Not much evidence (again) of Jezza driving the WWC into the arms of the kippers. Is it possible that the pb kippers are not in communion with the soul of the nation?
Having looked at the Martin Armstrong blog, I can now confidently predict that the Euro will end on the 202nd day of 2016 because there was exactly some period between Bretton Woods beginning and the beginning of the Euro.
You heard it from Hunchman first.
Are there any cycles that can be attributed to PB? Such as the time between comment providers, or the number of days since the like button was shamefully taken away...
Can someone please talk me out of increasing my Prez Trump position at 6.6? My only doubt is that it looks too good to be true that these odds are still available.
Well lets do the math a bit.
Trump's odds for the presidency should be a function of his odds to become GOP nominee (currently 50%, if he wins S.C and Nevada change that to 90%) and his odds of him winning the GE.
Now for Trump to win the GE, with Hillary his opponent he has a 60% chance of victory, or Sanders and Bloomberg for a 40% chance of victory. If it's Hillary and Bloomberg his chances rise to 80%. If it's Sanders alone, his chances are only 20%.
Now I give Sanders currently a 20% chance to be the Dem. nominee, if he wins Nevada that rises to 40%. If Hillary is the nominee I give a 40% chance that Bloomberg will run, if she's not then 90% chance.
So Trump's odds to be president at the moment are between 10-40%, which will rise or fall drastically by Wednesday morning depending on the S.C and Nevada results.
In the most likely scenario, if Hillary scraps a win in Nevada, by Wednesday Trump will have a 50% chance to be president. In the second most likely scenario if Sanders scraps a win in Nevada, by Wednesday Trump will have a 33% chance.
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan become the Republican candidate and then President greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
More or less. But Ronnie had at least been governor of California, so had more political experience.
Can someone please talk me out of increasing my Prez Trump position at 6.6? My only doubt is that it looks too good to be true that these odds are still available.
Well lets do the math a bit.
Trump's odds for the presidency should be a function of his odds to become GOP nominee (currently 50%, if he wins S.C and Nevada change that to 90%) and his odds of him winning the GE.
Now for Trump to win the GE, with Hillary his opponent he has a 60% chance of victory, or Sanders and Bloomberg for a 40% chance of victory. If it's Hillary and Bloomberg his chances rise to 80%. If it's Sanders alone, his chances are only 20%.
Now I give Sanders currently a 20% chance to be the Dem. nominee, if he wins Nevada that rises to 40%. If Hillary is the nominee I give a 40% chance that Bloomberg will run, if she's not then 90% chance.
So Trump's odds to be president at the moment are between 10-40%, which will rise or fall drastically till Wednesday morning depending on the S.C and Nevada results.
In the most likely scenario, if Hillary scraps a win in Nevada, by Wednesday Trump will have a 50% chance to be president. In the second most likely scenario if Sanders scraps a win in Nevada, by Wednesday Trump will have a 33% chance.
Having looked at the Martin Armstrong blog, I can now confidently predict that the Euro will end on the 202nd day of 2016 because there was exactly some period between Bretton Woods beginning and the beginning of the Euro.
You heard it from Hunchman first.
Are there any cycles that can be attributed to PB? Such as the time between comment providers, or the number of days since the like button was shamefully taken away...
There's the SeanT panic-optimism-panic cycle, that manifests itself over the course of two bottles of Merlot.
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan become the Republican candidate and then President greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
More or less. But Ronnie had at least been governor of California, so had more political experience.
He made some terrible movies though.
More than Sean Connery or Michael Caine?
Wasn't it Richard Burton who remarked after a movie that was slated by the critics "well everybody has to pay the rent"
Not that I can imagine it happening but I'm really curious how people would react if Cameron came out tomorrow with a statement along the lines of "I proposed modest reforms to the EU but agreement can not be reached so with great sadness I must recommend we Leave."
I would obviously be delighted. More to the point would look at Cameron anew.
I was and am strongly supportive of his stand on gay marriage and on his fight to maintain 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. His handling of the Syria refugee crisis has been excellent.
On the negative side I think his pushing for intervention in Syria was and is misguided as was Libya in hindsight. I am strongly opposed to the 'snoopers charter' and think he has gone no where near far enough with cutting the size and scope of the State. But I think IDS's work and that of Gove have both been excellent and kudos to Cameron for letting them get on with it and supporting them.
So my view of him would be a mixed bag (as I suppose everyone's view should be of every politician if they are being honest) but on balance I would be content if not pleased with his time as PM.
So the EU question really is the huge factor that drags it one way or the other decisively. If he keeps us in the EU, particularly in the deceitful way he has been proceeding to date, then he will go down as one of the very worst post war PMs comparable with Heath and Blair. If he takes us out then he would be perhaps the very best post war PM, comparable with Churchill.
Can someone please talk me out of increasing my Prez Trump position at 6.6? My only doubt is that it looks too good to be true that these odds are still available.
The Pope is just recording a slot for the Rubio campaign. Huge advantage that Marco Rubio sounds good in Latin.
I bet every so often you regret not finishing that Rubio thread.
It might yet get written. The working title was "It's not too late to get on the Rubio train"
With sub-headings: "Calling at all stations to Cleveland" + "And change for the White House"
But I didn't write it because I didn't love the price enough. Even now I still think it will somehow be Rubio, but concur with Mr Nabavi that Trump looks value.
There's a thread in drafts from last September saying 'Trump and Sanders aren't the American Corbyn'
Said you should be laying them.
Thank Allah I never published that, would have been my Sion Simon moment.
As of tonight's polls it looks more likely than not one of Trump or Sanders will be elected president in November, though Hillary is still right in there
I found out today who does Fox News polls. A democratic pollster named Anderson and a republican pollster named Shaw do them jointly. Fair and balanced
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan become the Republican candidate and then President greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
More or less. But Ronnie had at least been governor of California, so had more political experience.
He made some terrible movies though.
More than Sean Connery or Michael Caine?
Wasn't it Richard Burton who remarked after a movie that was slated by the critics "well everybody has to pay the rent"
Not that I can imagine it happening but I'm really curious how people would react if Cameron came out tomorrow with a statement along the lines of "I proposed modest reforms to the EU but agreement can not be reached so with great sadness I must recommend we Leave."
I would obviously be delighted. More to the point would look at Cameron anew.
I was and am strongly supportive of his stand on gay marriage and on his fight to maintain 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. His handling of the Syria refugee crisis has been excellent.
On the negative side I think his pushing for intervention in Syria was and is misguided as was Libya in hindsight. I am strongly opposed to the 'snoopers charter' and think he has gone no where near far enough with cutting the size and scope of the State. But I think IDS's work and that of Gove have both been excellent and kudos to Cameron for letting them get on with it and supporting them.
So my view of him would be a mixed bag (as I suppose everyone's view should be of every politician if they are being honest) but on balance I would be content if not pleased with his time as PM.
So the EU question really is the huge factor that drags it one way or the other decisively. If he keeps us in the EU, particularly in the deceitful way he has been proceeding to date, then he will go down as one of the very worst post war PMs comparable with Heath and Blair. If he takes us out then he would be perhaps the very best post war PM, comparable with Churchill.
Sorry to be difficult, but I think Churchill was a pretty awful post-War PM.
Can someone please talk me out of increasing my Prez Trump position at 6.6? My only doubt is that it looks too good to be true that these odds are still available.
The Pope is just recording a slot for the Rubio campaign. Huge advantage that Marco Rubio sounds good in Latin.
I bet every so often you regret not finishing that Rubio thread.
It might yet get written. The working title was "It's not too late to get on the Rubio train"
With sub-headings: "Calling at all stations to Cleveland" + "And change for the White House"
But I didn't write it because I didn't love the price enough. Even now I still think it will somehow be Rubio, but concur with Mr Nabavi that Trump looks value.
There's a thread in drafts from last September saying 'Trump and Sanders aren't the American Corbyn'
Said you should be laying them.
Thank Allah I never published that, would have been my Sion Simon moment.
As of tonight's polls it looks more likely than not one of Trump or Sanders will be elected president in November, though Hillary is still right in there
Right in there? She leads Sanders by 426 delegates. Sanders has to win every state convincingly even to get within striking distance, and it's not going to happen. She's already won.
Interestingly, if that causes petrol usage in Venezuela to drop to average levels for South America, then it has the effect of adding 0.5m barrels to world oil supply.
Not much evidence (again) of Jezza driving the WWC into the arms of the kippers. Is it possible that the pb kippers are not in communion with the soul of the nation?
I think its rather more likely that we're seeing a LibDem supporter obsessing far too much about council byelections.
Perhaps you'd like to make some predictions as to what will happen at the May elections on the basis on the council byelections which get you so excited every Thursday.
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan become the Republican candidate and then President greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
More or less. But Ronnie had at least been governor of California, so had more political experience.
He made some terrible movies though.
More than Sean Connery or Michael Caine?
Wasn't it Richard Burton who remarked after a movie that was slated by the critics "well everybody has to pay the rent"
Not that I can imagine it happening but I'm really curious how people would react if Cameron came out tomorrow with a statement along the lines of "I proposed modest reforms to the EU but agreement can not be reached so with great sadness I must recommend we Leave."
I would obviously be delighted. More to the point would look at Cameron anew.
I was and am strongly supportive of his stand on gay marriage and on his fight to maintain 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. His handling of the Syria refugee crisis has been excellent.
On the negative side I think his pushing for intervention in Syria was and is misguided as was Libya in hindsight. I am strongly opposed to the 'snoopers charter' and think he has gone no where near far enough with cutting the size and scope of the State. But I think IDS's work and that of Gove have both been excellent and kudos to Cameron for letting them get on with it and supporting them.
So my view of him would be a mixed bag (as I suppose everyone's view should be of every politician if they are being honest) but on balance I would be content if not pleased with his time as PM.
So the EU question really is the huge factor that drags it one way or the other decisively. If he keeps us in the EU, particularly in the deceitful way he has been proceeding to date, then he will go down as one of the very worst post war PMs comparable with Heath and Blair. If he takes us out then he would be perhaps the very best post war PM, comparable with Churchill.
Sorry to be difficult, but I think Churchill was a pretty awful post-War PM.
I was only talking about his wartime tenure. I had actually originally wrote the greatest PM of the last century but then thought about Churchill during the war and changed it.
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan becoming the Republican candidate and then POTUS greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
Incredulity and ridicule. Witness this sketch from a popular British comedy show of the late 70's...
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan becoming the Republican candidate and then POTUS greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
Incredulity and ridicule. Witness this sketch from a popular British comedy show of the late 70's...
That is largely due to so many Independents standing in 2012 when collectively they polled 55% of the vote. Compared with the two by elections here in 2014 the change in the Tory share is more modest.
Not that I can imagine it happening but I'm really curious how people would react if Cameron came out tomorrow with a statement along the lines of "I proposed modest reforms to the EU but agreement can not be reached so with great sadness I must recommend we Leave."
I would obviously be delighted. More to the point would look at Cameron anew.
I was and am strongly supportive of his stand on gay marriage and on his fight to maintain 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. His handling of the Syria refugee crisis has been excellent.
On the negative side I think his pushing for intervention in Syria was and is misguided as was Libya in hindsight. I am strongly opposed to the 'snoopers charter' and think he has gone no where near far enough with cutting the size and scope of the State. But I think IDS's work and that of Gove have both been excellent and kudos to Cameron for letting them get on with it and supporting them.
So my view of him would be a mixed bag (as I suppose everyone's view should be of every politician if they are being honest) but on balance I would be content if not pleased with his time as PM.
So the EU question really is the huge factor that drags it one way or the other decisively. If he keeps us in the EU, particularly in the deceitful way he has been proceeding to date, then he will go down as one of the very worst post war PMs comparable with Heath and Blair. If he takes us out then he would be perhaps the very best post war PM, comparable with Churchill.
Sorry to be difficult, but I think Churchill was a pretty awful post-War PM.
I was only talking about his wartime tenure. I had actually originally wrote the greatest PM of the last century but then thought about Churchill during the war and changed it.
Ahhh, you see I was confused by your statement "If he takes us out then he would be perhaps the very best post war PM, comparable with Churchill" - which upon rereading is more ambiguous than I though.
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan becoming the Republican candidate and then POTUS greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
Incredulity and ridicule. Witness this sketch from a popular British comedy show of the late 70's...
That is largely due to so many Independents standing in 2012 when collectively they polled 55% of the vote. Compared with the two by elections here in 2014 the change in the Tory share is more modest.
Downgraded from "astronomically massive" to a modest "gargantuan"?
Heaven 17 included a lyric about Reagan on their early 1981 hit "We Don't Need This Fascist Groove Thang", although they pronounced his name wrong. The track was banned by the BBC.
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan becoming the Republican candidate and then POTUS greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
Incredulity and ridicule. Witness this sketch from a popular British comedy show of the late 70's...
That is largely due to so many Independents standing in 2012 when collectively they polled 55% of the vote. Compared with the two by elections here in 2014 the change in the Tory share is more modest.
Downgraded from "astronomically massive" to a modest "gargantuan"?
I think you will find that in the July 2014 by election the Tories polled circa 19%.
Sorry to hear of the troubles, Harry - hope the treatment for your grandmother goes well.
On Broxtowe, Toton and Chilwell Meadows and Greasley are two of the three strongest Tory wards in Broxtowe; Greasley did go Labour in 1997, though Toton never has. It has huge estates of new private housing, partly on land given up by the big Army mobilisation centre and base over the years, and a prosperous commuter population. The LibDems didn't stand there last time but I understand that the outgoing Tory councillor endorsed them this time so they stood and split the non-Tory vote in half. I would expect a Tory hold in Greasley too, though I've not seen the result yet: that's also primarily private housing, though mostly older and more mixed incomes than Toton. Green Belt issues are significant in both, especially Toton, where many people objected to the former Lab/Lib council approving even more new housing.
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan becoming the Republican candidate and then POTUS greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
Incredulity and ridicule. Witness this sketch from a popular British comedy show of the late 70's...
Nonsense. There was satire like there always is. But Reagan had stood in 1968 and technically edged Nixon on the popular vote in primaries. He then challenged very, very strongly against Ford (an incumbent President) in 1976, and had of course been Governor of the Union's most populous state.
The comparisons with Trump just aren't there. People had issues with Reagan in 1980, but there was no sense in which he wasn't seen as a heavyweight contender.
Can someone please talk me out of increasing my Prez Trump position at 6.6? My only doubt is that it looks too good to be true that these odds are still available.
The Pope is just recording a slot for the Rubio campaign. Huge advantage that Marco Rubio sounds good in Latin.
I bet every so often you regret not finishing that Rubio thread.
It might yet get written. The working title was "It's not too late to get on the Rubio train"
With sub-headings: "Calling at all stations to Cleveland" + "And change for the White House"
But I didn't write it because I didn't love the price enough. Even now I still think it will somehow be Rubio, but concur with Mr Nabavi that Trump looks value.
There's a thread in drafts from last September saying 'Trump and Sanders aren't the American Corbyn'
Said you should be laying them.
Thank Allah I never published that, would have been my Sion Simon moment.
As of tonight's polls it looks more likely than not one of Trump or Sanders will be elected president in November, though Hillary is still right in there
Right in there? She leads Sanders by 426 delegates. Sanders has to win every state convincingly even to get within striking distance, and it's not going to happen. She's already won.
Her only threat is a legal one.
If Sanders wins Nevada and stays competitive through Super Tuesday anything can happen, he is only 2% behind in California and superdelegates can defect
Short of imprisonment the legal threat is not an issue, voters have already made up their minds one way or the other
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan becoming the Republican candidate and then POTUS greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
Incredulity and ridicule. Witness this sketch from a popular British comedy show of the late 70's...
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan becoming the Republican candidate and then POTUS greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
Incredulity and ridicule. Witness this sketch from a popular British comedy show of the late 70's...
Nonsense. There was satire like there always is. But Reagan had stood in 1968 and technically edged Nixon on the popular vote in primaries. He then challenged very, very strongly against Ford (an incumbent President) in 1976, and had of course been Governor of the Union's most populous state.
The comparisons with Trump just aren't there. People had issues with Reagan in 1980, but there was no sense in which he wasn't seen as a heavyweight contender.
That people were mistaken in their incredulity and ridicule of Reagan does not alter the fact that at the time they were incredulous and did ridicule Reagan.
Can someone please talk me out of increasing my Prez Trump position at 6.6? My only doubt is that it looks too good to be true that these odds are still available.
The Pope is just recording a slot for the Rubio campaign. Huge advantage that Marco Rubio sounds good in Latin.
I bet every so often you regret not finishing that Rubio thread.
It might yet get written. The working title was "It's not too late to get on the Rubio train"
With sub-headings: "Calling at all stations to Cleveland" + "And change for the White House"
But I didn't write it because I didn't love the price enough. Even now I still think it will somehow be Rubio, but concur with Mr Nabavi that Trump looks value.
There's a thread in drafts from last September saying 'Trump and Sanders aren't the American Corbyn'
Said you should be laying them.
Thank Allah I never published that, would have been my Sion Simon moment.
As of tonight's polls it looks more likely than not one of Trump or Sanders will be elected president in November, though Hillary is still right in there
Right in there? She leads Sanders by 426 delegates. Sanders has to win every state convincingly even to get within striking distance, and it's not going to happen. She's already won.
Her only threat is a legal one.
If Sanders wins Nevada and stays competitive through Super Tuesday anything can happen, he is only 2% behind in California and superdelegates can defect
Short of imprisonment the legal threat is not an issue, voters have already made up their minds one way or the other
They can indeed, but it's not likely to happen unless it becomes obvious Hillary is in deep political trouble, which may happen.
The legal threat is nothing to do with voters, and everything to do with the FBI.
Can someone please talk me out of increasing my Prez Trump position at 6.6? My only doubt is that it looks too good to be true that these odds are still available.
The Pope is just recording a slot for the Rubio campaign. Huge advantage that Marco Rubio sounds good in Latin.
I bet every so often you regret not finishing that Rubio thread.
It might yet get written. The working title was "It's not too late to get on the Rubio train"
With sub-headings: "Calling at all stations to Cleveland" + "And change for the White House"
But I didn't write it because I didn't love the price enough. Even now I still think it will somehow be Rubio, but concur with Mr Nabavi that Trump looks value.
There's a thread in drafts from last September saying 'Trump and Sanders aren't the American Corbyn'
Said you should be laying them.
Thank Allah I never published that, would have been my Sion Simon moment.
As of tonight's polls it looks more likely than not one of Trump or Sanders will be elected president in November, though Hillary is still right in there
Right in there? She leads Sanders by 426 delegates. Sanders has to win every state convincingly even to get within striking distance, and it's not going to happen. She's already won.
Her only threat is a legal one.
If Sanders wins Nevada and stays competitive through Super Tuesday anything can happen, he is only 2% behind in California and superdelegates can defect
Short of imprisonment the legal threat is not an issue, voters have already made up their minds one way or the other
They can indeed, but it's not likely to happen unless it becomes obvious Hillary is in deep political trouble, which may happen.
The legal threat is nothing to do with voters, and everything to do with the FBI.
Sanders is already ahead in the Fox national poll tonight. Unless Hillary is imprisoned whatever the FBI decide there is nothing to stop her continuing to run and even then she might still continue with the campaign from jail!
One of the reasons I think Ruth Davidson is so far short of her media hype is the desperation to cite anything at all as evidence of the mythical Tory revival.
Second place by just one vote over third and an increase in the vote of 13.5 per cent in a local by election is not a success when the independent vote is down 30 per cent with the longstanding Labour candidate standing this time as the independent!
Indeed comparing with the October 2014 SNP gain at the by election, the SNP vote is up (yet again!) despite a Green standing and taking 10 per cent, the Tory vote is only up 7 per cent despite the 22 per cent of a Tory/Independent being up for grabs.
Davidson has talked the Tories into the ridiculous position that they will have to outpoll Labour for the election to be a success. They won't and it will be yet another failure.
Can someone please talk me out of increasing my Prez Trump position at 6.6? My only doubt is that it looks too good to be true that these odds are still available.
The Pope is just recording a slot for the Rubio campaign. Huge advantage that Marco Rubio sounds good in Latin.
I bet every so often you regret not finishing that Rubio thread.
It might yet get written. The working title was "It's not too late to get on the Rubio train"
With sub-headings: "Calling at all stations to Cleveland" + "And change for the White House"
But I didn't write it because I didn't love the price enough. Even now I still think it will somehow be Rubio, but concur with Mr Nabavi that Trump looks value.
There's a thread in drafts from last September saying 'Trump and Sanders aren't the American Corbyn'
Said you should be laying them.
Thank Allah I never published that, would have been my Sion Simon moment.
As of tonight's polls it looks more likely than not one of Trump or Sanders will be elected president in November, though Hillary is still right in there
Right in there? She leads Sanders by 426 delegates. Sanders has to win every state convincingly even to get within striking distance, and it's not going to happen. She's already won.
Her only threat is a legal one.
If Sanders wins Nevada and stays competitive through Super Tuesday anything can happen, he is only 2% behind in California and superdelegates can defect
Short of imprisonment the legal threat is not an issue, voters have already made up their minds one way or the other
They can indeed, but it's not likely to happen unless it becomes obvious Hillary is in deep political trouble, which may happen.
The legal threat is nothing to do with voters, and everything to do with the FBI.
Sanders is already ahead in the Fox national poll tonight. Unless Hillary is imprisoned whatever the FBI decide there is nothing to stop her continuing to run and even then she might still continue with the campaign from jail!
Let's leave it there - I'm not prepared to waste time on this with you again.
That people were mistaken in their incredulity and ridicule of Reagan does not alter the fact that at the time they were incredulous and did ridicule Reagan.
Satirists ridiculed Reagan as they ridicule everyone... because it's their job.
But the comparison with Trump simply isn't there in terms of the outsider shocking the system. Reagan was not some actor straight out of Hollywood as per the myth this side of the pond. He was an experienced political actor, mainstream, with heavyweight support.
One of the reasons I think Ruth Davidson is so far short of her media hype is the desperation to cite anything at all as evidence of the mythical Tory revival.
Second place by just one vote over third and an increase in the vote of 13.5 per cent in a local by election is not a success when the independent vote is down 30 per cent with the longstanding Labour candidate standing this time as the independent!
Indeed comparing with the October 2014 SNP gain at the by election, the SNP vote is up (yet again!) despite a Green standing and taking 10 per cent, the Tory vote is only up 7 per cent despite the 22 per cent of a Tory/Independent being up for grabs.
Davidson has talked the Tories into the ridiculous position that they will have to outpoll Labour for the election to be a success. They won't and it will be yet another failure.
That people were mistaken in their incredulity and ridicule of Reagan does not alter the fact that at the time they were incredulous and did ridicule Reagan.
Satirists ridiculed Reagan as they ridicule everyone... because it's their job.
But the comparison with Trump simply isn't there in terms of the outsider shocking the system. Reagan was not some actor straight out of Hollywood as per the myth this side of the pond. He was an experienced political actor, mainstream, with heavyweight support.
You're telling me what he was I'm telling you how he was percieved at the time
That people were mistaken in their incredulity and ridicule of Reagan does not alter the fact that at the time they were incredulous and did ridicule Reagan.
Satirists ridiculed Reagan as they ridicule everyone... because it's their job.
But the comparison with Trump simply isn't there in terms of the outsider shocking the system. Reagan was not some actor straight out of Hollywood as per the myth this side of the pond. He was an experienced political actor, mainstream, with heavyweight support.
You're telling me what he was I'm telling you how he was percieved at the time
I was here at the time. You overstate the level of ridicule in the US.
I found out today who does Fox News polls. A democratic pollster named Anderson and a republican pollster named Shaw do them jointly. Fair and balanced
Indeed. Fox News polls are never the most favorable to the GOP. In the run up to the 2012, after Rasmussen, I think they were consistently one of the more favorable for Obama.
That people were mistaken in their incredulity and ridicule of Reagan does not alter the fact that at the time they were incredulous and did ridicule Reagan.
Satirists ridiculed Reagan as they ridicule everyone... because it's their job.
But the comparison with Trump simply isn't there in terms of the outsider shocking the system. Reagan was not some actor straight out of Hollywood as per the myth this side of the pond. He was an experienced political actor, mainstream, with heavyweight support.
You're telling me what he was I'm telling you how he was percieved at the time
I was here at the time. You overstate the level of ridicule in the US.
Can someone please talk me out of increasing my Prez Trump position at 6.6? My only doubt is that it looks too good to be true that these odds are still available.
The Pope is just recording a slot for the Rubio campaign. Huge advantage that Marco Rubio sounds good in Latin.
I bet every so often you regret not finishing that Rubio thread.
It might yet get written. The working title was "It's not too late to get on the Rubio train"
With sub-headings: "Calling at all stations to Cleveland" + "And change for the White House"
But I didn't write it because I didn't love the price enough. Even now I still think it will somehow be Rubio, but concur with Mr Nabavi that Trump looks value.
There's a thread in drafts from last September saying 'Trump and Sanders aren't the American Corbyn'
Said you should be laying them.
Thank Allah I never published that, would have been my Sion Simon moment.
As of tonight's polls it looks more likely than not one of Trump or Sanders will be elected president in November, though Hillary is still right in there
Right in there? She leads Sanders by 426 delegates. Sanders has to win every state convincingly even to get within striking distance, and it's not going to happen. She's already won.
Her only threat is a legal one.
If Sanders wins Nevada and stays competitive through Super Tuesday anything can happen, he is only 2% behind in California and superdelegates can defect
Short of imprisonment the legal threat is not an issue, voters have already made up their minds one way or the other
The legal threat is nothing to do with voters, and everything to do with the FBI.
Sanders is already ahead in the Fox national
Let's leave it there - I'm not prepared to waste time on this with you again.
Well facts are facts and constitutionally there is no bar on running for president unless found guilty of treason incorporating a declaration of war against the United States or 'adhering to their enemies' so unless she is found guilty of that she can still run. Indeed in 1798, Rep. Matthew Lyon ran for Congress from prison and won. Goodnight!
That people were mistaken in their incredulity and ridicule of Reagan does not alter the fact that at the time they were incredulous and did ridicule Reagan.
Satirists ridiculed Reagan as they ridicule everyone... because it's their job.
But the comparison with Trump simply isn't there in terms of the outsider shocking the system. Reagan was not some actor straight out of Hollywood as per the myth this side of the pond. He was an experienced political actor, mainstream, with heavyweight support.
You're telling me what he was I'm telling you how he was percieved at the time
I was here at the time. You overstate the level of ridicule in the US.
You understate the level of ridicule in the UK
Who cares what the UK thinks about a US president? It's about as relevant as what the US thinks about the UK PM. It doesn't matter a jot.
That people were mistaken in their incredulity and ridicule of Reagan does not alter the fact that at the time they were incredulous and did ridicule Reagan.
Satirists ridiculed Reagan as they ridicule everyone... because it's their job.
But the comparison with Trump simply isn't there in terms of the outsider shocking the system. Reagan was not some actor straight out of Hollywood as per the myth this side of the pond. He was an experienced political actor, mainstream, with heavyweight support.
You're telling me what he was I'm telling you how he was percieved at the time
I was here at the time. You overstate the level of ridicule in the US.
You understate the level of ridicule in the UK
You overstate it, the UK happily elected Thatcher 3 times when she was joined at the hip to Reagan!
That people were mistaken in their incredulity and ridicule of Reagan does not alter the fact that at the time they were incredulous and did ridicule Reagan.
Satirists ridiculed Reagan as they ridicule everyone... because it's their job.
But the comparison with Trump simply isn't there in terms of the outsider shocking the system. Reagan was not some actor straight out of Hollywood as per the myth this side of the pond. He was an experienced political actor, mainstream, with heavyweight support.
You're telling me what he was I'm telling you how he was percieved at the time
I was here at the time. You overstate the level of ridicule in the US.
You understate the level of ridicule in the UK
You overstate it, the UK happily elected Thatcher 3 times when she was joined at the hip to Reagan!
That people were mistaken in their incredulity and ridicule of Reagan does not alter the fact that at the time they were incredulous and did ridicule Reagan.
Satirists ridiculed Reagan as they ridicule everyone... because it's their job.
But the comparison with Trump simply isn't there in terms of the outsider shocking the system. Reagan was not some actor straight out of Hollywood as per the myth this side of the pond. He was an experienced political actor, mainstream, with heavyweight support.
You're telling me what he was I'm telling you how he was percieved at the time
I was here at the time. You overstate the level of ridicule in the US.
You understate the level of ridicule in the UK
Who cares what the UK thinks about a US president? It's about as relevant as what the US thinks about the UK PM. It doesn't matter a jot.
I was answering a question from GIN1138 ("If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan becoming the Republican candidate and then POTUS greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?")
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan become the Republican candidate and then President greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
More or less. But Ronnie had at least been governor of California, so had more political experience.
He made some terrible movies though.
More than Sean Connery or Michael Caine?
He had also been a union rep and wrote (and delivered) one of the very best political speeches of all time - "A Time for Choosing"
That people were mistaken in their incredulity and ridicule of Reagan does not alter the fact that at the time they were incredulous and did ridicule Reagan.
Satirists ridiculed Reagan as they ridicule everyone... because it's their job.
But the comparison with Trump simply isn't there in terms of the outsider shocking the system. Reagan was not some actor straight out of Hollywood as per the myth this side of the pond. He was an experienced political actor, mainstream, with heavyweight support.
You're telling me what he was I'm telling you how he was percieved at the time
I was here at the time. You overstate the level of ridicule in the US.
You understate the level of ridicule in the UK
You overstate it, the UK happily elected Thatcher 3 times when she was joined at the hip to Reagan!
In 1980 (when he was elected) and 1981 (when he was inaugurated), the UK chattering class and public attitude to Reagan was one of incredulity and ridicule. Since this was the question GIN1138 asked ("If people can remember...was the view of Ronald Reagan becoming the Republican candidate and then POTUS greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?") then I have answered it accurately. His electoral success in later years, and those of his allies, does not change that retrospectively.
Often when a Supreme Court justice dies, the president attends the funeral representing the nation and gives the eulogy.
Obama won't be going and the WH won't say why not. He has nothing on his schedule for that day.
He and Michelle will pay their respects at the Supreme Court tomorrow evening.
Pathetic.
He has obviously got a good tee time....
In all seriousness he has form. e.g Thatcher's funeral. So much for all that BS he used to pedal about bringing the nation together, being bipartisan etc.
You can attend the funeral of an individual whose political views you didn't agree with, with respect and dignity. For all many faults of Cameron, he is very good when it comes to being a good representative of his office at events that require him to be statesman like.
No the Tories were up 7% from last years by election in the same ward with 20 per cent of a Independent/Tory not standing and pipped the former Labour candidate by 1 vote for second!
More hype, more humiliation on the way. Meanwhile the SNP continue on their merry way.
No the Tories were up 7% from last years by election in the same ward with 20 per cent of a Independent/Tory not standing and pipped the former Labour candidate by 1 vote for second!
More hype, more humiliation on the way. Meanwhile the SNP continue on their merry way.
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan becoming the Republican candidate and then POTUS greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
Incredulity and ridicule. Witness this sketch from a popular British comedy show of the late 70's...
All US presidents, with the possible exception of Obama, have been met with English ridicule in my lifetime.
Trickie Dicky, left the office scandalised and in disrepute The guy that couldn't fart and chew gum. [he wasn't Prez long enough for me to remember much,other than two crazy women nearly gave him the bullet] Carter [I remember my Dad sinking a bottle of scotch with his mates till the early hours over the question of what kind of twerp lets his "80-year ol' mother" get up on national stage to plead his cause, when he was in the shit] Reagan, a clown, whatever the revisionists may think. "Now an actor, for Christ's sake!", said Dad... Bush I, half-decent, until showed his appreciation on TV by returning his state dinner into the Jap PM's lap. Clinton, one half of a sociopathic double-act. Bush II, there by a chad, pretzel-phobic, whom we can thank for the golden legacy of ISIS...
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan become the Republican candidate and then President greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
More or less. But Ronnie had at least been governor of California, so had more political experience.
He made some terrible movies though.
More than Sean Connery or Michael Caine?
He had also been a union rep and wrote (and delivered) one of the very best political speeches of all time - "A Time for Choosing"
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American British revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
There wasn't much discussion on the previous thread(s) about the Supreme Court judgment on Joint Enterprise, but some of the few comments seemed to indicate a level of misunderstanding.
(1) The Supreme Court has not abolished the law on Joint Enterprise. (2) The judgment is not perverse, and does not need to be "corrected" by Parliament passing a law to overrule it. (3) The law on Joint Enterprise is a good and proper law, which has worked well for hundreds of years.
But
(4) It has been misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misapplied, in a number of cases since 1984. The basic problem is that it is easier to convict a secondary person of the crime than it is to convict the principal, on the basis of the same evidence. This is perverse, and has now been corrected.
Those who wish to froth at the mouth and get hysterical about the judgment should be advised to listen to the actual judgment, the main essence of which is from about 6 minutes to about 10 minutes:
(OT) Yesterday afternoon, as I was walking towards the shops, I was waiting at a junction to cross the road. While waiting, I was singing the New Zealand national anthem (the Maori version). I quite often sing various national anthems while out & about, merely to relieve the boredom and pass the time before I get to wherever I'm going. On this occasion, a lady came up to me and told me that I was singing the New Zealand national anthem (although I already knew that that was what I was doing).
If people can remember (I was only 3 years old in 1980) was the view of Ronald Reagan becoming the Republican candidate and then POTUS greeted with the incredulity here and elsewhere like Trump is?
Incredulity and ridicule. Witness this sketch from a popular British comedy show of the late 70's...
All US presidents, with the possible exception of Obama, have been met with English ridicule in my lifetime.
Trickie Dicky, left the office scandalised and in disrepute The guy that couldn't fart and chew gum. [he wasn't Prez long enough for me to remember much,other than two crazy women nearly gave him the bullet] Carter [I remember my Dad sinking a bottle of scotch with his mates till the early hours over the question of what kind of twerp lets his "80-year ol' mother" get up on national stage to plead his cause, when he was in the shit] Reagan, a clown, whatever the revisionists may think. "Now an actor, for Christ's sake!", said Dad... Bush I, half-decent, until showed his appreciation on TV by returning his state dinner into the Jap PM's lap. Clinton, one half of a sociopathic double-act. Bush II, there by a chad, pretzel-phobic, whom we can thank for the golden legacy of ISIS...
And meanwhile, what happened to the relative wealth and power of the UK vs the US? Clearly being run by a bunch of idiots is preferable to whatever is going on in Downing Street.
My guess is that Kennedy was the last US President before Obama to have been accepted as Presidential by Western Europeans.
Comments
Trump's odds for the presidency should be a function of his odds to become GOP nominee (currently 50%, if he wins S.C and Nevada change that to 90%) and his odds of him winning the GE.
Now for Trump to win the GE, with Hillary his opponent he has a 60% chance of victory, or Sanders and Bloomberg for a 40% chance of victory.
If it's Hillary and Bloomberg his chances rise to 80%.
If it's Sanders alone, his chances are only 20%.
Now I give Sanders currently a 20% chance to be the Dem. nominee, if he wins Nevada that rises to 40%.
If Hillary is the nominee I give a 40% chance that Bloomberg will run, if she's not then 90% chance.
So Trump's odds to be president at the moment are between 10-40%, which will rise or fall drastically by Wednesday morning depending on the S.C and Nevada results.
In the most likely scenario, if Hillary scraps a win in Nevada, by Wednesday Trump will have a 50% chance to be president.
In the second most likely scenario if Sanders scraps a win in Nevada, by Wednesday Trump will have a 33% chance.
And S.Carolina finishes voting by midnight London time, so no late nights and early mornings wasting time for exit polls and results.
Goodnight.
I was and am strongly supportive of his stand on gay marriage and on his fight to maintain 0.7% of GDP on overseas aid. His handling of the Syria refugee crisis has been excellent.
On the negative side I think his pushing for intervention in Syria was and is misguided as was Libya in hindsight. I am strongly opposed to the 'snoopers charter' and think he has gone no where near far enough with cutting the size and scope of the State. But I think IDS's work and that of Gove have both been excellent and kudos to Cameron for letting them get on with it and supporting them.
So my view of him would be a mixed bag (as I suppose everyone's view should be of every politician if they are being honest) but on balance I would be content if not pleased with his time as PM.
So the EU question really is the huge factor that drags it one way or the other decisively. If he keeps us in the EU, particularly in the deceitful way he has been proceeding to date, then he will go down as one of the very worst post war PMs comparable with Heath and Blair. If he takes us out then he would be perhaps the very best post war PM, comparable with Churchill.
Lab 65.2% (+7.7)
UKIP 18.9% (-6.9)
Con 8.0% (-1.8)
LD 4.8% (+2.1)
Grn 2.5% (-1.7)
Pir 0.6% (+0.6)
Cradley Heath is a train station on the Stourbridge to Brum Snow Hill line.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35600921
Her only threat is a legal one.
https://twitter.com/RuthDavidsonMSP/status/700473987651002369
SNP: 42.3% (+9.9)
CON: 23.2% (+13.5)
IND: 23.1% (+23.1)
GRN: 11.4% (+11.4)
Perhaps you'd like to make some predictions as to what will happen at the May elections on the basis on the council byelections which get you so excited every Thursday.
We believe in: Freedom! Democracy! Cup Cakes! Crispy Candy Bars! It's incredible, isn't it? That a cretin such as this could become president of the United States
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV5dbcOmw6I
On Broxtowe, Toton and Chilwell Meadows and Greasley are two of the three strongest Tory wards in Broxtowe; Greasley did go Labour in 1997, though Toton never has. It has huge estates of new private housing, partly on land given up by the big Army mobilisation centre and base over the years, and a prosperous commuter population. The LibDems didn't stand there last time but I understand that the outgoing Tory councillor endorsed them this time so they stood and split the non-Tory vote in half. I would expect a Tory hold in Greasley too, though I've not seen the result yet: that's also primarily private housing, though mostly older and more mixed incomes than Toton. Green Belt issues are significant in both, especially Toton, where many people objected to the former Lab/Lib council approving even more new housing.
The comparisons with Trump just aren't there. People had issues with Reagan in 1980, but there was no sense in which he wasn't seen as a heavyweight contender.
Short of imprisonment the legal threat is not an issue, voters have already made up their minds one way or the other
Most Britons, of all backgrounds, try their best
by Swaran Singh"
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/immigration-i-dont-think-britain-is-racist
The legal threat is nothing to do with voters, and everything to do with the FBI.
https://www.facebook.com/bbcspotlight/photos/a.165679570164216.46966.150467675018739/1102696389795858/?type=3&fref=nf
Second place by just one vote over third and an increase in the vote of 13.5 per cent in a local by election is not a success when the independent vote is down 30 per cent with the longstanding Labour candidate standing this time as the independent!
Indeed comparing with the October 2014 SNP gain at the by election, the SNP vote is up (yet again!) despite a Green standing and taking 10 per cent, the Tory vote is only up 7 per cent despite the 22 per cent of a Tory/Independent being up for grabs.
Davidson has talked the Tories into the ridiculous position that they will have to outpoll Labour for the election to be a success. They won't and it will be yet another failure.
But the comparison with Trump simply isn't there in terms of the outsider shocking the system. Reagan was not some actor straight out of Hollywood as per the myth this side of the pond. He was an experienced political actor, mainstream, with heavyweight support.
Edit:
Yes only 37 per cent to make up on yesterday's Survation poll - SNP 53 per cent, Tories 16 per cent!
All it requires is the power of prayer from Tory Political Betting posters.
I'm telling you how he was percieved at the time
https://www.quora.com/If-Hillary-is-indicted-for-treason-will-she-still-be-able-to-be-on-the-ballot-next-November
[edit:unfuck quotes]
"In 2004, Donald Trump identified as a Democrat, openly supported Hillary Clinton, and donated a large sum of money to Democratic groups."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY
Obama won't be going and the WH won't say why not. He has nothing on his schedule for that day.
He and Michelle will pay their respects at the Supreme Court tomorrow evening.
Pathetic.
Democrats can vote in the Republican primary, and vice versa.
Then you won't have to keep refreshing the old one
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz1_GvD-_f4
In all seriousness he has form. e.g Thatcher's funeral. So much for all that BS he used to pedal about bringing the nation together, being bipartisan etc.
You can attend the funeral of an individual whose political views you didn't agree with, with respect and dignity. For all many faults of Cameron, he is very good when it comes to being a good representative of his office at events that require him to be statesman like.
No the Tories were up 7% from last years by election in the same ward with 20 per cent of a Independent/Tory not standing and pipped the former Labour candidate by 1 vote for second!
More hype, more humiliation on the way. Meanwhile the SNP continue on their merry way.
Trickie Dicky, left the office scandalised and in disrepute
The guy that couldn't fart and chew gum. [he wasn't Prez long enough for me to remember much,other than two crazy women nearly gave him the bullet]
Carter [I remember my Dad sinking a bottle of scotch with his mates till the early hours over the question of what kind of twerp lets his "80-year ol' mother" get up on national stage to plead his cause, when he was in the shit]
Reagan, a clown, whatever the revisionists may think. "Now an actor, for Christ's sake!", said Dad...
Bush I, half-decent, until showed his appreciation on TV by returning his state dinner into the Jap PM's lap.
Clinton, one half of a sociopathic double-act.
Bush II, there by a chad, pretzel-phobic, whom we can thank for the golden legacy of ISIS...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/in-2002-donald-trump-said-he-supported-invading-iraq-on-the#.shzVJlp5y
(1) The Supreme Court has not abolished the law on Joint Enterprise.
(2) The judgment is not perverse, and does not need to be "corrected" by Parliament passing a law to overrule it.
(3) The law on Joint Enterprise is a good and proper law, which has worked well for hundreds of years.
But
(4) It has been misinterpreted, misunderstood, and misapplied, in a number of cases since 1984. The basic problem is that it is easier to convict a secondary person of the crime than it is to convict the principal, on the basis of the same evidence. This is perverse, and has now been corrected.
Those who wish to froth at the mouth and get hysterical about the judgment should be advised to listen to the actual judgment, the main essence of which is from about 6 minutes to about 10 minutes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=242Iy-Yrbss
My guess is that Kennedy was the last US President before Obama to have been accepted as Presidential by Western Europeans.