1. Most of it was conducted before the GOP debate debacle. 2. All of it was conducted before the fresh Hillary email scandal news that's all around the media since yesterday.
Trump leading by a margin of 5 must be just secure enough for him to win, regardless of the risks from 1. Hillary leading by a margin of 3, with O'Malley having 3 leaves her vulnerable from 2 and the second round system of the Dem caucus.
So far what we see is the undecideds breaking for Trump, Cruz leaking a bit to Rubio, while the undecideds breaking equally for Hillary and Sanders. Sanders still needs a swing of 1.5-2% for him to win.
I saw him speak at an event a while back and the Eurosceptic audience were very very hostile towards him and his thoughts on the EU. One lady was so vocal it bordered on screaming.
The good thing about this EU referendum,we are finding the real leave tories,not the pretend one's.
Pathetic comment. You are sounding like a typical brain challenged Corbynista. Indeed the more I think about it the more pathetic it becomes and the more disgusted by it I am.
Your Europhilia is getting the better of you. If an MP sought election on a Eurosceptic ticket and then miraculously decides he is a Europhile (after in some cases decades of criticism of the EU/EC), the local party members have every reason to be annoyed.
Grow up and wake up. Personally I would be prepared to settle for being in the EEA. But this talk about 'proper conservatives' is plain pathetic bordering on crass. ILts coming from a recognition of the crap message being put out by leave. If leave don't win we can see it will all be because of some traitor or other. Pure Corbynista. I'm a proper conservative who has voted conservative all my life and I'm proud of it. I have seen our country ruined by far too many socialist governments - for nigh on 60 years - and I am not going to take lessons on being a proper Conservative from anyone on this board thank you very much
Has your return key broken I don't think I have ever seen you make use of it?
Keyboards are relatively inexpensive these days.
Return key? Why cannot you read without white space? Nothing better to say? Upset at facts getting in your way and realising how stupid it is to try to rubbish conservatives for being conservatives? I take a dim view of remarks about 'pretend conservatives' just because some thinking ones have said they might vote 'Remain'. Its not my fault if that sentiment echoes the brain wattage of your typical narrow minded Corbynista.
Right do I go even more balls deep on laying Trump for Presidency?
I'm in America during the Iowa caucus and won't be able to bet.
If Hillary wins Iowa, place a bet on Trump. Trump maybe the most hated man in america, but Hillary is the most hated woman in america.
If it's Trump VS Hillary it will be too close too call, since Trump is the media master and Hillary is one FBI investigation away from jail.
It will be close but I say Hillary by 1%, especially as there are plenty of rumoured skeletons about Trump too, your argument also works the other way, Hillary's best chance is against Trump, her most dangerous opponent would be Rubio
LABOUR leader Jeremy Corbyn was heading for another showdown with trade unions last night as a new campaign group said it had the support of thousands of members to fight to get Britain out of the EU.
For Trump, a win is enough - and 5 points is heading out of margin of error.
Clinton can lose the first two and sweep to the nomination. I'll only take Sanders seriously if he can challenge in states like South Carolina.
She won't be sweeping to anything if she loses Iowa as well as New Hampshire, if Sanders starts to win the Mid West as well as the North East he could be nominee even if he loses the South
Right do I go even more balls deep on laying Trump for Presidency?
I'm in America during the Iowa caucus and won't be able to bet.
Clinton and her emails may help Trump become POTUS. President Trump is too weird to even comprehend.
In the last year, I've written threads about Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader, and David Cameron sticking his bits in a pig's mouth.
None of that could prepare me for the weirdness of Trump as POTUS
You can do what you want with your money, but remember turning a red book from -700 (Say you'd laid Trump out at 7-1 for £100 on everyone else) to -350 (Rebacking Trump now I guess) is the same as going from 0 to +350.
Right do I go even more balls deep on laying Trump for Presidency?
I'm in America during the Iowa caucus and won't be able to bet.
Clinton and her emails may help Trump become POTUS. President Trump is too weird to even comprehend.
In the last year, I've written threads about Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader, and David Cameron sticking his bits in a pig's mouth.
None of that could prepare me for the weirdness of Trump as POTUS
You can do what you want with your money, but remember turning a red book from -700 (Say you'd laid Trump out at 7-1 for £100 on everyone else) to -350 (Rebacking Trump now I guess) is the same as going from 0 to +350.
Right do I go even more balls deep on laying Trump for Presidency?
I'm in America during the Iowa caucus and won't be able to bet.
Clinton and her emails may help Trump become POTUS. President Trump is too weird to even comprehend.
In the last year, I've written threads about Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader, and David Cameron sticking his bits in a pig's mouth.
None of that could prepare me for the weirdness of Trump as POTUS
You can do what you want with your money, but remember turning a red book from -700 (Say you'd laid Trump out at 7-1 for £100 on everyone else) to -350 (Rebacking Trump now I guess) is the same as going from 0 to +350.
I know. I'll back Trump. Sheesh
You'll be sicker than a sick thing if you do that and Cruz takes Iowa though.
Put a gun to my head, I'd guess Trump will win the Republican one and Clinton will JUST edge the Democrat one by a hair (I'm talking Romney-vs-Santorum 2012 margin).
Slightly wilder prediction, Rubio could come second? I get the feeling Cruz's flop in the debate the other day might be really puncturing him.
In the last year, I've written threads about Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader, and David Cameron sticking his bits in a pig's mouth.
None of that could prepare me for the weirdness of Trump as POTUS
Gromyko used to muse wryly about the impossibility of getting anything done in US election year because there was always a wild candidate terrifying everyone into immobility. "It's like a natural disaster occurring every 4 years",
Right do I go even more balls deep on laying Trump for Presidency?
I'm in America during the Iowa caucus and won't be able to bet.
Clinton and her emails may help Trump become POTUS. President Trump is too weird to even comprehend.
In the last year, I've written threads about Jeremy Corbyn becoming Labour leader, and David Cameron sticking his bits in a pig's mouth.
None of that could prepare me for the weirdness of Trump as POTUS
You can do what you want with your money, but remember turning a red book from -700 (Say you'd laid Trump out at 7-1 for £100 on everyone else) to -350 (Rebacking Trump now I guess) is the same as going from 0 to +350.
I know. I'll back Trump. Sheesh
You'll be sicker than a sick thing if you do that and Cruz takes Iowa though.
Put a gun to my head, I'd guess Trump will win the Republican one and Clinton will JUST edge the Democrat one by a hair (I'm talking Romney-vs-Santorum 2012 margin).
Slightly wilder prediction, Rubio could come second? I get the feeling Cruz's flop in the debate the other day might be really puncturing him.
I think most "c" conservatives in Iowa will still be going for Cruz. Although there isn't much between him and Rubio he's definitely the most right wing candidate of the whole bunch. Betfair seems to be acting like Cruz will finish behind Rubio already though, which seems crackers to me.
The Trump -12 might well lose to Rubio though which means @rcs1000 will win that bet !
Trump 27 Cruz 23 Rubio 19 Can see it ending something like that.
Right do I go even more balls deep on laying Trump for Presidency?
I'm in America during the Iowa caucus and won't be able to bet.
If Hillary wins Iowa, place a bet on Trump. Trump maybe the most hated man in america, but Hillary is the most hated woman in america.
If it's Trump VS Hillary it will be too close too call, since Trump is the media master and Hillary is one FBI investigation away from jail.
It will be close but I say Hillary by 1%, especially as there are plenty of rumoured skeletons about Trump too, your argument also works the other way, Hillary's best chance is against Trump, her most dangerous opponent would be Rubio
Not really, Rubio is a G.W.Bush clone, same policies and too extreme socially, economically, and in foreign policy, not to mention terrible campaigner, Hillary can easy portray him as insane (though not as easily as Cruz). Also Rubio can never command the media at a whim like Trump can.
Trump is much more of a moderate on social issues (immigration exempted) and has economic policies that are actually popular, his problem though is his persona.
Trump went from 20% favourables, 60% unfavourables at the beginning of his campaign to 60 favourables and 20 unfavourables now with republicans, can he replicate that with the G.E. electorate? Since he has total dominance of the media, he can try.
Mark Pritchard's reasoning for remaining in the EU is really bizarre. He is arguing that without the UK remaining in the EU, France and Germany will be incapable of making sensible decisions. He also makes a ludicrous reference to WW1 and WW2 for good measure.
How are Leicester still top (apart from obviously being the best this season)? Boggles the mind!
Leicester and Watford both play two up front, whereas the rest play the dull as ditchwater 4-2-3-1
I have a theory that as there is no such thing as a full back that can defend anymore, within a year most teams will be playing a variation of 3-5-2.
Fuchs and Simpson are both very defensive fullbacks, and part of the reason that Leicester has conceeded only 1 goal in the last 5 league matches. Both came on a free, and Fuchs sometimes makes more tackles than that gem of our summer signings N'Golo Kante.
In our 1st choice starting 11 we have a very good side. Still 9.8 on Betfair for the title.
Mark Pritchard's reasoning for remaining in the EU is really bizarre. He is arguing that without the UK remaining in the EU, France and Germany will be incapable of making sensible decisions. He also makes a ludicrous reference to WW1 and WW2 for good measure.
"There are some who say ‘who cares?’ if Europe fails should Britain leave. This is short-sighted and ill-judged. Europe’s crises all too often become Britain’s crises. Two major European wars testify to that. "
Mark Pritchard's reasoning for remaining in the EU is really bizarre. He is arguing that without the UK remaining in the EU, France and Germany will be incapable of making sensible decisions. He also makes a ludicrous reference to WW1 and WW2 for good measure.
TSE thinks the Leave campaign is rubbish, with idiots like Pritchard I'm not sure they need to do anything. Every single argument I have seen for staying in is preposterous, from Rose's dodgy maths, to Clegg saying Turkey must be allowed to join, to rubbish like this.
How are Leicester still top (apart from obviously being the best this season)? Boggles the mind!
Leicester and Watford both play two up front, whereas the rest play the dull as ditchwater 4-2-3-1
I have a theory that as there is no such thing as a full back that can defend anymore, within a year most teams will be playing a variation of 3-5-2.
Fuchs and Simpson are both very defensive fullbacks, and part of the reason that Leicester has conceeded only 1 goal in the last 5 league matches. Both came on a free, and Fuchs sometimes makes more tackles than that gem of our summer signings N'Golo Kante.
In our 1st choice starting 11 we have a very good side. Still 9.8 on Betfair for the title.
Kante is a magnificent player, utterly brilliant in his role. I would argue though that Robert Huth has been a huge influence for you, I think since the very day he joined things have picked up, might not be totally right though.
None of this hides the reality that grammar schools will boost social mobility!
"Rubio is up 3 percentage points since early January. But there's no indication of a surge: His support declined during the four days of polling."
"Trump leads both with Iowans who say they’ll definitely vote and those who will probably vote. “Turnout seems not to affect him," Selzer said. "Either way, he seems on solid ground.”
Among first-time caucusgoers, Trump has a 16-point lead. But the universe of experienced caucusgoers is bigger, where Cruz has a 3-point lead."
"This poll shows 47 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers identify themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians. Entrance polling four years ago measured 57 percent.
When Selzer rejiggered the new Iowa Poll results to reflect a hypothetical 60 percent evangelical turnout, the race tightens: Trump gets 26 percent of their support, and Cruz gets 25 percent."
" 50 percent of likely caucusgoers say Trump would be most feared by enemies of the United States. Twenty-one percent name Cruz. Rubio is viewed as an amateur in this area, with only 5 percent."
"But now, even in King's congressional district, where social conservatives dominate and Trump has visited just three times, Trump is up by 1 point. Cruz, in contrast, has stopped in every county in the state."
"If the race eventually comes down to two Republicans, 53 percent say they would prefer Cruz as the nominee, not Trump. Just 35 percent would choose Trump in a one-on-one contest with Cruz."
"Forty-six percent of likely caucusgoers say they don’t care that he boycotted Fox News’ event, the final match-up before the vote.
Just 29 percent say they disapprove, while 24 approve of Trump's choice, which was announced the day this poll went into the field."
"Eleven percent say Branstad's opposition makes them less likely to support Cruz, but that's balanced by the 11 percent who say they're actually more likely to back Cruz thanks to Branstad."
"Among those who could still be persuaded to pick a different candidate, it’s a very close race, with Cruz leading, then Trump and Rubio right behind."
Mark Pritchard's reasoning for remaining in the EU is really bizarre. He is arguing that without the UK remaining in the EU, France and Germany will be incapable of making sensible decisions. He also makes a ludicrous reference to WW1 and WW2 for good measure.
TSE thinks the Leave campaign is rubbish, with idiots like Pritchard I'm not sure they need to do anything. Every single argument I have seen for staying in is preposterous, from Rose's dodgy maths, to Clegg saying Turkey must be allowed to join, to rubbish like this.
Remain are doing the Leave work for them.
It is a great shame that the media are incapable of holding politicians to account. It would go a long way towards improving the quality of debate. This goes for both Leave and Remain. Instead we get told that 3 million jobs will be lost should we leave the EU, the EU prevents European countries going to war and other ridiculous statements.
Right do I go even more balls deep on laying Trump for Presidency?
I'm in America during the Iowa caucus and won't be able to bet.
If Hillary wins Iowa, place a bet on Trump. Trump maybe the most hated man in america, but Hillary is the most hated woman in america.
If it's Trump VS Hillary it will be too close too call, since Trump is the media master and Hillary is one FBI investigation away from jail.
It will be close but I say Hillary by 1%, especially as there are plenty of rumoured skeletons about Trump too, your argument also works the other way, Hillary's best chance is against Trump, her most dangerous opponent would be Rubio
Not really, Rubio is a G.W.Bush clone, same policies and too extreme socially, economically, and in foreign policy, not to mention terrible campaigner, Hillary can easy portray him as insane (though not as easily as Cruz). Also Rubio can never command the media at a whim like Trump can.
Trump is much more of a moderate on social issues (immigration exempted) and has economic policies that are actually popular, his problem though is his persona.
Trump went from 20% favourables, 60% unfavourables at the beginning of his campaign to 60 favourables and 20 unfavourables now with republicans, can he replicate that with the G.E. electorate? Since he has total dominance of the media, he can try.
He has charisma and is not as implicitly anti Hispanic as Trump and he leads Hillary in the RCP poll average while Trump trails her
Right do I go even more balls deep on laying Trump for Presidency?
I'm in America during the Iowa caucus and won't be able to bet.
If Hillary wins Iowa, place a bet on Trump. Trump maybe the most hated man in america, but Hillary is the most hated woman in america.
If it's Trump VS Hillary it will be too close too call, since Trump is the media master and Hillary is one FBI investigation away from jail.
It will be close but I say Hillary by 1%, especially as there are plenty of rumoured skeletons about Trump too, your argument also works the other way, Hillary's best chance is against Trump, her most dangerous opponent would be Rubio
Not really, Rubio is a G.W.Bush clone, same policies and too extreme socially, economically, and in foreign policy, not to mention terrible campaigner, Hillary can easy portray him as insane (though not as easily as Cruz). Also Rubio can never command the media at a whim like Trump can.
Trump is much more of a moderate on social issues (immigration exempted) and has economic policies that are actually popular, his problem though is his persona.
Trump went from 20% favourables, 60% unfavourables at the beginning of his campaign to 60 favourables and 20 unfavourables now with republicans, can he replicate that with the G.E. electorate? Since he has total dominance of the media, he can try.
He has charisma and is not as implicitly anti Hispanic as Trump and he leads Hillary in the RCP poll average while Trump trails her
Rubio makes Romney look like a human being.
He maybe from Cuba, his father may have been a bartender once, but no one will vote for him based on that. He's a paper candidate, as I warned before about Christie, Kasish and Bush when they where shooting up in the betting markets, if people had only listened to me they wouldn't have lost lots of money betting on those paper candidates (like TSE has).
I have close, if not at, 100% accuracy rates on my US politics predictions, unlike some esteemed members of the media and punditocracy , if only certain major publications had been so prescient as to avoid the egg on their faces, but talents like mine are scarce.
Right do I go even more balls deep on laying Trump for Presidency?
I'm in America during the Iowa caucus and won't be able to bet.
If Hillary wins Iowa, place a bet on Trump. Trump maybe the most hated man in america, but Hillary is the most hated woman in america.
If it's Trump VS Hillary it will be too close too call, since Trump is the media master and Hillary is one FBI investigation away from jail.
It will be close but I say Hillary by 1%, especially as there are plenty of rumoured skeletons about Trump too, your argument also works the other way, Hillary's best chance is against Trump, her most dangerous opponent would be Rubio
Not really, Rubio is a G.W.Bush clone, same policies and too extreme socially, economically, and in foreign policy, not to mention terrible campaigner, Hillary can easy portray him as insane (though not as easily as Cruz). Also Rubio can never command the media at a whim like Trump can.
Trump is much more of a moderate on social issues (immigration exempted) and has economic policies that are actually popular, his problem though is his persona.
Trump went from 20% favourables, 60% unfavourables at the beginning of his campaign to 60 favourables and 20 unfavourables now with republicans, can he replicate that with the G.E. electorate? Since he has total dominance of the media, he can try.
He has charisma and is not as implicitly anti Hispanic as Trump and he leads Hillary in the RCP poll average while Trump trails her
Rubio makes Romney look like a human being.
He maybe from Cuba, his father may have been a bartender once, but no one will vote for him based on that. He's a paper candidate, as I warned before about Christie, Kasish and Bush when they where shooting up in the betting markets, if people had only listened to me they wouldn't have lost lots of money betting on those paper candidates (like TSE has).
I have close, if not at, 100% accuracy rates on my US politics predictions, unlike some esteemed members of the media and punditocracy , if only certain major publications had been so prescient as to avoid the egg on their faces, but talents like mine are scarce.
Enough bragging though, goodnight.
Think what you want but Rubio leads Hillary by 2.5% in the RCP poll average, Clinton leads Trump by 2.7%
Mark Pritchard's reasoning for remaining in the EU is really bizarre. He is arguing that without the UK remaining in the EU, France and Germany will be incapable of making sensible decisions. He also makes a ludicrous reference to WW1 and WW2 for good measure.
Mark Pritchard's reasoning for remaining in the EU is really bizarre. He is arguing that without the UK remaining in the EU, France and Germany will be incapable of making sensible decisions. He also makes a ludicrous reference to WW1 and WW2 for good measure.
TSE thinks the Leave campaign is rubbish, with idiots like Pritchard I'm not sure they need to do anything. Every single argument I have seen for staying in is preposterous, from Rose's dodgy maths, to Clegg saying Turkey must be allowed to join, to rubbish like this.
Remain are doing the Leave work for them.
Indeed. The trouble is the converse is also true: Leave is doing Remain's work. Both sides are campaigning as if the referendum has been sprung on them with five minutes' notice, so here are some ideas scribbled on the back of a fag packet, rather than having been heralded for years and one party's entire raison d'etre.
International tax rules are outdated. They have changed little since the 1920s. And they are easily exploited by global companies that use them to shift profits to tax havens that have very low – or, in some cases, zero – rates of corporate tax.
A Labour MP has been asked by David Cameron to examine why black offenders are more likely to be jailed than white offenders in English and Welsh courts.
Downing Street said 61% of BAME defendants found guilty in crown courts were given custodial sentences, compared with 56% of white offenders.
Could he not find somebody who wasn't a blinkered moron to conduct this review? Also that is a meaningless statistic without context of what ratio of crimes different ethnicity are being charged with e.g. I think we will find that number of Muslims charged with drink driving might be rather on the low side, but rather greater for terrorism related offenses than in comparison to the stats for white people.
Will be interesting to see what the EU does about the various 0% Carribean islands though, could be a massive boon for Ireland potentially. That ain't helping the UK tho.
The critics of Cameron's choice of Lammy to lead the review should really read Lammy's book "Out of the ashes" about the 2011 riots, or listen to him speak about the issues facing black inner-city youth, especially about absent fathers. Since such issues are likely to be part of the problems, it seems Lammy is well-placed to run it.
Although I don't agree with all his proposed solutions in 'out of the ashes', he's at least got a good initial grasp of the problems.
Will be interesting to see what the EU does about the various 0% Carribean islands though, could be a massive boon for Ireland potentially. That ain't helping the UK tho.
"But whether Phillips was right or wrong to draw parallels between the scenes in Cologne over new year and on Britain’s city centres on a Friday and Saturday night, the instant attempt to shout Phillips down has sparked its own row."
"Catherine Mayer, author and co-founder and president of the Women’s Equality Party, said she was struck by how the slight fumble in Phillips’s point had allowed her critics to close down the MP’s argument."
“Jess Phillips’s reply on Question Time suffered from over-compression, but she was clearly trying to make a legitimate point, that violence and harassment against women and girls is sadly not exceptional or limited to one group or type of perpetrator or to one situation,” Mayer said.
So Phillips is now the victim. And WTF is "over-compression"?
"But whether Phillips was right or wrong to draw parallels between the scenes in Cologne over new year and on Britain’s city centres on a Friday and Saturday night, the instant attempt to shout Phillips down has sparked its own row."
"Catherine Mayer, author and co-founder and president of the Women’s Equality Party, said she was struck by how the slight fumble in Phillips’s point had allowed her critics to close down the MP’s argument."
“Jess Phillips’s reply on Question Time suffered from over-compression, but she was clearly trying to make a legitimate point, that violence and harassment against women and girls is sadly not exceptional or limited to one group or type of perpetrator or to one situation,” Mayer said.
So Phillips is now the victim. And WTF is "over-compression"?
What a "bunch" of Guardianistas....or is that too offensive?
Will be interesting to see what the EU does about the various 0% Carribean islands though, could be a massive boon for Ireland potentially. That ain't helping the UK tho.
Will be interesting to see what the EU does about the various 0% Carribean islands though, could be a massive boon for Ireland potentially. That ain't helping the UK tho.
Its funny how it always seems to slip their mind. On a recent BBC special that was fronted by a Guardian journo, he managed to run off a laundry list of all the firms with Cayman links, except one particularly well known media trust...and when he took a dig at a former NOTW journo, who now lives there, the ex-NOTW reposte about the Guardian seemed to get cut.
Will be interesting to see what the EU does about the various 0% Carribean islands though, could be a massive boon for Ireland potentially. That ain't helping the UK tho.
Its funny how it always seems to slip their mind. On a recent BBC special that was fronted by a Guardian journo, he managed to run off a laundry list of all the firms with Cayman links, except one particularly well known media trust...and when he took a dig at a former NOTW journo, who now lives there, the ex-NOTW reposte about the Guardian seemed to get cut.
Just like Google, Starbucks, Amazon and all the other multinationals they go after, they are not doing anything illegal.
It wouldn't be an issue if they put a declaration of interest under every article about tax avoidance and if other media organisations (BBC) made a point of calling them out on it. As it is, it's the elephant in the room that no-one mentions, they hope that only the few who read eg. Private Eye and Guido know anything about it.
An organised campaign to undermine Britain’s fight against terrorism can be revealed today.
Islamist activists linked to Cage, a group known to sympathise with terrorists, are using coordinated leaks to mainstream news organisations, including the BBC, to spread fear and confusion in Muslim communities about the Government’s anti-terror policy, Prevent.
Will be interesting to see what the EU does about the various 0% Carribean islands though, could be a massive boon for Ireland potentially. That ain't helping the UK tho.
Its funny how it always seems to slip their mind. On a recent BBC special that was fronted by a Guardian journo, he managed to run off a laundry list of all the firms with Cayman links, except one particularly well known media trust...and when he took a dig at a former NOTW journo, who now lives there, the ex-NOTW reposte about the Guardian seemed to get cut.
Just like Google, Starbucks, Amazon and all the other multinationals they go after, they are not doing anything illegal.
It wouldn't be an issue if they put a declaration of interest under every article about tax avoidance and if other media organisations (BBC) made a point of calling them out on it. As it is, it's the elephant in the room that no-one mentions, they hope that only the few who read eg. Private Eye and Guido know anything about it.
Well they know they are on safe ground with the BBC. Not only are they fellow travellers, but we know lots of Beeboid high earners have had interesting working arrangements that have certainly been "tax efficient".
An organised campaign to undermine Britain’s fight against terrorism can be revealed today.
Islamist activists linked to Cage, a group known to sympathise with terrorists, are using coordinated leaks to mainstream news organisations, including the BBC, to spread fear and confusion in Muslim communities about the Government’s anti-terror policy, Prevent.
Its funny how McMao's best buddies always seem to have their fingers in so many pies.
It's seriously time for Cage to be proscribed by the government, and Begg and friends to be either imprisoned or deported.
In no way are they behaving in a manner that is conducive to the public good, and they are determined to portray every effort the government makes to undermine terrorism as somehow racist or anti-Islamic.
The U.K. really needs to stop pandering to the sensitivities of those who wish to abolish the British democracy in favour of some Caphiliate. Their behaviour is no less than treasonous.
An organised campaign to undermine Britain’s fight against terrorism can be revealed today.
Islamist activists linked to Cage, a group known to sympathise with terrorists, are using coordinated leaks to mainstream news organisations, including the BBC, to spread fear and confusion in Muslim communities about the Government’s anti-terror policy, Prevent.
Its funny how McMao's best buddies always seem to have their fingers in so many pies.
It's seriously time for Cage to be proscribed by the government, and Begg and friends to be either imprisoned or deported.
In no way are they behaving in a manner that is conducive to the public good, and they are determined to portray every effort the government makes to undermine terrorism as somehow racist or anti-Islamic.
The media need to also need to up their game. Not only do they give these people the oxygen of publicity, but the piece says the MSM are writing articles that are bollocks (insert red doors, festival wristband, terrorist houses) and then giving the CAGErs what look like legitimate sources for their propaganda. Basically doing their job for them.
If @ Roger is about: This is what - on the previous thread - he claimed I said:-
"Sexual violence-according to Cyclefree-is the result of immigrants being brought up in repressive misogynistic Muslim countries. How do we explain these Scandinavian neo-Nazi thugs. The Vikings?"
And this is what I actually said at 08:03 am:-
"It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive."
@Roger: you are free to disagree. But do not misrepresent what I have written. You do it repeatedly. And it is tiresome.
Sorry Cyclefree but I can't see the difference. My two lines were a pretty fair precis.
Mark Pritchard's reasoning for remaining in the EU is really bizarre. He is arguing that without the UK remaining in the EU, France and Germany will be incapable of making sensible decisions. He also makes a ludicrous reference to WW1 and WW2 for good measure.
TSE thinks the Leave campaign is rubbish, with idiots like Pritchard I'm not sure they need to do anything. Every single argument I have seen for staying in is preposterous, from Rose's dodgy maths, to Clegg saying Turkey must be allowed to join, to rubbish like this
But! But! What about the 3 million jobs that will be lost if we leave?!
The arguments to Remain are pretty poor, but will probably be effective to the large chunk of voters who really haven't got a clue.
If @ Roger is about: This is what - on the previous thread - he claimed I said:-
"Sexual violence-according to Cyclefree-is the result of immigrants being brought up in repressive misogynistic Muslim countries. How do we explain these Scandinavian neo-Nazi thugs. The Vikings?"
And this is what I actually said at 08:03 am:-
"It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive."
@Roger: you are free to disagree. But do not misrepresent what I have written. You do it repeatedly. And it is tiresome.
Sorry Cyclefree but I can't see the difference. My two lines were a pretty fair precis.
Roger, if you'd added "frequently" between "is" and "the result of" I think you'd be on stronger ground.
If @ Roger is about: This is what - on the previous thread - he claimed I said:-
"Sexual violence-according to Cyclefree-is the result of immigrants being brought up in repressive misogynistic Muslim countries. How do we explain these Scandinavian neo-Nazi thugs. The Vikings?"
And this is what I actually said at 08:03 am:-
"It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive."
@Roger: you are free to disagree. But do not misrepresent what I have written. You do it repeatedly. And it is tiresome.
Sorry Cyclefree but I can't see the difference. My two lines were a pretty fair precis.
I think Roger that the problem is your précis implied that she said ONLY Muslims from the ME commit those crimes (particularly given your comment re Vikings) when in her post what she was actually said was that their culture put them at a higher risk of doing so.
You may feel that is a theoretical distinction but she clearly doesn't. I have to say although I'm dubious about her actual point - I don't think misogyny and sexual violence are causally linked at all, indeed having studied the hippy movement I would say the opposite is true - I didn't think your summary was accurate either.
Birmingham Yardley does seem, recently anyway, to elect some somewhat eccentric MP’s! First John Hemmings and now Jess Phillips.
Before Hemmings you had Estelle "I'm not up to the job...." Morris. And before her, the so rogue Tory he was almost Independent David Gilroy Bevan. A great seat,with MP's who had to be extremely attuned to their voters as from WW2 until 1992 I believe it was always won by the party of government.
Mark Pritchard's reasoning for remaining in the EU is really bizarre. He is arguing that without the UK remaining in the EU, France and Germany will be incapable of making sensible decisions. He also makes a ludicrous reference to WW1 and WW2 for good measure.
TSE thinks the Leave campaign is rubbish, with idiots like Pritchard I'm not sure they need to do anything. Every single argument I have seen for staying in is preposterous, from Rose's dodgy maths, to Clegg saying Turkey must be allowed to join, to rubbish like this
But! But! What about the 3 million jobs that will be lost if we leave?!
The arguments to Remain are pretty poor, but will probably be effective to the large chunk of voters who really haven't got a clue.
The EU referendum is fascinating because Remain will use Fear of the Unknown to make their argument, whilst Leave will use Fear of the Known. It's a meh Clash of the Titans...
If @ Roger is about: This is what - on the previous thread - he claimed I said:-
"Sexual violence-according to Cyclefree-is the result of immigrants being brought up in repressive misogynistic Muslim countries. How do we explain these Scandinavian neo-Nazi thugs. The Vikings?"
And this is what I actually said at 08:03 am:-
"It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive."
@Roger: you are free to disagree. But do not misrepresent what I have written. You do it repeatedly. And it is tiresome.
Sorry Cyclefree but I can't see the difference. My two lines were a pretty fair precis.
Roger, if you'd added "frequently" between "is" and "the result of" I think you'd be on stronger ground.
I'm interested in the choice of the Vikings as a comparator to immigrants. What was Roger really trying to say?
"But whether Phillips was right or wrong to draw parallels between the scenes in Cologne over new year and on Britain’s city centres on a Friday and Saturday night, the instant attempt to shout Phillips down has sparked its own row."
"Catherine Mayer, author and co-founder and president of the Women’s Equality Party, said she was struck by how the slight fumble in Phillips’s point had allowed her critics to close down the MP’s argument."
“Jess Phillips’s reply on Question Time suffered from over-compression, but she was clearly trying to make a legitimate point, that violence and harassment against women and girls is sadly not exceptional or limited to one group or type of perpetrator or to one situation,” Mayer said.
So Phillips is now the victim. And WTF is "over-compression"?
The left really is in a mess.
When three wise monkeys became a group of useful, and dangerous, idiots.
If @ Roger is about: This is what - on the previous thread - he claimed I said:-
"Sexual violence-according to Cyclefree-is the result of immigrants being brought up in repressive misogynistic Muslim countries. How do we explain these Scandinavian neo-Nazi thugs. The Vikings?"
And this is what I actually said at 08:03 am:-
"It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive."
@Roger: you are free to disagree. But do not misrepresent what I have written. You do it repeatedly. And it is tiresome.
Sorry Cyclefree but I can't see the difference. My two lines were a pretty fair precis.
Roger, if you'd added "frequently" between "is" and "the result of" I think you'd be on stronger ground.
I ignored the disclaimers as you do when you work in advertising. I thought if anything my precis was kind. I didn't repeat the word 'Repulsive' used twice. But I take your point
Mark Pritchard's reasoning for remaining in the EU is really bizarre. He is arguing that without the UK remaining in the EU, France and Germany will be incapable of making sensible decisions. He also makes a ludicrous reference to WW1 and WW2 for good measure.
TSE thinks the Leave campaign is rubbish, with idiots like Pritchard I'm not sure they need to do anything. Every single argument I have seen for staying in is preposterous, from Rose's dodgy maths, to Clegg saying Turkey must be allowed to join, to rubbish like this
But! But! What about the 3 million jobs that will be lost if we leave?!
The arguments to Remain are pretty poor, but will probably be effective to the large chunk of voters who really haven't got a clue.
The EU referendum is fascinating because Remain will use Fear of the Unknown to make their argument, whilst Leave will use Fear of the Known. It's a meh Clash of the Titans...
If @ Roger is about: This is what - on the previous thread - he claimed I said:-
"Sexual violence-according to Cyclefree-is the result of immigrants being brought up in repressive misogynistic Muslim countries. How do we explain these Scandinavian neo-Nazi thugs. The Vikings?"
And this is what I actually said at 08:03 am:-
"It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive."
@Roger: you are free to disagree. But do not misrepresent what I have written. You do it repeatedly. And it is tiresome.
Sorry Cyclefree but I can't see the difference. My two lines were a pretty fair precis.
I think Roger that the problem is your précis implied that she said ONLY Muslims from the ME commit those crimes (particularly given your comment re Vikings) when in her post what she was actually said was that their culture put them at a higher risk of doing so.
You may feel that is a theoretical distinction but she clearly doesn't. I have to say although I'm dubious about her actual point - I don't think misogyny and sexual violence are causally linked at all, indeed having studied the hippy movement I would say the opposite is true - I didn't think your summary was accurate either.
I certainly don't blame David Cameron for doing the best by his child (as we all should) but if he wants to know why senior positions are dominated by the (mostly White) upper and upper middle classes it's because they have access to the best education and their parents have plenty of money.
I certainly don't blame David Cameron for doing the best by his child (as we all should) but if he wants to know why senior positions are dominated by the (mostly White) upper and upper middle classes it's because they have access to the best education and their parents have plenty of money.
Does that mean we have a moral duty to maximize our income? Does such a duty only apply to parents?
If @ Roger is about: This is what - on the previous thread - he claimed I said:-
"Sexual violence-according to Cyclefree-is the result of immigrants being brought up in repressive misogynistic Muslim countries. How do we explain these Scandinavian neo-Nazi thugs. The Vikings?"
And this is what I actually said at 08:03 am:-
"It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive."
@Roger: you are free to disagree. But do not misrepresent what I have written. You do it repeatedly. And it is tiresome.
Sorry Cyclefree but I can't see the difference. My two lines were a pretty fair precis.
I think Roger that the problem is your précis implied that she said ONLY Muslims from the ME commit those crimes (particularly given your comment re Vikings) when in her post what she was actually said was that their culture put them at a higher risk of doing so.
You may feel that is a theoretical distinction but she clearly doesn't. I have to say although I'm dubious about her actual point - I don't think misogyny and sexual violence are causally linked at all, indeed having studied the hippy movement I would say the opposite is true - I didn't think your summary was accurate either.
If @ Roger is about: This is what - on the previous thread - he claimed I said:-
"Sexual violence-according to Cyclefree-is the result of immigrants being brought up in repressive misogynistic Muslim countries. How do we explain these Scandinavian neo-Nazi thugs. The Vikings?"
And this is what I actually said at 08:03 am:-
"It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive."
@Roger: you are free to disagree. But do not misrepresent what I have written. You do it repeatedly. And it is tiresome.
Sorry Cyclefree but I can't see the difference. My two lines were a pretty fair precis.
Roger, if you'd added "frequently" between "is" and "the result of" I think you'd be on stronger ground.
I'm interested in the choice of the Vikings as a comparator to immigrants. What was Roger really trying to say?
he was trying to imply that when you are trying to take over a country , rape and pillage is perfectly normal
@Roger - I haven't time to go into that in detail now. The basic point is that because the hippy movement was officially at least about free love there was huge pressure on women to have casual sex, whether they wanted it or not. They did in theory have the option of leaving of course if they got fed up with it but that wasn't always as easy as you might expect (e.g. If their family had disowned them, where did they go)? But that wasn't exactly 'misogyny' and therefore I felt the link Cyclefree's drew was not causal.
I think we should therefore be fairly careful about making assumptions about cultural conditioning and which way it cuts. Yes, people will point out Rotherham and Cologne. To which I would answer (although not strictly related to my earlier point) Leicester and Islington. That was bound up in the gay rights movement, and to a lesser extent the wider sexual liberation movements, which paedophiles cleverly exploited for their own ends.
Anyway, while that is a criticism of Cyclefree's point, I am pleased to see you have accepted that your original posting was clumsy, so I don't see much need to labour the point.
I certainly don't blame David Cameron for doing the best by his child (as we all should) but if he wants to know why senior positions are dominated by the (mostly White) upper and upper middle classes it's because they have access to the best education and their parents have plenty of money.
Does that mean we have a moral duty to maximize our income? Does such a duty only apply to parents?
Not necessarily. Provided one has sufficient, one may prefer to spend time doing things other than working.
Birmingham Yardley does seem, recently anyway, to elect some somewhat eccentric MP’s! First John Hemmings and now Jess Phillips.
Before Hemmings you had Estelle "I'm not up to the job...." Morris. And before her, the so rogue Tory he was almost Independent David Gilroy Bevan. A great seat,with MP's who had to be extremely attuned to their voters as from WW2 until 1992 I believe it was always won by the party of government.
Hemmings used to be my bridge partner in Commons vs Lords matches - amusing and laid-back guy (the latter is vital in a partner unless you want constant hassle), but he did seem to have a complicated life - I remember one match where he had to break off twice because first his wife and then his girlfriend wanted his attention.
PB really liked Jess when she was being OTT aggressive to Corbyn and Abbott, but have gone right off her now she's been OTT in another context (clearly she's right that migrants didn't invent sexual harassment, but equally clearly the Koln group were at a different level of nastiness). That's the sort of reaction which makes MPs stick to bland and meaningless phrases. A few MPs who don't consider every sentence carefully before uttering it are probably a good thing - the right reaction is to say oi, you're exaggerating there, and move on.
Birmingham Yardley does seem, recently anyway, to elect some somewhat eccentric MP’s! First John Hemmings and now Jess Phillips.
Before Hemmings you had Estelle "I'm not up to the job...." Morris. And before her, the so rogue Tory he was almost Independent David Gilroy Bevan. A great seat,with MP's who had to be extremely attuned to their voters as from WW2 until 1992 I believe it was always won by the party of government.
Hemmings used to be my bridge partner in Commons vs Lords matches - amusing and laid-back guy (the latter is vital in a partner unless you want constant hassle), but he did seem to have a complicated life - I remember one match where he had to break off twice because first his wife and then his girlfriend wanted his attention.
PB really liked Jess when she was being OTT aggressive to Corbyn and Abbott, but have gone right off her now she's been OTT in another context (clearly she's right that migrants didn't invent sexual harassment, but equally clearly the Koln group were at a different level of nastiness). That's the sort of reaction which makes MPs stick to bland and meaningless phrases. A few MPs who don't consider every sentence carefully before uttering it are probably a good thing - the right reaction is to say oi, you're exaggerating there, and move on.
She was one of the 68 value tips to be next leader at 66/1 wasn't she?
If @ Roger is about: This is what - on the previous thread - he claimed I said:-
"Sexual violence-according to Cyclefree-is the result of immigrants being brought up in repressive misogynistic Muslim countries. How do we explain these Scandinavian neo-Nazi thugs. The Vikings?"
And this is what I actually said at 08:03 am:-
"It is undoubtedly the case that sexual assaults on women didn't start with the arrival of migrants. And if there were no migrants such crimes would still happen.
But it is curious - actually, repulsive would be a better word - that those who claim to be concerned about sexual crimes against women are so sanguine about inviting into the country those from mysogynistic cultures and, as a result, with a propensity to commit such crimes (though that does not apply to all the individuals from those cultures, of course).
It's as if such concern is only useful if it can be used against certain groups and that concern for women is dialled up or down - or into nothingness, in some cases - depending on the perpetrators.
Repulsive."
@Roger: you are free to disagree. But do not misrepresent what I have written. You do it repeatedly. And it is tiresome.
Sorry Cyclefree but I can't see the difference. My two lines were a pretty fair precis.
She explicitly said sexual violence didn't start with the arrival of migrants. You said she said sexual violence is the result of immigration.
As others have suggested, you may well have had some solid points to counter her overall argument, but your précis is not a fair representation at all, it is simplified to the point of being misleading, which undermined your legitimate points. Those missing words innocent abroad mentions are crucial - even if you believe someone's disclaimers are false, if you ignore them, present their view as less nuanced than is in fact the case, they can easily dismiss your points.
It's a very politician like thing actually - act like somebody said something else and attack that, or that what they meant was not what they said,
I've certainly seen people use the same tactic against you however. Weve all done it at some point
He's right. Worst remain argument was the claim all those Indians gave lives for EU during the war!
On the other hand the leave people seem more intent on attacking each other then running a campaign. Yep, both sides are a complete mess. There are good arguments to be made for both staying in the EU and for leaving the EU - but with a couple of exceptions those are not what is being heard at the moment.
Hopefully when the referendum is actually called and people understand what they are voting for, we might see well argued points come to the fore on both sides. Not betting my mortgage on it though.
The media also need to step up and call out the obvious rubbish, rather than allowing it to go unchallenged as at the moment. "3 million jobs" is an obvious untruth, as is the idea that we would immediately agree free trade deals with the US and Commonwealth if we left.
@Roger - I haven't time to go into that in detail now. The basic point is that because the hippy movement was officially at least about free love there was huge pressure on women to have casual sex, whether they wanted it or not. They did in theory have the option of leaving of course if they got fed up with it but that wasn't always as easy as you might expect (e.g. If their family had disowned them, where did they go)? But that wasn't exactly 'misogyny' and therefore I felt the link Cyclefree's drew was not causal.
I think we should therefore be fairly careful about making assumptions about cultural conditioning and which way it cuts. Yes, people will point out Rotherham and Cologne. To which I would answer (although not strictly related to my earlier point) Leicester and Islington. That was bound up in the gay rights movement, and to a lesser extent the wider sexual liberation movements, which paedophiles cleverly exploited for their own ends.
Anyway, while that is a criticism of Cyclefree's point, I am pleased to see you have accepted that your original posting was clumsy, so I don't see much need to labour the point.
Quite a number of feminists have stated that they became active in women's rights in reaction to what happened to them in "hippy" culture, not "traditional" western culture. Some found the "liberated" culture to be worse - the lifting of rules meant, in a number of areas, that men behaved worse.
Cultural conditioning and norms play a vast part in regulating human behaviour. Which is precisely why the Aparteid version of Multiculturalism (each community having a different and language, kept "pure") is doomed to failiure. Unless you think that the former Yugoslavia is an archetype....
Birmingham Yardley does seem, recently anyway, to elect some somewhat eccentric MP’s! First John Hemmings and now Jess Phillips.
Before Hemmings you had Estelle "I'm not up to the job...." Morris. And before her, the so rogue Tory he was almost Independent David Gilroy Bevan. A great seat,with MP's who had to be extremely attuned to their voters as from WW2 until 1992 I believe it was always won by the party of government.
Hemmings used to be my bridge partner in Commons vs Lords matches - amusing and laid-back guy (the latter is vital in a partner unless you want constant hassle), but he did seem to have a complicated life - I remember one match where he had to break off twice because first his wife and then his girlfriend wanted his attention.
PB really liked Jess when she was being OTT aggressive to Corbyn and Abbott, but have gone right off her now she's been OTT in another context (clearly she's right that migrants didn't invent sexual harassment, but equally clearly the Koln group were at a different level of nastiness). That's the sort of reaction which makes MPs stick to bland and meaningless phrases. A few MPs who don't consider every sentence carefully before uttering it are probably a good thing - the right reaction is to say oi, you're exaggerating there, and move on.
I think you will find there are some of us who didn't like her at any point after she ridiculed the idea of men having mental health issues and that the NHS isn't set up to help men who suffer from them at all. I found her "stab him in the front" comment mildly amusing, but she has proven herself to be an imbecile and her comments likening a night out in Birmingham to NYE in Cologne just proves it.
Comments
I'm in America during the Iowa caucus and won't be able to bet.
Clinton can lose the first two and sweep to the nomination. I'll only take Sanders seriously if he can challenge in states like South Carolina.
With the DMR poll I will caution 2 things:
1. Most of it was conducted before the GOP debate debacle.
2. All of it was conducted before the fresh Hillary email scandal news that's all around the media since yesterday.
Trump leading by a margin of 5 must be just secure enough for him to win, regardless of the risks from 1.
Hillary leading by a margin of 3, with O'Malley having 3 leaves her vulnerable from 2 and the second round system of the Dem caucus.
So far what we see is the undecideds breaking for Trump, Cruz leaking a bit to Rubio, while the undecideds breaking equally for Hillary and Sanders.
Sanders still needs a swing of 1.5-2% for him to win.
I give the odds right now for Iowa:
Trump 80%
Cruz 20%
Hillary 60%
Sanders 40%
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 everywhere, temperatures just above freezing.
None of that could prepare me for the weirdness of Trump as POTUS
Trump maybe the most hated man in america, but Hillary is the most hated woman in america.
If it's Trump VS Hillary it will be too close too call, since Trump is the media master and Hillary is one FBI investigation away from jail.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/01/donald-trump-timeline.html?mid=twitter_nymag
First time that Trump appeared in the media was at the opening of Studio 54 in 1977.
Just 34% of caucus Dems will be first time, was 60% in 2008
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/r1OvZ1NeDjnY
Checked Des Moines, Orange City and Dubuque.
Slightly wilder prediction, Rubio could come second? I get the feeling Cruz's flop in the debate the other day might be really puncturing him.
Betfair seems to be acting like Cruz will finish behind Rubio already though, which seems crackers to me.
The Trump -12 might well lose to Rubio though which means @rcs1000 will win that bet !
Trump 27 Cruz 23 Rubio 19
Can see it ending something like that.
I have a theory that as there is no such thing as a full back that can defend anymore, within a year most teams will be playing a variation of 3-5-2.
Trump is much more of a moderate on social issues (immigration exempted) and has economic policies that are actually popular, his problem though is his persona.
Trump went from 20% favourables, 60% unfavourables at the beginning of his campaign to 60 favourables and 20 unfavourables now with republicans, can he replicate that with the G.E. electorate?
Since he has total dominance of the media, he can try.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/article1662933.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2016_01_30
In our 1st choice starting 11 we have a very good side. Still 9.8 on Betfair for the title.
This argument is ludicrous.
TSE thinks the Leave campaign is rubbish, with idiots like Pritchard I'm not sure they need to do anything. Every single argument I have seen for staying in is preposterous, from Rose's dodgy maths, to Clegg saying Turkey must be allowed to join, to rubbish like this.
Remain are doing the Leave work for them.
None of this hides the reality that grammar schools will boost social mobility!
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/30/donald-trump-reclaims-lead-latest-iowa-poll/79562322/
"Rubio is up 3 percentage points since early January. But there's no indication of a surge: His support declined during the four days of polling."
"Trump leads both with Iowans who say they’ll definitely vote and those who will probably vote. “Turnout seems not to affect him," Selzer said. "Either way, he seems on solid ground.”
Among first-time caucusgoers, Trump has a 16-point lead. But the universe of experienced caucusgoers is bigger, where Cruz has a 3-point lead."
"This poll shows 47 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers identify themselves as evangelical or born-again Christians. Entrance polling four years ago measured 57 percent.
When Selzer rejiggered the new Iowa Poll results to reflect a hypothetical 60 percent evangelical turnout, the race tightens: Trump gets 26 percent of their support, and Cruz gets 25 percent."
" 50 percent of likely caucusgoers say Trump would be most feared by enemies of the United States. Twenty-one percent name Cruz. Rubio is viewed as an amateur in this area, with only 5 percent."
"But now, even in King's congressional district, where social conservatives dominate and Trump has visited just three times, Trump is up by 1 point. Cruz, in contrast, has stopped in every county in the state."
"If the race eventually comes down to two Republicans, 53 percent say they would prefer Cruz as the nominee, not Trump. Just 35 percent would choose Trump in a one-on-one contest with Cruz."
"Forty-six percent of likely caucusgoers say they don’t care that he boycotted Fox News’ event, the final match-up before the vote.
Just 29 percent say they disapprove, while 24 approve of Trump's choice, which was announced the day this poll went into the field."
"Eleven percent say Branstad's opposition makes them less likely to support Cruz, but that's balanced by the 11 percent who say they're actually more likely to back Cruz thanks to Branstad."
"Among those who could still be persuaded to pick a different candidate, it’s a very close race, with Cruz leading, then Trump and Rubio right behind."
He maybe from Cuba, his father may have been a bartender once, but no one will vote for him based on that.
He's a paper candidate, as I warned before about Christie, Kasish and Bush when they where shooting up in the betting markets, if people had only listened to me they wouldn't have lost lots of money betting on those paper candidates (like TSE has).
I have close, if not at, 100% accuracy rates on my US politics predictions, unlike some esteemed members of the media and punditocracy , if only certain major publications had been so prescient as to avoid the egg on their faces, but talents like mine are scarce.
Enough bragging though, goodnight.
You were probably right Trump will win the nomination, that does not mean he will win the general
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
For example the Iraq war where Chirac and Schroeder's strategic clumsiness in calling it a dangerous folly was countered by Britain's far-sightedness?
Wow. And the saddest campaign this season keeps trudging along.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/31/observer-view-on-corporate-tax-google
Well the Guardian should know....
A Labour MP has been asked by David Cameron to examine why black offenders are more likely to be jailed than white offenders in English and Welsh courts.
Downing Street said 61% of BAME defendants found guilty in crown courts were given custodial sentences, compared with 56% of white offenders.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-35452975
Could he not find somebody who wasn't a blinkered moron to conduct this review? Also that is a meaningless statistic without context of what ratio of crimes different ethnicity are being charged with e.g. I think we will find that number of Muslims charged with drink driving might be rather on the low side, but rather greater for terrorism related offenses than in comparison to the stats for white people.
Guardian uses Google search.
Will be interesting to see what the EU does about the various 0% Carribean islands though, could be a massive boon for Ireland potentially. That ain't helping the UK tho.
Although I don't agree with all his proposed solutions in 'out of the ashes', he's at least got a good initial grasp of the problems.
As an example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/newsid_8567000/8567651.stm
Guardian uses tax avoidance.
http://tinyurl.com/zxmxlpv
"But whether Phillips was right or wrong to draw parallels between the scenes in Cologne over new year and on Britain’s city centres on a Friday and Saturday night, the instant attempt to shout Phillips down has sparked its own row."
"Catherine Mayer, author and co-founder and president of the Women’s Equality Party, said she was struck by how the slight fumble in Phillips’s point had allowed her critics to close down the MP’s argument."
“Jess Phillips’s reply on Question Time suffered from over-compression, but she was clearly trying to make a legitimate point, that violence and harassment against women and girls is sadly not exceptional or limited to one group or type of perpetrator or to one situation,” Mayer said.
So Phillips is now the victim. And WTF is "over-compression"?
http://order-order.com/2012/11/26/the-guardians-offshore-secrets-guardian-media-group-still-operates-caymans-company/
As always with the more sanctimonious lefties, it's the blatant hypocrisy.
It wouldn't be an issue if they put a declaration of interest under every article about tax avoidance and if other media organisations (BBC) made a point of calling them out on it. As it is, it's the elephant in the room that no-one mentions, they hope that only the few who read eg. Private Eye and Guido know anything about it.
Islamist activists linked to Cage, a group known to sympathise with terrorists, are using coordinated leaks to mainstream news organisations, including the BBC, to spread fear and confusion in Muslim communities about the Government’s anti-terror policy, Prevent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12132054/Organised-campaign-to-hobble-anti-terror-fight.html
Its funny how McMao's best buddies always seem to have their fingers in so many pies.
In no way are they behaving in a manner that is conducive to the public good, and they are determined to portray every effort the government makes to undermine terrorism as somehow racist or anti-Islamic.
The U.K. really needs to stop pandering to the sensitivities of those who wish to abolish the British democracy in favour of some Caphiliate. Their behaviour is no less than treasonous.
The arguments to Remain are pretty poor, but will probably be effective to the large chunk of voters who really haven't got a clue.
You may feel that is a theoretical distinction but she clearly doesn't. I have to say although I'm dubious about her actual point - I don't think misogyny and sexual violence are causally linked at all, indeed having studied the hippy movement I would say the opposite is true - I didn't think your summary was accurate either.
EDIT - I also agree with @Innocent_Abroad.
Trump's success seems incredible. As does Corbyn's.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3424549/Camerons-enter-son-London-private-school-Eton-educated-PM-considers-prestigious-18-000-year-prep-10-year-old-Elwen-despite-sending-daughter-state-school-calling-fees-crazy.html
So having cancelled out the biases on personality, we can now all vote on the issues?
Oooh, look at that flying pig going over the Chase...
When three wise monkeys became a group of useful, and dangerous, idiots.
@afneil: Over 800 women reported sex assaults in one night in Cologne. Five reported sex assaults in Brum's Broad Street in 12 weeks 2/2
He's right. Worst remain argument was the claim all those Indians gave lives for EU during the war!
On the other hand the leave people seem more intent on attacking each other then running a campaign.
On the other hand the leave people seem more intent on attacking each other then running a campaign.
"Worst remain argument was the claim all those Indians gave lives for EU during the war!"
Yeah that was a certain D.Lammy... amazing where incompetence gets you when your face fits.
I suppose he proved his loyalty to Dave along with his ability to talk utter nonsense with a straight face that day and got the gig
I think we should therefore be fairly careful about making assumptions about cultural conditioning and which way it cuts. Yes, people will point out Rotherham and Cologne. To which I would answer (although not strictly related to my earlier point) Leicester and Islington. That was bound up in the gay rights movement, and to a lesser extent the wider sexual liberation movements, which paedophiles cleverly exploited for their own ends.
Anyway, while that is a criticism of Cyclefree's point, I am pleased to see you have accepted that your original posting was clumsy, so I don't see much need to labour the point.
PB really liked Jess when she was being OTT aggressive to Corbyn and Abbott, but have gone right off her now she's been OTT in another context (clearly she's right that migrants didn't invent sexual harassment, but equally clearly the Koln group were at a different level of nastiness). That's the sort of reaction which makes MPs stick to bland and meaningless phrases. A few MPs who don't consider every sentence carefully before uttering it are probably a good thing - the right reaction is to say oi, you're exaggerating there, and move on.
The London local elections of 2014 gave Con 26%, Lab 37%, Lib Dem, Green, and UKIP 10% each.
RIP.
As others have suggested, you may well have had some solid points to counter her overall argument, but your précis is not a fair representation at all, it is simplified to the point of being misleading, which undermined your legitimate points. Those missing words innocent abroad mentions are crucial - even if you believe someone's disclaimers are false, if you ignore them, present their view as less nuanced than is in fact the case, they can easily dismiss your points.
It's a very politician like thing actually - act like somebody said something else and attack that, or that what they meant was not what they said,
I've certainly seen people use the same tactic against you however. Weve all done it at some point
On the other hand the leave people seem more intent on attacking each other then running a campaign.
Yep, both sides are a complete mess. There are good arguments to be made for both staying in the EU and for leaving the EU - but with a couple of exceptions those are not what is being heard at the moment.
Hopefully when the referendum is actually called and people understand what they are voting for, we might see well argued points come to the fore on both sides. Not betting my mortgage on it though.
The media also need to step up and call out the obvious rubbish, rather than allowing it to go unchallenged as at the moment. "3 million jobs" is an obvious untruth, as is the idea that we would immediately agree free trade deals with the US and Commonwealth if we left.
Cultural conditioning and norms play a vast part in regulating human behaviour. Which is precisely why the Aparteid version of Multiculturalism (each community having a different and language, kept "pure") is doomed to failiure. Unless you think that the former Yugoslavia is an archetype....