldn't have got to Germany in large numbers to encourage the rest.
They were invited in by Germany anyway. I do not think the open borders applies to refugees and asylum seekers. The aim ''of the Dublin Regulation is to prevent an applicant from submitting applications in multiple Member States. Another aim is to reduce the number of "orbiting" asylum seekers, who are shuttled from member state to member state. The country that the asylum seeker first applies for asylum is responsible for either accepting or rejecting asylum, and the seeker may not restart the process in another jurisdiction.'' Definition as per Wiki. So if Greece refuses asylum to anyone then that is it - they cannot say reapply to Italy or anywhere. I am not sure where free borders comes into it. It strikes me is the issue of border protection. The refugees mostly started from Turkey - a safe place anyway and so refugee or asylum seeker - they had no grounds to be automatically accepted by Greece or anybody. The refugees would not suddenly evaporate into thin air if the EU did not exist.
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
How seriously do we take this? Surely if five are ready to back Leave then they'd be willing to go public?
Presumably such a move would go down badly with the Labour establishment and may damage their chances in a subsequent election. It may also go down badly with the leadership, though Corbyn has hardly been effusive in support of the EU.
My instinct is that it's wishful thinking rather than genuine info.
''My sense is that the public are content enough with Britain being a constant nuisance in the back of the EU car, but without ever quite plucking up the courage to get out of the car and start hitchhiking with unknowns. ''
Great analogy, and before the refugee crisis, I would have agreed with you 100%. Now, it just ain't funny any more, because the car is being driven towards a cliff by a reckless German lunatic.
We aren't in the back - we are locked in the boot.
Remainers want us to stay in there.
Leavers want to see us smashed to a pulp, broken down on the hard shoulder.
Any fule can play this silly game. Same as splattering pictures of frogs around
NATO is a military alliance for mutual defence, including the US and Canada. It is not a state nor does it have the pretensions to be one. Decisions are made by consensus.
What you and your fellow Europhiles want is an imperial EU with integrated armed forces under centralised political control, which might be projected aggressively and would certainly undermine NATO entirely.
You may wish your kids to be corralled into fighting for such an entity David but I certainly do not.
Lammy really shouldn't be allowed out without a handler carrying a tranquilliser gun...
What Lammy said might be defensible if you factor in that Winston Churchill arguably was an EU founder but surely what most of the critics missed is that the number of Indian deaths is out by a factor of 10.
Out of a million Indian troops, close on 75,000 died fighting in WW1. Were they fighting for the Kaiser's European Project too, Mr. Lammy? No...
How seriously do we take this? Surely if five are ready to back Leave then they'd be willing to go public?
Presumably such a move would go down badly with the Labour establishment and may damage their chances in a subsequent election. It may also go down badly with the leadership, though Corbyn has hardly been effusive in support of the EU.
My instinct is that it's wishful thinking rather than genuine info.
I don't get this notion that Obama was easy to beat in 2012, Romney was crushed with Obama not being particularly dynamic. Obama put in as much effort as he needed.
The Tea Party purity drive had hobbled the Republican selection process - Obama's voter targeting operation was excellent and he had a monster vote from minorities.
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of course it has something to do with Europe. Why was it created in the first place? Why did the Eastern European states want to join? Why does Georgia want to join?
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
'AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.' Jerry Falwell 'Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.' Jerry Falwell 'If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.' Jerry Falwell 'God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.' 'The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this' Jerry Falwell (on 911) 'He [Tinky Winky] is purple—the gay-pride color, and his antenna is shaped like a triangle—the gay pride symbol.' Jerry Falwell (on the Teletubbies)
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of course it has something to do with Europe. Why was it created in the first place? Why did the Eastern European states want to join? Why does Georgia want to join?
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
hmm point stretched to breaking Mr H
Nato was about protecting The West from the USSR. It had as much to do with North America as Europe.
Out of a million Indian troops, close on 75,000 died fighting in WW1. Were they fighting for the Kaiser's European Project too, Mr. Lammy? No...
It is possible more Indians died fighting the....er.....Japanese 'project' in Burma than the European project in WW2??
According to Wiki - Indian troop campaigns against Japan including Burma cost the lives of over 36,000 Indian servicemen, while another 34,354 were wounded and 67,340 became prisoners of war.
BBC - Denmark approves controversial migrant assets bill
The Danish parliament has backed a controversial proposal to confiscate asylum seekers' valuables to pay for their upkeep. - Denmark says the policy brings migrants in line with jobless Danes, who must sell assets above a certain level to claim benefits.
Why is it being reported as ‘controversial’ if the ruling already applies to home grown Danes?
Are the asylum seekers allowed to work? (Genuine q.)
It would seem so. Above what level do Danes have to sell assets? To what extent could asylum seekers be expected to be above that level or indeed have any assets at all.
Interesting angle eh? i.e. that 'Europe' is a 'world power', or should be. A good example of the completely different mindset most Europeans have about what the EU's purpose is.
If the UK's exit sabotages this notion of 'Europe a Nation' then so much the better.
It needs to be. There are great powers and there are powers that exist at the whim of great powers. There are no others.
To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?
I don't think it's substantially different from the UK, though the manner in which people or communities are willing to make sacrifices varies. It might have been a stupid policy but the support for Merkel's immigration decision implied a significant willingness on the part of Germans to make sacrifices to allow them in.
As an aside, had the policy been decided on a European level rather than a German one, it probably wouldn't have happened at all. By contrast, if the EU didn't exist, there'd still be the same problem that there is. Borders have proven largely ineffective against the pull of her promise.
If the EU didn't exist there would have been six closed borders to pass so the initial Syrians wouldn't have got to Germany in large numbers to encourage the rest.
I'm not sure that's true. Borders have been basically open in western Europe since the second world war, and post communism, I'm sure eastern Europe would have been the same
It's a dark point to make - and I'm hesitant to say so - but it also shows how effective a border can be if defended by lethal force.
I mean how many people escaped from East to West Berlin over the 30 years The Wall was up?
Now, I'm not saying we do that - although I do think Calais may end up needing uniformed auxiliary support from the UK to patrol it armed with water cannon, tasers, mobile arrest vans and perhaps even rubber bullets for a worst case scenario - but it does show how firmly a land border can be enforced if political will is there.
That'd be better than now where thousands think they are benignly storming the gates of the Garden of Eden.
'To be a great power, there has to be a readiness among the population to make sacrifices. To take lots of casualties in war, and to prioritise guns before butter, when necessary. Do you think such a readiness exists on the Continent?'
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
So why are we still in NATO then?
NATO has nothing to do with "Europe", it is a treaty between sovereign nations. It is also pretty much a busted flush and its reason for existence disappeared twenty-odd years ago. We are still in it for the same reason that it still exists - because it would be politically harmful for any government to tell the truth about it.
Of course it has something to do with Europe. Why was it created in the first place? Why did the Eastern European states want to join? Why does Georgia want to join?
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
Sad you missed the quotation marks, but you are busy fellow.
NATO was, in the famous quote, created to "Keep the Yanks in, the Russians out and the Germans down". When the Soviet empire collapsed so did the need for NATO. Its function has gone and moreover so has its military power - most of Europe has, effectively, disarmed.
'AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.' Jerry Falwell 'Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.' Jerry Falwell 'If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.' Jerry Falwell 'God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.' 'The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this' Jerry Falwell (on 911) 'He [Tinky Winky] is purple—the gay-pride color, and his antenna is shaped like a triangle—the gay pride symbol.' Jerry Falwell (on the Teletubbies)
I must admit that Jerry Falwell is slightly embarassing himself here. Trump's gods are money, power and women. (The last preferably Slavic.) He said - and I'm slightly paraphrasing here - that Jesus only got to where he was because of the size of his ego.
This reminds me of Rupert Murdoch: Falwell is working out which way the wind is blowing before commanding the skies to blow in the said direction.
There's an ill wind coming from a Trump nomination
Sunil J. Prasannan is calling for a total and complete shut-down of AV Threads entering PB.com, until our Forum's representatives can figure out what is going on!
Comments
Indeed. If you look at politics in 2016 as left versus right, that may be the wrong angle.
Its more establishment versus anti-establishment.
David Miliband is sub Jeb, sub Corbyn, sub Ed, sub Kendall.
A bottler to the very last.
He'd have been better off defending the status quo, which would have meant zero grovelling missions to foreign leaders.
Just like Hillary I suppose.
My sense is that the public are content enough with Britain being a constant nuisance in the backseat of the EU car, occasionally giving Mummy Merkel's seat in front a kick, but without ever quite plucking up the courage to get out of the car and start hitchhiking with unknowns.
Great analogy, and before the refugee crisis, I would have agreed with you 100%. Now, it just ain't funny any more, because the car is being driven towards a cliff by a reckless German lunatic.
The Danish parliament has backed a controversial proposal to confiscate asylum seekers' valuables to pay for their upkeep. - Denmark says the policy brings migrants in line with jobless Danes, who must sell assets above a certain level to claim benefits.
Why is it being reported as ‘controversial’ if the ruling already applies to home grown Danes?
https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/692029655495348224
Apologies for the aggressive post. Just a bit frustrating when you're trying to get on a bet and someone else posts the same logic and comes to the same conclusion while the trader is still umming & arring.
Because the establishment disagrees with it?
I wonder whether we could do the same for spousal immigration. Want to bring your nearest and dearest from rural Pakistan?
OK, that'll be 150,000 grand please.
The usual lazy journalism
To have beaten Obama would have required at least Reagan levels of exceptionality. Romney was not close to that although he possibly could have been had the primaries been less bruising. The incumbency bonus in the US is huge.
Remainers want us to stay in there.
And it wouldn;t so much shoot UKIP's fox as hang draw and quarter it...
Well nice to see we have at least one 'out' Europhile here among all the dissemblers.
And what appetite do Europhiles think exists in the UK for UK citizens to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'? Because that is where the logic leads.
Zilch I would say.
https://twitter.com/GuidoFawkes/status/692019105730289664
Presumably such a move would go down badly with the Labour establishment and may damage their chances in a subsequent election. It may also go down badly with the leadership, though Corbyn has hardly been effusive in support of the EU.
My instinct is that it's wishful thinking rather than genuine info.
https://twitter.com/labourleave/status/692030648329093120
Anyone with basic competence and skills would have beaten Obama in 2012, but Romney never had them.
"Give me your arm, old toad; Help me down Cemetery Road." - Larkin
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/education/area-high-schoolers-among-protesters-booted-from-trump-rally/article_2007cc6b-15c1-5c1b-b23a-238639285210.html
He's no fan of the EU.
Perhaps they are so lefties they don't really care about the establishment.
As an aside, had the policy been decided on a European level rather than a German one, it probably wouldn't have happened at all. By contrast, if the EU didn't exist, there'd still be the same problem that there is. Borders have proven largely ineffective against the pull of her promise.
Instead on May the 7th the Lib Dems ended up playing the role of Anastasia Steele to the electorate’s Christian Grey.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/06/25/this-mornings-must-read/
In each case, the borders were breached in huge numbers (Hungary had 460k illegal border crossings in 2015) and illegal immigration permitted because it was the easiest thing to do for the states in question and because they knew the migrants were transiting rather than seeking to stay.
The existence of the EU and/or Schengen is irrelevant because the same pressures and dynamics would have applied.
As I have been arguing on here for ages these issues are the key to continued EU membership and the arguments about benefits etc are frankly a trivial distraction. Can we get constitutional protections from dominance by the EZ bloc? For me this is the decisive question. And the answer seems to be no.
Rain!
Snow!
Freezing temperature!
It'll be awesome if they get a good turnout.
The aim ''of the Dublin Regulation is to prevent an applicant from submitting applications in multiple Member States. Another aim is to reduce the number of "orbiting" asylum seekers, who are shuttled from member state to member state. The country that the asylum seeker first applies for asylum is responsible for either accepting or rejecting asylum, and the seeker may not restart the process in another jurisdiction.''
Definition as per Wiki.
So if Greece refuses asylum to anyone then that is it - they cannot say reapply to Italy or anywhere. I am not sure where free borders comes into it. It strikes me is the issue of border protection.
The refugees mostly started from Turkey - a safe place anyway and so refugee or asylum seeker - they had no grounds to be automatically accepted by Greece or anybody. The refugees would not suddenly evaporate into thin air if the EU did not exist.
He goes out of his way to step on every available banana skin
Its remarkable what people with mental retardation caused by a thyroid deficiency can achieve these days.
A bit so-what in secular Europe maybe. But in the US, FFS. Those are powerful images if they filter through there.
Any fule can play this silly game. Same as splattering pictures of frogs around
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/25/your-real-time-iowa-caucus-weather-tracker/?postshare=4391453753657190&tid=ss_tw
Light snow all over.
Typical Iowa winter weather, temperatures from -2 to -8 C.
In 2012 the weather was a warm 1 degree Celsius, in 2008 it was -15 C :
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2012/01/04/caucus-turnout-robust-nearing-all-time-record/
NATO is a military alliance for mutual defence, including the US and Canada. It is not a state nor does it have the pretensions to be one. Decisions are made by consensus.
What you and your fellow Europhiles want is an imperial EU with integrated armed forces under centralised political control, which might be projected aggressively and would certainly undermine NATO entirely.
You may wish your kids to be corralled into fighting for such an entity David but I certainly do not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Opposition_Shadow_Cabinet_(United_Kingdom)
He seems to be much lacking in the common sense department.
The Tea Party purity drive had hobbled the Republican selection process - Obama's voter targeting operation was excellent and he had a monster vote from minorities.
It was exactly the purpose of NATO was to "to make sacrifices, including of their lives, for the interests of 'Europe'", in the phrase downthread.
I mean, theoretically, yes, W Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Canada should Papua New Guinea invade it but that wasn't really the strategic thinking of its founders.
It is possible more Indians died fighting the....er.....Japanese 'project' in Burma than the European project in WW2??
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/matthew-norman/matthew-norman-bottom-of-the-class-mr-lammy-1648278.html
Jerry Falwell
'Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.'
Jerry Falwell
'If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being.'
Jerry Falwell
'God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.'
'The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this'
Jerry Falwell (on 911)
'He [Tinky Winky] is purple—the gay-pride color, and his antenna is shaped like a triangle—the gay pride symbol.'
Jerry Falwell (on the Teletubbies)
Nato was about protecting The West from the USSR. It had as much to do with North America as Europe.
It would seem so.
Above what level do Danes have to sell assets? To what extent could asylum seekers be expected to be above that level or indeed have any assets at all.
I mean how many people escaped from East to West Berlin over the 30 years The Wall was up?
Now, I'm not saying we do that - although I do think Calais may end up needing uniformed auxiliary support from the UK to patrol it armed with water cannon, tasers, mobile arrest vans and perhaps even rubber bullets for a worst case scenario - but it does show how firmly a land border can be enforced if political will is there.
That'd be better than now where thousands think they are benignly storming the gates of the Garden of Eden.
NATO was, in the famous quote, created to "Keep the Yanks in, the Russians out and the Germans down". When the Soviet empire collapsed so did the need for NATO. Its function has gone and moreover so has its military power - most of Europe has, effectively, disarmed.
This reminds me of Rupert Murdoch: Falwell is working out which way the wind is blowing before commanding the skies to blow in the said direction.
"San Diego Naval Medical Centre shooting reported - live
Three shots fired at the Naval Medical Centre in Balboa Park, according to reports"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12123201/San-Diego-Naval-Medical-Centre-shooting-reported-live.html