Mr. F, I think you're conflating two superficially similar but fundamentally different ideas. Paying money to someone to stop them beating you up (Danegeld) is appeasement. You just enrich your enemy and encourage them to ask for more next time.
Bribing a third party to attack someone who is threatening you harms you enemy, rather than enriching them.
Miss Plato, isn't Maguire calling it for Cameron one of the signs an apocalypse is coming?
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Although Bernie is older, Hilary kind of looks more past it.
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Disagree. Rubio beats Hillary by 5% in the RCP poll average while Hillary beats Trump by 4%. Trump turns on white males but turns off women and minorities. It will be close but this election was for the Republicans to lose, they have probably now lost it!
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Although Bernie is older, Hilary kind of looks more past it.
I was shaken by Bill Clinton's appearance. He looks ghastly.
Mr. F, I think you're conflating two superficially similar but fundamentally different ideas. Paying money to someone to stop them beating you up (Danegeld) is appeasement. You just enrich your enemy and encourage them to ask for more next time.
Bribing a third party to attack someone who is threatening you harms you enemy, rather than enriching them.
Miss Plato, isn't Maguire calling it for Cameron one of the signs an apocalypse is coming?
@Tissue_Price Exercise implies odds as follows for DEM of
1.59 (2.68 GOP)
The current price is 1.71/1.72 so implied value on the GOP side in the POTUS race, and Sanders is certainly best backed for the nomination and not POTUS.
Very comfortable laying Sanders as POTUS since he looks too short on both fronts.
Mr. F, I think you're conflating two superficially similar but fundamentally different ideas. Paying money to someone to stop them beating you up (Danegeld) is appeasement. You just enrich your enemy and encourage them to ask for more next time.
Bribing a third party to attack someone who is threatening you harms you enemy, rather than enriching them.
Miss Plato, isn't Maguire calling it for Cameron one of the signs an apocalypse is coming?
Doing nothing but paying money to your enemies (like Ethelred the Unready) is disastrous. Offering someone a bribe to go away, while making clear that they'll face severe military consequences if they don't (and having the military clout to back up that threat) can make sense. Alfred the Great was willing to buy off less dangerous enemies, while fighting the more dangerous ones.
''Disagree. Rubio beats Hillary by 4% in the RCP poll average while Hillary beats Trump by 4%. Trump turns on white males but turns off women and minorities. It will be close but this election was for the Republicans to lose, they have probably now lost it! ''
I wonder which candidate the Dems would rather face. I reckon its Rubiobot by a mile.
Here are the implied chances in a general for all the main runners. Basically, if you think the implied chance looks high, you're better off backing them in the primary, and if you think it looks low, you should go for the general.
Sanders looks very high, Biden, Rubio & Kasich all look low. Trump is an enigma, and Hillary's chance is increasingly tied up with his.
Primary General Implied Chance Clinton 1.28 1.99 64% Sanders 5.45 11.2 49% Biden 33 70 47%
He's seen off Rubio's charm; Bush's money; Cruz's religious appeal; and navigated any major blunder. Why can't he see off Clinton?
I think you may well be right.
It would be an incredibly bitterly fought contest. Madeleine Albright's comments about there being a special place in hell for women who don't support other women, i.e. vote for Hillary, are just a foretaste.
The GOP race is really down to two, Trump and Cruz, the winners of New Hampshire and Iowa as no Republican has won the party's presidential nomination since 1976 without winning one of those 2 states. Whichever of Trump or Cruz wins South Carolina will almost certainly be the nominee
I disagree, I don't think we'll know until after Super Tuesday, if then. Once a Republican establishment candidate breaks from the others things will become clearer. Cruz is Tea Party and is hated by the Republican establishment http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10846212/ted-cruz-republicans-hate Maybe they could tolerate Trump, but would prefer Kasich, Bush or Rubio. If none of those break free expect a Clinton presidency.
The momentum from South Carolina will carry the winner through Super Tuesday. The GOP establishment are proving as effective at stopping Trump as the Labour establishment were in stopping Corbyn
Mr. F, I think you're conflating two superficially similar but fundamentally different ideas. Paying money to someone to stop them beating you up (Danegeld) is appeasement. You just enrich your enemy and encourage them to ask for more next time.
Bribing a third party to attack someone who is threatening you harms you enemy, rather than enriching them.
Miss Plato, isn't Maguire calling it for Cameron one of the signs an apocalypse is coming?
The two things can go together. You recognise that your frontier tribes (say) have a culture and economy that depends on pillage. You pay (or otherwise incentivise) one of them to attack the others, not you, so it's both bribery and appeasement. It's not a bad idea provided you remain strong enough to crush them if it comes to it.
Let's see, with McGarry, the problem lies with her. If she had just given over her PayPal password and copies of her bank statements to the auditors then there would be no problems in proving her innocence. She hasn't, for whatever reason. I suspect that PS are trying to get the information from PayPal, which since it is based in the litigous US is very wary about releasing information to, to them, overseas legal authorities. Also PS have to get McGarry's bank statements. I would be very surprised if Anwar had not investigated ways of delaying the information to be released to PS.
Remember, it was the 20 odd SNP supporters who clyped on her, if they hadn't, they could have been due for prison time. I have been surprised at how unpopular McGarry is amongst SNP members, but not, for some reason, amongst the hierarchy.
As to Thomson, even Sturgeon as a practised solicitor, and with even a small amount of conveying experience could see Thomson was not just skating on thin ice, she was trying to walk on water with concrete boots on. PS, the Procurator Fiscal, the Legal Society and the SG are dancing around each other. Again, Anwar would not be doing his job if he could not cause a bit of confusion and delay things until after May.
I agree Thomson was sailing close to the wind law wise and pretty crap morals wise but been lots of lawyers at same game , she obviously learned that from a Tory. Distasteful as it is she did it with willing sellers , they were not forced to sell at gunpoint. Buying low from someone foolish enough or desperate enough to sell is not a crime. Most of them would likely have got zero when they were evicted or non payment in any event. McGarry I have no idea, I think that whole group all thought they were something special and having fallen out certain cliques are finger pointing. Sounds like they were just absolute crap at admin and accounting, whilst busy playing bigshots, for the money they spent.
Thomson's problem is not in the purchases (that is just a moral issue of whether it is appropriate to seek to profit from someone's misfortune) but in what she told her lenders.
For sure if she is done it will be due to misrepresentation to mortgage companies.
''Disagree. Rubio beats Hillary by 4% in the RCP poll average while Hillary beats Trump by 4%. Trump turns on white males but turns off women and minorities. It will be close but this election was for the Republicans to lose, they have probably now lost it! ''
I wonder which candidate the Dems would rather face. I reckon its Rubiobot by a mile.
The Clinton circle always feared Rubio they know they have a good chance of beating Trump and Cruz
Oh, but I thought the SNP were better than the Tories & Labour
Thanks for clearing that up.....
Only people like you make out that they should be, whilst your idols have feet of clay yet you still worship them. Scottish people are well aware the SNP are not perfect but compared to the Tories and Labour they are a breath of fresh air and they actually care about Scotland.
Except for those members of the SNP who care more about enriching themselves to the detriment of their fellow countrymen dying from cancer.
keep spouting smears and lies, you will get some low life's similar to yourself to believe you one day
Are you claiming that Thompson didn't profit from a 'cash back' payment after the purchase and back to back sale of the property of a 77 year old cancer sufferer?
I am not claiming anything other than stating that you are a LIAR. YOU have no clue what you are talking about and are just regurgitating some crap from a right wing rag. Now F Off loser and bother someone else with your pathetic rubbish.
Labour’s Diana Johnson asks Cameron to support Hull being city of culture in 2017.
Cameron says he does support that. He says the poet Stevie Smith came from Hull, and that sometimes it is important to consider what it it is like to be Not Waving but Drowning.
''Disagree. Rubio beats Hillary by 4% in the RCP poll average while Hillary beats Trump by 4%. Trump turns on white males but turns off women and minorities. It will be close but this election was for the Republicans to lose, they have probably now lost it! ''
I wonder which candidate the Dems would rather face. I reckon its Rubiobot by a mile.
The Clinton circle always feared Rubio they know they have a good chance of beating Trump and Cruz
Did the Clinton circle fear Bernie Sanders? Her people are out of touch. Of the three Republicans mentioned she would have a far easier time with Rubio, followed by Cruz, followed by Trump.
The charge that Rubio isn't ready enough or steady enough for the Presidency is one that he could not overcome against Clinton. He's no Barack Obama.
Labour’s Diana Johnson asks Cameron to support Hull being city of culture in 2017.
Cameron says he does support that. He says the poet Stevie Smith came from Hull, and that sometimes it is important to consider what it it is like to be Not Waving but Drowning.
The Clinton circle always feared Rubio they know they have a good chance of beating Trump and Cruz
Did you see Christie turn Rubio into a gibbering idiot mouthing cliches in the Republican debate?? You honestly think a stupid boyish fool like that could win the presidency, beat a seasoned operator like Clinton??
Trump is far more dangerous. In the debates, he will talk about those women who have been on the receiving end of the Clintons, and graveyard full of skeletons in that couple's closet.
Labour’s Diana Johnson asks Cameron to support Hull being city of culture in 2017.
Cameron says he does support that. He says the poet Stevie Smith came from Hull, and that sometimes it is important to consider what it it is like to be Not Waving but Drowning.
Mr. F, I think you're conflating two superficially similar but fundamentally different ideas. Paying money to someone to stop them beating you up (Danegeld) is appeasement. You just enrich your enemy and encourage them to ask for more next time.
Bribing a third party to attack someone who is threatening you harms you enemy, rather than enriching them.
Miss Plato, isn't Maguire calling it for Cameron one of the signs an apocalypse is coming?
Doing nothing but paying money to your enemies (like Ethelred the Unready) is disastrous. Offering someone a bribe to go away, while making clear that they'll face severe military consequences if they don't (and having the military clout to back up that threat) can make sense. Alfred the Great was willing to buy off less dangerous enemies, while fighting the more dangerous ones.
An Iraqi friend of mine quoted to me a local phrase "It is better to be an enemy of the British than their Friend, because they buy their enemies and sell their friends"
Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in that phrase, and not just in Iraq.
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Although Bernie is older, Hilary kind of looks more past it.
Really?? I think Clinton looks good for being in late 60s, while Sanders looks like Abe Simpson type.
Labour’s Diana Johnson asks Cameron to support Hull being city of culture in 2017.
Cameron says he does support that. He says the poet Stevie Smith came from Hull, and that sometimes it is important to consider what it it is like to be Not Waving but Drowning.
LOL! Cameron on good form.
Did you see that?
No, I was looking at the Guardian live blog
Cameron won the debate easily but that joke fell as a flat as... a pancake?
Mr. F, I think you're conflating two superficially similar but fundamentally different ideas. Paying money to someone to stop them beating you up (Danegeld) is appeasement. You just enrich your enemy and encourage them to ask for more next time.
Bribing a third party to attack someone who is threatening you harms you enemy, rather than enriching them.
Miss Plato, isn't Maguire calling it for Cameron one of the signs an apocalypse is coming?
Doing nothing but paying money to your enemies (like Ethelred the Unready) is disastrous. Offering someone a bribe to go away, while making clear that they'll face severe military consequences if they don't (and having the military clout to back up that threat) can make sense. Alfred the Great was willing to buy off less dangerous enemies, while fighting the more dangerous ones.
An Iraqi friend of mine quoted to me a local phrase "It is better to be an enemy of the British than their Friend, because they buy their enemies and sell their friends"
Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in that phrase, and not just in Iraq.
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Although Bernie is older, Hilary kind of looks more past it.
Really?? I think Clinton looks good for being in late 60s, while Sanders looks like Abe Simpson type.
Agreed. Sanders puts me in mind of a tiresome elderly relative that won't shut up. Bizarrely that seems to hit the spot with Democratic youth. (Sorry, trigger-warning: ageism.)
Mr. F, I think you're conflating two superficially similar but fundamentally different ideas. Paying money to someone to stop them beating you up (Danegeld) is appeasement. You just enrich your enemy and encourage them to ask for more next time.
Bribing a third party to attack someone who is threatening you harms you enemy, rather than enriching them.
Miss Plato, isn't Maguire calling it for Cameron one of the signs an apocalypse is coming?
The two things can go together. You recognise that your frontier tribes (say) have a culture and economy that depends on pillage. You pay (or otherwise incentivise) one of them to attack the others, not you, so it's both bribery and appeasement. It's not a bad idea provided you remain strong enough to crush them if it comes to it.
Equally, if you were a Roman Emperor, based in Cologne, and you faced a full scale invasion at one end of the Rhine, and a big cattle raid at the other, it would make sense to buy off the cattle raiders, while concentrating your forces to fight the invaders.
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Although Bernie is older, Hilary kind of looks more past it.
Really?? I think Clinton looks good for being in late 60s, while Sanders looks like Abe Simpson type.
Agreed. Sanders puts me in mind of a tiresome elderly relative that won't shut up. Bizarrely that seems to hit the spot with Democratic youth. (Sorry, trigger-warning: ageism.)
Agreed. Sanders puts me in mind of a tiresome elderly relative that won't shut up. Bizarrely that seems to hit the spot with Democratic youth. (Sorry, trigger-warning: ageism.)
R4 ran an interview with a young woman who voted for Sanders rather than Clinton. Her reason was that she thought Hillary had been saying the same things for years, whereas Bernie was saying new things.
In reality, of course, Sanders has been saying the same thing for decades but no-one has taken much notice before.
If thers a teacher shortage in England, unions should support flexible pay levels as it would mean they get paid more than through collective bargaining.
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Although Bernie is older, Hilary kind of looks more past it.
Really?? I think Clinton looks good for being in late 60s, while Sanders looks like Abe Simpson type.
Agreed. Sanders puts me in mind of a tiresome elderly relative that won't shut up. Bizarrely that seems to hit the spot with Democratic youth. (Sorry, trigger-warning: ageism.)
Bernie doesn't work for me personally either - too much the grumpy old man. But he looks like anything but a smooth insider, and coupled with his leftish populism that's what is energising the base. Conversely, it's utterly easy to imagine Clinton doing a smooth, competent job as President or any other senior position - you'd recruit her to run anything rather than most of her rivals on either side (imagine entrusting your business to Trump, or Cruz, or Carson). But she is unmistakably establishment with a capital E.
The Clinton circle always feared Rubio they know they have a good chance of beating Trump and Cruz
Did you see Christie turn Rubio into a gibbering idiot mouthing cliches in the Republican debate?? You honestly think a stupid boyish fool like that could win the presidency, beat a seasoned operator like Clinton??
Trump is far more dangerous. In the debates, he will talk about those women who have been on the receiving end of the Clintons, and graveyard full of skeletons in that couple's closet.
Charisma and likeability are what counts not being good in debates and Rubio could appeal to the minorities the GOP desperately needs to make inroads into. Trump is loathed by much if the US especially minorities and women and Hillary had a good chance of beating him she would not have had against Rubio
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Although Bernie is older, Hilary kind of looks more past it.
Really?? I think Clinton looks good for being in late 60s, while Sanders looks like Abe Simpson type.
Agreed. Sanders puts me in mind of a tiresome elderly relative that won't shut up. Bizarrely that seems to hit the spot with Democratic youth. (Sorry, trigger-warning: ageism.)
Bernie doesn't work for me personally either - too much the grumpy old man. But he looks like anything but a smooth insider, and coupled with his leftish populism that's what is energising the base. Conversely, it's utterly easy to imagine Clinton doing a smooth, competent job as President or any other senior position - you'd recruit her to run anything rather than most of her rivals on either side (imagine entrusting your business to Trump, or Cruz, or Carson). But she is unmistakably establishment with a capital E.
Yeh, looks to me like Clinton would make a decent, competent president but is a woeful retail campaigner.
''Disagree. Rubio beats Hillary by 4% in the RCP poll average while Hillary beats Trump by 4%. Trump turns on white males but turns off women and minorities. It will be close but this election was for the Republicans to lose, they have probably now lost it! ''
I wonder which candidate the Dems would rather face. I reckon its Rubiobot by a mile.
The Clinton circle always feared Rubio they know they have a good chance of beating Trump and Cruz
Did the Clinton circle fear Bernie Sanders? Her people are out of touch. Of the three Republicans mentioned she would have a far easier time with Rubio, followed by Cruz, followed by Trump.
The charge that Rubio isn't ready enough or steady enough for the Presidency is one that he could not overcome against Clinton. He's no Barack Obama.
Sanders was appealing to the base better Rubio is better bet for the general. Think what you like but the polls are clear, Clinton generally beats Trump but loses to Rubio
But she is unmistakably establishment with a capital E.
Yes, and she's making a silly mistake by trying to pretend otherwise. She should embrace the fact, and turn it into a positive, emphasising that knowing how Washington works will allow her to get things done on behalf of Democrat voters.
Quite apart from anything else, this would have the unusual merit amongst political arguments of being true.
But she is unmistakably establishment with a capital E.
Yes, and she's making a silly mistake by trying to pretend otherwise. She should embrace the fact, and turn it into a positive, emphasising that knowing how Washington works will allow her to get things done on behalf of Democrat voters.
True. I think everything Nick says about her is right. You could appoint her to run something and know it wouldn't be a laughable clusterfuck. That's not the worst USP to have.
Mr. Meeks, most people might think Basil referred to a fictitious Torquay hotelier rather than the Bulgar-Slayer.
Appeasement has happened all through history. It rarely ends well for the appeasers, and this is an entirely legitimate point to make.
Is that true or are you just quoting the counter-examples? Appeasement of legitimate grievances by strong states towards those who genuinely want only fair treatment is a perfectly sensible policy, allied to cautious watchfulness. Panic bribery of the avaricious and land-hungry is damn stupid.
Hard to argue with this assessment, which is based on a sensible-sounding review of the next few races:
So far, the establishment has been trying to beat Trump with wishful thinking. It keeps not working. Trump could self-destruct or drop out for no reason at all. He could be abducted by aliens. Who knows? But merely hoping for those things is not a plan. The plain reality is that right now he is on course to win the nomination unless some concerted effort is made to stop him. And so far, there's no sign that any such effort is underway. Republican leaders not actively involved in the campaign simply seem baffled and stunned into indifference. And they're running out of time.
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Although Bernie is older, Hilary kind of looks more past it.
I was shaken by Bill Clinton's appearance. He looks ghastly.
Following US closer than before, due to PB. I've been of those over the years who will tell anyone willing to listen that we should have more coverage of European national elections and less of every twist and turn of US politics. But if the betting markets are US led, I guess PB just follows the money and the MSM is attracted to the game show friendliness of the nomination process.
Early states seem to be a little bit of a phoney war, am I right in saying one winner takes all state could blow away the results of several proportional states of the same size in terms of delegates?
AP reporting this as delegate count after NH results so far:
Dem: Clinton 394 (heavy backing from declared superdelegates) / 2382 needed Sanders 42
Rep: Trump 17 / 1237 needed (guess superdelegates are all hedging) Cruz 10 Rubio 7 Kasich 4 Bush 3
At the risk of telling PBers how to suck eggs - for all the noise and bluster, we seem to be little more than 1% (Republican) or under 10% (Democrat) of the way through the delegate allocation, so not sure that we're trying to read the runes from the equivalent of, for e.g., Lab gain Dewsbury.
So, Trump at 6/4 for the nomination, or 6/1 for the Presidency? That's making him an implied 7/4 shot to beat whoever the Democrats put up.
Both are value. He should be odds-on for the nomination now.
Trump's numbers for the general are worrying for any backer of his and to any normal Democrat, he'd lose. But he's not up against any normal Democrat; he'd be up against Hillary or Sanders. He might well do something incredibly stupid towards Hillary - his track record with women is not good - but Hillary oozes establishment entitlement and in a battle of the least worst, he'd have to have a better than 7/4 chance. Against Sanders, better still.
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Although Bernie is older, Hilary kind of looks more past it.
I was shaken by Bill Clinton's appearance. He looks ghastly.
Hard to argue with this assessment, which is based on a sensible-sounding review of the next few races:
So far, the establishment has been trying to beat Trump with wishful thinking. It keeps not working. Trump could self-destruct or drop out for no reason at all. He could be abducted by aliens. Who knows? But merely hoping for those things is not a plan. The plain reality is that right now he is on course to win the nomination unless some concerted effort is made to stop him. And so far, there's no sign that any such effort is underway. Republican leaders not actively involved in the campaign simply seem baffled and stunned into indifference. And they're running out of time.
Ireland Elects Ireland: Implosion of #Labour in #Ireland? #GE2016 election this month. Might get worst result ever (8/158 seats): https://t.co/D1gzRMd1cL
Serves them right. It was a monumentally stupid decision to go into government rather than form the official opposition in 2011.
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Although Bernie is older, Hilary kind of looks more past it.
I was shaken by Bill Clinton's appearance. He looks ghastly.
Eh? He looks really quite well for his age.
It is 16 years since he left the Oval......
He plays cricket???
We'd have to find the scorebooks from his year at Oxford, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was handy with a bat!
Mr. T, compromising and appeasing are different things, though. Appeasement means giving in to bullying, throwing dinner money at a thug in the hope he'll stop hitting you. Or paying off Vikings so they stop setting fire to monasteries.
Mr Dancer. All synonyms have overlapping meanings which are not 100% the same. To appease has, like most words, several meanings, including to "pacify or placate (someone) by acceding to their demands" but also to "conciliate, placate, pacify, mollify, propitiate, reconcile, win over". It has assumed the bullying aspect because of the historical WWII association.
Even by the first definition, there is clearly a large overlap with compromise - indeed 'compromise' could be seen as the reciprocal of appease, in that both parties are appeased.
Hard to argue with this assessment, which is based on a sensible-sounding review of the next few races:
So far, the establishment has been trying to beat Trump with wishful thinking. It keeps not working. Trump could self-destruct or drop out for no reason at all. He could be abducted by aliens. Who knows? But merely hoping for those things is not a plan. The plain reality is that right now he is on course to win the nomination unless some concerted effort is made to stop him. And so far, there's no sign that any such effort is underway. Republican leaders not actively involved in the campaign simply seem baffled and stunned into indifference. And they're running out of time.
Trump has an obvious trump card to snuff out any deal against him: his VP slot. He will most likely be looking for an establishment politician. At one point he seemed to be dangling this as a carrot to Cruz and then went Cruz started attacking, he switched to trying to take Cruz out of the race altogether.
Rubio would have been a better fit until he failed badly yesterday. I'd be surprised if he picked any of the other candidates now.
The GOP race is really down to two, Trump and Cruz, the winners of New Hampshire and Iowa as no Republican has won the party's presidential nomination since 1976 without winning one of those 2 states. Whichever of Trump or Cruz wins South Carolina will almost certainly be the nominee
Cruz can afford a relatively narrow defeat as the media narrative ought then to run with him into a Cruz-friendly Super Tuesday. A win sets him up big style. However, if the result is roughly as the polls are now, it really is hard to see beyond Trump.
Following US closer than before, due to PB. I've been of those over the years who will tell anyone willing to listen that we should have more coverage of European national elections and less of every twist and turn of US politics. But if the betting markets are US led, I guess PB just follows the money and the MSM is attracted to the game show friendliness of the nomination process.
Early states seem to be a little bit of a phoney war, am I right in saying one winner takes all state could blow away the results of several proportional states of the same size in terms of delegates?
AP reporting this as delegate count after NH results so far:
Dem: Clinton 394 (heavy backing from declared superdelegates) / 2382 needed Sanders 42
Rep: Trump 17 / 1237 needed (guess superdelegates are all hedging) Cruz 10 Rubio 7 Kasich 4 Bush 3
At the risk of telling PBers how to suck eggs - for all the noise and bluster, we seem to be little more than 1% (Republican) or under 10% (Democrat) of the way through the delegate allocation, so not sure that we're trying to read the runes from the equivalent of, for e.g., Lab gain Dewsbury.
There are only 93 GOP superdelegates, who are unlikely to be decisive. Almost all polls in all states show Trump leading. Although most of the polls are very old, we have no reason to believe there has been a sea-change away from Trump. He would hoover up about 56% of the delegates in those polled states based on current data.
@holyroodmandy: PM tells @AngusRobertson "I want [@thesnp] to get rid of grievance agenda & get onto governing agenda & then we'll see what you're made of"
Maybe he should stop trying to rob the Scottish people and get on with implementing his VOW.
It's in the committee stage of the House of Lords, having passed the Commons. It's a major constitutional change which requires quite detailed and considered scrutiny to make sure it is fair to both the Scottish administration and the British Government. You make it sound like some kind of conspiracy. In the words of Cameron, maybe a bit less grievance and more governance is needed.
Hard to argue with this assessment, which is based on a sensible-sounding review of the next few races:
So far, the establishment has been trying to beat Trump with wishful thinking. It keeps not working. Trump could self-destruct or drop out for no reason at all. He could be abducted by aliens. Who knows? But merely hoping for those things is not a plan. The plain reality is that right now he is on course to win the nomination unless some concerted effort is made to stop him. And so far, there's no sign that any such effort is underway. Republican leaders not actively involved in the campaign simply seem baffled and stunned into indifference. And they're running out of time.
Trump has an obvious trump card to snuff out any deal against him: his VP slot. He will most likely be looking for an establishment politician. At one point he seemed to be dangling this as a carrot to Cruz and then went Cruz started attacking, he switched to trying to take Cruz out of the race altogether.
Rubio would have been a better fit until he failed badly yesterday. I'd be surprised if he picked any of the other candidates now.
The best possible choice if he wants a balanced ticket, and if she'd agree to do it, would be the governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez.
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Although Bernie is older, Hilary kind of looks more past it.
Really?? I think Clinton looks good for being in late 60s, while Sanders looks like Abe Simpson type.
Agreed. Sanders puts me in mind of a tiresome elderly relative that won't shut up. Bizarrely that seems to hit the spot with Democratic youth. (Sorry, trigger-warning: ageism.)
Fee-free education probably has something to do with that.
The GOP race is really down to two, Trump and Cruz, the winners of New Hampshire and Iowa as no Republican has won the party's presidential nomination since 1976 without winning one of those 2 states. Whichever of Trump or Cruz wins South Carolina will almost certainly be the nominee
Cruz can afford a relatively narrow defeat as the media narrative ought then to run with him into a Cruz-friendly Super Tuesday. A win sets him up big style. However, if the result is roughly as the polls are now, it really is hard to see beyond Trump.
The great thing for Trump is that Cruz is the one candidate who certainly won't be part of any sort of "establishment deal". This keeps it at least a 3 horse race till past super tuesday, as Cruz will certainly want to win Texas !
Oh, but I thought the SNP were better than the Tories & Labour
Thanks for clearing that up.....
Only people like you make out that they should be, whilst your idols have feet of clay yet you still worship them. Scottish people are well aware the SNP are not perfect but compared to the Tories and Labour they are a breath of fresh air and they actually care about Scotland.
Except for those members of the SNP who care more about enriching themselves to the detriment of their fellow countrymen dying from cancer.
keep spouting smears and lies, you will get some low life's similar to yourself to believe you one day
Are you claiming that Thompson didn't profit from a 'cash back' payment after the purchase and back to back sale of the property of a 77 year old cancer sufferer?
I am not claiming anything other than stating that you are a LIAR. YOU have no clue what you are talking about and are just regurgitating some crap from a right wing rag. Now F Off loser and bother someone else with your pathetic rubbish.
The real evil in some of these schemes and activities, is not the offer of a low price to someone who is desperate. Thats business, what is very dishonourable is the gazundering of sellers near the end of the process, though that in reality is a bit more difficult in scotland. The low lives who "sell your house quick" make their money by doing this as they rely on the seller being utterly desperate to sell.
As I said I havent been following the case, was this involved ?
But she is unmistakably establishment with a capital E.
Yes, and she's making a silly mistake by trying to pretend otherwise. She should embrace the fact, and turn it into a positive, emphasising that knowing how Washington works will allow her to get things done on behalf of Democrat voters.
Quite apart from anything else, this would have the unusual merit amongst political arguments of being true.
Good advice, Richard. Perhaps you should be her strategist!
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Although Bernie is older, Hilary kind of looks more past it.
Really?? I think Clinton looks good for being in late 60s, while Sanders looks like Abe Simpson type.
Agreed. Sanders puts me in mind of a tiresome elderly relative that won't shut up. Bizarrely that seems to hit the spot with Democratic youth. (Sorry, trigger-warning: ageism.)
Bernie doesn't work for me personally either - too much the grumpy old man. But he looks like anything but a smooth insider, and coupled with his leftish populism that's what is energising the base. Conversely, it's utterly easy to imagine Clinton doing a smooth, competent job as President or any other senior position - you'd recruit her to run anything rather than most of her rivals on either side (imagine entrusting your business to Trump, or Cruz, or Carson). But she is unmistakably establishment with a capital E.
I'd trust Bush to do a better job. But then he's establishment in bold italic copperplate.
The GOP race is really down to two, Trump and Cruz, the winners of New Hampshire and Iowa as no Republican has won the party's presidential nomination since 1976 without winning one of those 2 states. Whichever of Trump or Cruz wins South Carolina will almost certainly be the nominee
Cruz can afford a relatively narrow defeat as the media narrative ought then to run with him into a Cruz-friendly Super Tuesday. A win sets him up big style. However, if the result is roughly as the polls are now, it really is hard to see beyond Trump.
South Carolina Trump should win this at a canter. The question is whether the disappearance of (I assume) Carson, Christie, Huckabee, Paul, Fiorina and Santorum accrue to any particular establishment candidate.
My guess is Trump 40%, Cruz 30%, Rubio 15%, Bush 10%, Kasich 5%.
Where I could be wrong: a Rubio collapse leading to Bush in the 20s.
Nevada This was won by Santorum in 2012, and by Romney in 2008. Cruz needs to be winning most (or even all) the Santorum states if he's going to be genuinely competitive in 2016. And his hispanic background should help him here. (Ditto Rubio, of course.) Nevada is, of course, a caucus like Iowa, so that may damage Trump. Nevada is the last chance saloon for Rubio, without a win here, he'd be in real trouble.
That all being said, I simply can't see beyond Trump walking Nevada. The polls points to a big margin.
I really don't get this Bush price. A slightly less awful 4th place than expected is a victory just because Rubio pancaked?
The two sets of voters are anything but interchangeable and he's been flatlining nationally for months. I can't see that changing. He will continue to slog out with Rubio, possibly all the way.
Following US closer than before, due to PB. I've been of those over the years who will tell anyone willing to listen that we should have more coverage of European national elections and less of every twist and turn of US politics. But if the betting markets are US led, I guess PB just follows the money and the MSM is attracted to the game show friendliness of the nomination process.
Early states seem to be a little bit of a phoney war, am I right in saying one winner takes all state could blow away the results of several proportional states of the same size in terms of delegates?
AP reporting this as delegate count after NH results so far:
Dem: Clinton 394 (heavy backing from declared superdelegates) / 2382 needed Sanders 42
Rep: Trump 17 / 1237 needed (guess superdelegates are all hedging) Cruz 10 Rubio 7 Kasich 4 Bush 3
At the risk of telling PBers how to suck eggs - for all the noise and bluster, we seem to be little more than 1% (Republican) or under 10% (Democrat) of the way through the delegate allocation, so not sure that we're trying to read the runes from the equivalent of, for e.g., Lab gain Dewsbury.
The delegate count is indeed irrelevant. What is important is carrying momentum into March, which can only be done through the polls or - even better - the early states. To be a contender you have to look like a contender. That's why O'Malley, Paul, Huckabee and Santorum withdrew from the race after Iowa, and why we'll probably get more withdrawals this week. In theory, they have loads of time; in practice, donors and media will ignore them.
But she is unmistakably establishment with a capital E.
Yes, and she's making a silly mistake by trying to pretend otherwise. She should embrace the fact, and turn it into a positive, emphasising that knowing how Washington works will allow her to get things done on behalf of Democrat voters.
Quite apart from anything else, this would have the unusual merit amongst political arguments of being true.
Good advice, Richard. Perhaps you should be her strategist!
Actually, not so good advice if you read the exit polls, which show that voters were discounting electability, experience and being able to get things done for values, caring and honesty. So banging on about her ability to do the job will not help her make any headway.
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
Yes, the only questions that remain are the size of Trump's victories. Will he get >50% in SC? Will he win a bigger share of the black vote than Reagan? How many Rustbelt states will he flip?
Pretty convinced Trump and Christie had a deal after his demolition of Rubio in the debate, would make a great AG, provide he has the stugots to help Trump clean up DC.
Hard to argue with this assessment, which is based on a sensible-sounding review of the next few races:
So far, the establishment has been trying to beat Trump with wishful thinking. It keeps not working. Trump could self-destruct or drop out for no reason at all. He could be abducted by aliens. Who knows? But merely hoping for those things is not a plan. The plain reality is that right now he is on course to win the nomination unless some concerted effort is made to stop him. And so far, there's no sign that any such effort is underway. Republican leaders not actively involved in the campaign simply seem baffled and stunned into indifference. And they're running out of time.
Trump has an obvious trump card to snuff out any deal against him: his VP slot. He will most likely be looking for an establishment politician. At one point he seemed to be dangling this as a carrot to Cruz and then went Cruz started attacking, he switched to trying to take Cruz out of the race altogether.
Rubio would have been a better fit until he failed badly yesterday. I'd be surprised if he picked any of the other candidates now.
The best possible choice if he wants a balanced ticket, and if she'd agree to do it, would be the governor of New Mexico, Susana Martinez.
Considering the quality of the top line, I'd have thought that this year would be a particularly good one to run for VP. Trump will also be 70 come polling day, for those thinking along actuarial lines.
But she is unmistakably establishment with a capital E.
Yes, and she's making a silly mistake by trying to pretend otherwise. She should embrace the fact, and turn it into a positive, emphasising that knowing how Washington works will allow her to get things done on behalf of Democrat voters.
Quite apart from anything else, this would have the unusual merit amongst political arguments of being true.
Good advice, Richard. Perhaps you should be her strategist!
Actually, not so good advice if you read the exit polls, which show that voters were discounting electability, experience and being able to get things done for values, caring and honesty. So banging on about her ability to do the job will not help her make any headway.
That might be backwards, given it's an exit poll. People who voted Sanders justified their decision by their priorities.
But she is unmistakably establishment with a capital E.
Yes, and she's making a silly mistake by trying to pretend otherwise. She should embrace the fact, and turn it into a positive, emphasising that knowing how Washington works will allow her to get things done on behalf of Democrat voters.
Quite apart from anything else, this would have the unusual merit amongst political arguments of being true.
Good advice, Richard. Perhaps you should be her strategist!
Actually, not so good advice if you read the exit polls, which show that voters were discounting electability, experience and being able to get things done for values, caring and honesty. So banging on about her ability to do the job will not help her make any headway.
It certainly doesn't guarantee her victory, but it's the best hand she can play with the cards she's already got, and is stuck with.
I really don't get this Bush price. A slightly less awful 4th place than expected is a victory just because Rubio pancaked?
The two sets of voters are anything but interchangeable and he's been flatlining nationally for months. I can't see that changing. He will continue to slog out with Rubio, possibly all the way.
I think I'm going to lay some more.
I feel more confident laying Rubio at more favourable odds.
I'm wary of laying Bush because he doesn't seem entirely dead in the water, he has huge resources behind him and the front-runner isn't a conventional candidate.
Actually, not so good advice if you read the exit polls, which show that voters were discounting electability, experience and being able to get things done for values, caring and honesty. So banging on about her ability to do the job will not help her make any headway.
It's better than the idiotic attempt to pretend that she's not an establishment figure.
In any case, I didn't suggest she should 'bang on' about it. She needs to show, not tell, and also ensure that the attacks on Sanders reinforce the message - and not too crudely.
Having said that, if I were her strategist I think that by now I'd have torn out what remains of my hair in frustration at the ham-fistedness of her answers.
Granted that this is still New Hampshire we're talking about, but Trump won every demographic other than political ones almost designed to be against him (e.g. voters opposed to a ban on muslim immigration).
Mr. Meeks, you have a fixation on Second World War references.
The Roman Empire appeased barbarians. The Saxons appeased the Vikings with Danegeld.
What do you think most of our specially selected 100 respondents would think of when the word "appeasement" was mentioned?
As I said last night ...
Outer: [Comparisons between Cameron and Chamberlain] Mr X : So this is about Nazi's is it Outer: No, Dave'e negotiation was crap Mr X: I think you like Nazis Outer: The Handbrake isn't to hot either Mr X: Is it a national socialist handbrake ? Outer: I had pizza for dinner Mr X: I better it was swastika shaped. etc
Mr. Meeks, you have a fixation on Second World War references.
The Roman Empire appeased barbarians. The Saxons appeased the Vikings with Danegeld.
What do you think most of our specially selected 100 respondents would think of when the word "appeasement" was mentioned?
As I said last night ...
Outer: [Comparisons between Cameron and Chamberlain] Mr X : So this is about Nazi's is it Outer: No, Dave'e negotiation was crap Mr X: I think you like Nazis Outer: The Handbrake isn't to hot either Mr X: Is it a national socialist handbrake ? Outer: I had pizza for dinner Mr X: I better it was swastika shaped. etc
Mr. Meeks, you have a fixation on Second World War references.
The Roman Empire appeased barbarians. The Saxons appeased the Vikings with Danegeld.
What do you think most of our specially selected 100 respondents would think of when the word "appeasement" was mentioned?
As I said last night ...
Outer: [Comparisons between Cameron and Chamberlain] Mr X : So this is about Nazi's is it Outer: No, Dave'e negotiation was crap Mr X: I think you like Nazis Outer: The Handbrake isn't to hot either Mr X: Is it a national socialist handbrake ? Outer: I had pizza for dinner Mr X: I better it was swastika shaped. etc
Don't panic Mr Indigo! You will speak for England (albeit from the Philippines).
Sanders either on 59.99% or 60.01% with 92% reported... only I care which side:)
Edit: Looks like 60.01% !
Arf.
Reminds me of the 50%- bet I had on the SNP vote share with Betfair at the GE. I don't actually know if it won or lost or remembered how many dp they were using in the settlement rules.
''Granted that this is still New Hampshire we're talking about, but Trump won every demographic other than political ones almost designed to be against him (e.g. voters opposed to a ban on muslim immigration).''
Breitbart (I know), quoted a poll that suggested about two thirds of republicans are in favour of his muslim ban.
Having said that, if I were her strategist I think that by now I'd have torn out what remains of my hair in frustration at the ham-fistedness of her answers.
Indeed. Her parsing of words over the emails, her career politician adaptation of her message to the internals and in response to Bernie, and her general wonkiness - all are not right for this cycle.
PS re the banging on. I was not saying you were suggesting that, but that is in fact what she does.
Looking at last nights results its clear that Trump will win the GOP nomination. He'll then easily beat Hillary in the general. Only way to stop Trump is for Hillary to drop out and for a brokered convention to draft in someone else (no idea who TBH).
In more exciting news Gillmore not just has passed the three digit milestone but sits smugly on a pile of 151 votes. It's ON!
The surge is on.
Will he try to stay in the race till Virginia primary?
I fear that in their summit-fever rush for more powers the SNP made the mistake of believing their own grievance-rousing rhetoric about how badly the Union treats Scotland. The next few days of negotiation are critical: we're about to find out how high a price we're going to pay for the SNP's intemperate haste to seize more powers and weaken the bonds of Union.
But she is unmistakably establishment with a capital E.
Yes, and she's making a silly mistake by trying to pretend otherwise. She should embrace the fact, and turn it into a positive, emphasising that knowing how Washington works will allow her to get things done on behalf of Democrat voters.
Quite apart from anything else, this would have the unusual merit amongst political arguments of being true.
Good advice, Richard. Perhaps you should be her strategist!
Actually, not so good advice if you read the exit polls, which show that voters were discounting electability, experience and being able to get things done for values, caring and honesty. So banging on about her ability to do the job will not help her make any headway.
That might be backwards, given it's an exit poll. People who voted Sanders justified their decision by their priorities.
??? You're saying that people vote, and then find reasons to justify their vote, rather than voting for said reasons?
Not that it makes much difference in this context. If those are the reasons why people voted, or even how they justified their votes, surely that is of relevance going forward in predicting how others will vote if they hold similar values.
Comments
Bribing a third party to attack someone who is threatening you harms you enemy, rather than enriching them.
Miss Plato, isn't Maguire calling it for Cameron one of the signs an apocalypse is coming?
Nice to see Jeremy Corbyn wear a "I ❤️ my donors" badge, whilst not mentioning doctors. Priorities... #pmqs
I wonder which candidate the Dems would rather face. I reckon its Rubiobot by a mile.
Cameron says he does support that. He says the poet Stevie Smith came from Hull, and that sometimes it is important to consider what it it is like to be Not Waving but Drowning.
LOL! Cameron on good form.
The charge that Rubio isn't ready enough or steady enough for the Presidency is one that he could not overcome against Clinton. He's no Barack Obama.
Court News
Three terrorists who helped a 17-year-old join ISIS face jail after a trial which threatened to out the teenage terrorist as gay.
Terrorists called eachother 'babe' and Welsh Cutie. One said: 'Radicalise me babe xxx'
Did you see Christie turn Rubio into a gibbering idiot mouthing cliches in the Republican debate?? You honestly think a stupid boyish fool like that could win the presidency, beat a seasoned operator like Clinton??
Trump is far more dangerous. In the debates, he will talk about those women who have been on the receiving end of the Clintons, and graveyard full of skeletons in that couple's closet.
Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in that phrase, and not just in Iraq.
Real tumbleweed territory
In reality, of course, Sanders has been saying the same thing for decades but no-one has taken much notice before.
Quite apart from anything else, this would have the unusual merit amongst political arguments of being true.
It is 16 years since he left the Oval......
Early states seem to be a little bit of a phoney war, am I right in saying one winner takes all state could blow away the results of several proportional states of the same size in terms of delegates?
AP reporting this as delegate count after NH results so far:
Dem:
Clinton 394 (heavy backing from declared superdelegates) / 2382 needed
Sanders 42
Rep:
Trump 17 / 1237 needed (guess superdelegates are all hedging)
Cruz 10
Rubio 7
Kasich 4
Bush 3
At the risk of telling PBers how to suck eggs - for all the noise and bluster, we seem to be little more than 1% (Republican) or under 10% (Democrat) of the way through the delegate allocation, so not sure that we're trying to read the runes from the equivalent of, for e.g., Lab gain Dewsbury.
Trump's numbers for the general are worrying for any backer of his and to any normal Democrat, he'd lose. But he's not up against any normal Democrat; he'd be up against Hillary or Sanders. He might well do something incredibly stupid towards Hillary - his track record with women is not good - but Hillary oozes establishment entitlement and in a battle of the least worst, he'd have to have a better than 7/4 chance. Against Sanders, better still.
Even by the first definition, there is clearly a large overlap with compromise - indeed 'compromise' could be seen as the reciprocal of appease, in that both parties are appeased.
Lobby colleagues in agreement....genuine disbelief that Corbyn could be that bad and fail to exploit such obvious open goals #pmqs
As I said I havent been following the case, was this involved ?
Edit: Looks like 60.01% !
Trump should win this at a canter. The question is whether the disappearance of (I assume) Carson, Christie, Huckabee, Paul, Fiorina and Santorum accrue to any particular establishment candidate.
My guess is Trump 40%, Cruz 30%, Rubio 15%, Bush 10%, Kasich 5%.
Where I could be wrong: a Rubio collapse leading to Bush in the 20s.
Nevada
This was won by Santorum in 2012, and by Romney in 2008. Cruz needs to be winning most (or even all) the Santorum states if he's going to be genuinely competitive in 2016. And his hispanic background should help him here. (Ditto Rubio, of course.) Nevada is, of course, a caucus like Iowa, so that may damage Trump. Nevada is the last chance saloon for Rubio, without a win here, he'd be in real trouble.
That all being said, I simply can't see beyond Trump walking Nevada. The polls points to a big margin.
The two sets of voters are anything but interchangeable and he's been flatlining nationally for months. I can't see that changing. He will continue to slog out with Rubio, possibly all the way.
I think I'm going to lay some more.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268901-trump-hints-at-christie-endorsement
Pretty convinced Trump and Christie had a deal after his demolition of Rubio in the debate, would make a great AG, provide he has the stugots to help Trump clean up DC.
I'm wary of laying Bush because he doesn't seem entirely dead in the water, he has huge resources behind him and the front-runner isn't a conventional candidate.
In any case, I didn't suggest she should 'bang on' about it. She needs to show, not tell, and also ensure that the attacks on Sanders reinforce the message - and not too crudely.
Having said that, if I were her strategist I think that by now I'd have torn out what remains of my hair in frustration at the ham-fistedness of her answers.
http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/nh/Rep
Outer: [Comparisons between Cameron and Chamberlain]
Mr X : So this is about Nazi's is it
Outer: No, Dave'e negotiation was crap
Mr X: I think you like Nazis
Outer: The Handbrake isn't to hot either
Mr X: Is it a national socialist handbrake ?
Outer: I had pizza for dinner
Mr X: I better it was swastika shaped.
etc
EDINBURGH West MP Michelle Thomson has finally opened her constituency office – nine months after she was elected....
She claimed it took nine months to open her office because of the problem of finding a “suitable space”.
Her critics claim there numerous empty shop premises in her constituency and claim the politician has become a visible absence in the area.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/michelle-thomson-opens-office-nine-months-after-election-1-4022679#ixzz3zlTpCmGN
Reminds me of the 50%- bet I had on the SNP vote share with Betfair at the GE. I don't actually know if it won or lost or remembered how many dp they were using in the settlement rules.
They got 50.0 to 1 dp, 49.97 to 2.
Breitbart (I know), quoted a poll that suggested about two thirds of republicans are in favour of his muslim ban.
PS re the banging on. I was not saying you were suggesting that, but that is in fact what she does.
Will he try to stay in the race till Virginia primary?
I fear that in their summit-fever rush for more powers the SNP made the mistake of believing their own grievance-rousing rhetoric about how badly the Union treats Scotland. The next few days of negotiation are critical: we're about to find out how high a price we're going to pay for the SNP's intemperate haste to seize more powers and weaken the bonds of Union.
http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/barnett-fair.html
Not that it makes much difference in this context. If those are the reasons why people voted, or even how they justified their votes, surely that is of relevance going forward in predicting how others will vote if they hold similar values.