Undefined discussion subject.

Second like Trump!

Roger said:

OT. The first glimmer for a peace in one of the most brutal and destabilizing civil wars we have seen and Philip Hammond sends schholboy insults to the one world leader who actually made this possible.

I'm so disgusted I'm not even going to brag about a first first

and yet the temptation was just too great

RobD said:

Roger said:

OT. The first glimmer for a peace in one of the most brutal and destabilizing civil wars we have seen and Philip Hammond sends schholboy insults to the one world leader who actually made this possible.

I'm so disgusted I'm not even going to brag about a first first

and yet the temptation was just too great

The "first game" is one of life's purest pleasures!

FPT:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

No. It was not a slur; it was a fair comment.

And I will comment as I see fit on the EU referendum Alastair, and my perceptions of the motives of those who vote either way, based upon what they say, just as you do.

I was giving you the opportunity to look like less of a berk.

You illustrate with such remarks why Leave needs to be defeated. Like so many other Leavers, you're a fake democrat, unwilling to accept a public vote unless it is decided in your favour. You're fundamentally unable to accept that others can take a different view of the matter with integrity and patriotism. You're willing to destroy every part of the political culture of this country in order to succeed on this one minor point.

This fake democracy movement needs to be crushed.

Wanderer said:

Casino_Royale said:

That's an incredible factoid by OGH.

It's also bollocks. Reagan? Eisenhower?

Comprehension fail. Who were the VPs for Eisenhower and Reagan?

I didn't catch his name, but a very well connected GOP fixer called Trump last night.

All the pundits were Ooh, saying it was highly significant and a sign that the RNC knew they had to build some bridges.

Michael something?

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

FPT:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

No. It was not a slur; it was a fair comment.

And I will comment as I see fit on the EU referendum Alastair, and my perceptions of the motives of those who vote either way, based upon what they say, just as you do.

This fake democracy movement needs to be crushed.

He said democratically.

I will accept, with foreboding and regret, a vote to Leave.

Few Leavers are able to say the reverse.

Wanderer said:

Casino_Royale said:

That's an incredible factoid by OGH.

It's also bollocks. Reagan? Eisenhower?

Reagan had Bush as his running mate, so Bush was on the ticket. Eisenhower had Nixon as his running mate.

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

FPT:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

No. It was not a slur; it was a fair comment.

And I will comment as I see fit on the EU referendum Alastair, and my perceptions of the motives of those who vote either way, based upon what they say, just as you do.

This fake democracy movement needs to be crushed.

He said democratically.

I will accept, with foreboding and regret, a vote to Leave.

Few Leavers are able to say the reverse.

So will I; then campaign for an EEA/EFTA style deal as close to EU membership as possible. It will facilitate us re-joining later ;-)

Does anyone have a clue if we're ever going to get an ICM Phone Poll on the Euro Referendum?

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

FPT:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

No. It was not a slur; it was a fair comment.

And I will comment as I see fit on the EU referendum Alastair, and my perceptions of the motives of those who vote either way, based upon what they say, just as you do.

This fake democracy movement needs to be crushed.

He said democratically.

I will accept, with foreboding and regret, a vote to Leave.

Few Leavers are able to say the reverse.

Rubbish. Of course Leavers will accept the result. What choice will they have. Doesn't mean they stop saying I told you so every time the EZ does something we don't like though. And the question will arise again the next time there is a new Treaty seeking further integration.

There is no shortage of nutters on both sides of this argument. Don't join them.

Most of your fellow Leavers will be starting immediately after the referendum result to subvert it if they lose. Plenty on here are quite happy to admit that.

Wanderer said:

matt said:

Wanderer said:

Casino_Royale said:

That's an incredible factoid by OGH.

It's also bollocks. Reagan? Eisenhower?

Comprehension fail. Who were the VPs for Eisenhower and Reagan?

Aaah. OK

It doesn't necessarily mean very much but it's interesting nonetheless.

The Republicans seem to have a real problem getting a grip on the Presidency, yet do fine in state elections, gubernatorials, and the US congress.

I confess: I don't really know enough about American politics to truly understand why.

AlastairMeeks said:

FPT:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

No. It was not a slur; it was a fair comment.

And I will comment as I see fit on the EU referendum Alastair, and my perceptions of the motives of those who vote either way, based upon what they say, just as you do.

I was giving you the opportunity to look like less of a berk.

You illustrate with such remarks why Leave needs to be defeated. Like so many other Leavers, you're a fake democrat, unwilling to accept a public vote unless it is decided in your favour. You're fundamentally unable to accept that others can take a different view of the matter with integrity and patriotism. You're willing to destroy every part of the political culture of this country in order to succeed on this one minor point.

This fake democracy movement needs to be crushed.

Its not fake democracy as long as you accept the need for the public to have their say again and reverse their position before changing policy. Whats undemocratic is going against the voters expressed will without asking them again, like what happened in Greece.

AlastairMeeks said:

FPT:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

No. It was not a slur; it was a fair comment.

And I will comment as I see fit on the EU referendum Alastair, and my perceptions of the motives of those who vote either way, based upon what they say, just as you do.

I was giving you the opportunity to look like less of a berk.

You illustrate with such remarks why Leave needs to be defeated. Like so many other Leavers, you're a fake democrat, unwilling to accept a public vote unless it is decided in your favour. You're fundamentally unable to accept that others can take a different view of the matter with integrity and patriotism. You're willing to destroy every part of the political culture of this country in order to succeed on this one minor point.

This fake democracy movement needs to be crushed.

You could have made it easier for those of us who didn't wade through last night's thread to find out what the slur was! I'm hopeful that this debate of our time is going to distill into two very simple but fundamental differeces in the way the two sides see the world and our place in it. Something even more primordial than the Scottish ref

Isn't Rubio still in control of them as he's suspended his campaign - not technically quit yet. His speech sounded like he wanted to be Ted Cruz, felt like he wants to point his there.

Even with them, I don't think that puts Cruz ahead. Need to check.

DavidL said:

5 from 5 for Hillary surely leaves Sanders thinking hard about what the point is. Some are close and proportional but her lead is unassailable. Time for the Dems to unite I think.

Trump looks in a stronger position today with this being a much better super Tuesday for him than the last super Tuesday. Are Rubio's delegates freed to vote for who they want now or does he still have a say?

Someone who gets in the way of scoring.

ydoethur said:

Plato_Says said:

, Kasich is a cock blocker, and Trump is highly likely to reach 1237 or very close.

What is a 'cock blocker'?!!!

(The exclamation marks are in accordance with the grammatical rules enforced by the illiterate morons known by the collective noun of 'the DfE'.)

NorfolkTilIDie said:

AlastairMeeks said:

FPT:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

No. It was not a slur; it was a fair comment.

And I will comment as I see fit on the EU referendum Alastair, and my perceptions of the motives of those who vote either way, based upon what they say, just as you do.

I was giving you the opportunity to look like less of a berk.

You illustrate with such remarks why Leave needs to be defeated. Like so many other Leavers, you're a fake democrat, unwilling to accept a public vote unless it is decided in your favour. You're fundamentally unable to accept that others can take a different view of the matter with integrity and patriotism. You're willing to destroy every part of the political culture of this country in order to succeed on this one minor point.

This fake democracy movement needs to be crushed.

Its not fake democracy as long as you accept the need for the public to have their say again and reverse their position before changing policy. Whats undemocratic is going against the voters expressed will without asking them again, like what happened in Greece.

So the public are to be asked repeatedly until they reach the right answer? How very SNP.

I can see a case for a regular referendum on the subject. Once every forty years or so seems fair to me.

Never seen it, but as a Geordie guess it's just common slang.

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

Cock blocker?
Are you a secret Geordie Shore fan?
That's the only other place I can recall hearing the expression before.

Plato_Says said:

Rule 40b is getting a lot of attention - I gather this was created to stop another Ron Paul. Will it be kept, will the Rules Committee try to frame them to exclude Trump blah blah?

Wisdom seems to be that the Sore Loser factor would make it impossible for Trump to run as an independent, but such technical exclusions would implode the GOP.

It's almost impossible for Cruz to win, Kasich is a cock blocker, and Trump is highly likely to reach 1237 or very close.

Wanderer said:

Casino_Royale said:

That's an incredible factoid by OGH.

It's also bollocks. Reagan? Eisenhower?

Plato_Says said:

Someone who gets in the way of scoring.

ydoethur said:

Plato_Says said:

, Kasich is a cock blocker, and Trump is highly likely to reach 1237 or very close.

What is a 'cock blocker'?!!!

(The exclamation marks are in accordance with the grammatical rules enforced by the illiterate morons known by the collective noun of 'the DfE'.)

I remember the cock blockers from the days when I was single in my 20s.

God, they were annoying.

The GOP need to find a Bush for the Internet generation.

George WWW Bush?

I wish we were having a referendum on in or out.

In meaning in the EU properly, Shengen, Euro and full participation, whereby as a central player we may have some influence and some friends as opposed to sitting outside in a semi permanent sulk doing a perfect impression of Billy No Mates.

Out meaning Out, which may well end up as Billy No Mates as well.

To select the middle ground that feels like we are always in one of these positions:
here, but we don't want to be here,
we will come with you, but not that far or fast,
hey! hold on, that won't suit our special interests

I don't want to be a part of a club that we are in constant conflict with. We will not reap the benefit, share the reward or forge long trustworthy relationships with our partners.

Either in or out are the only logical positions for long term stability and success.

Personally I don't care which so long s it isn't an attempt at the status quo. In ultimate destination of EU is to integrate and then to fragment into national units or regions as it becomes too authoritarian, unwieldy or fractured by economic and nationalistic stresses. That may be 5 years or 55 years.

Jonathan said:

The GOP need to find a Bush for the Internet generation.

George WWW Bush?

I tried to post clapping hands but my phone can't handle it.

Have a good day everyone

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

FPT:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

No. It was not a slur; it was a fair comment.

And I will comment as I see fit on the EU referendum Alastair, and my perceptions of the motives of those who vote either way, based upon what they say, just as you do.

I was giving you the opportunity to look like less of a berk.

Unfortunately, it was a fair comment.

You said that you're voting remain (and I'm paraphrasing here) because a Leave vote would see the racists and homophobes gain more power in the country.

But such people can only gain power in the UK by being elected by the British people.

Ergo, you don't trust the British people not to elect racists and homophobes.

Saying you don't like the British people is one step further, but I don't like people who would elect racists and homophobes. But since I trust the British people not to, this doesn't apply to me.

1) you've traduced my logic
2) you ignore the fact that it was suggested that I hate my country

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Wanderer said:

Casino_Royale said:

That's an incredible factoid by OGH.

It's also bollocks. Reagan? Eisenhower?

Reagan had Bush as his running mate, so Bush was on the ticket. Eisenhower had Nixon as his running mate.

Incredible to think as well that up to 1932 the Republicans had only ever lost four presidential elections (five if you count 1856, which was a sort of dry run for 1860). Shows how long ago it was!

Not so incredible when you think that the Republican's founding and initial victory in 1860 was the trigger for the Civil War which they won.

More incredible is that the party of Lincoln is now the party of the southern white vote, while the party for slavery gets almost all of the black vote.

Casino_Royale said:

Wanderer said:

matt said:

Wanderer said:

Casino_Royale said:

That's an incredible factoid by OGH.

It's also bollocks. Reagan? Eisenhower?

Comprehension fail. Who were the VPs for Eisenhower and Reagan?

Aaah. OK

It doesn't necessarily mean very much but it's interesting nonetheless.

The Republicans seem to have a real problem getting a grip on the Presidency, yet do fine in state elections, gubernatorials, and the US congress.

I confess: I don't really know enough about American politics to truly understand why.

I am also unsure of the reasons for that.

Does the requirement to adopt certain swing-voter hostile positions in order to be nominated apply less in state and Congressional elections, or does it matter less because districts are gerrymandered to hell?

Fwiw, I do recall this being said about the Democrats back in 1988 - fine in Congress but have forgotten how to win the Presidency.

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Wanderer said:

Casino_Royale said:

That's an incredible factoid by OGH.

It's also bollocks. Reagan? Eisenhower?

Reagan had Bush as his running mate, so Bush was on the ticket. Eisenhower had Nixon as his running mate.

Incredible to think as well that up to 1932 the Republicans had only ever lost four presidential elections (five if you count 1856, which was a sort of dry run for 1860). Shows how long ago it was!

Not so incredible when you think that the Republican's founding and initial victory in 1860 was the trigger for the Civil War which they won.

More incredible is that the party of Lincoln is now the party of the southern white vote, while the party for slavery gets almost all of the black vote.

Indeed. Parties change, but it's impressive how they have swapped. Wonders if it could happen here. If the current Tory programme was shown blind to someone from the 80s, they might assume it was Labour.

Will the e mails come into play? Is it more likely Hilary would be prosecuted over them (if course it ever gets to that) before or after winning the nomination?
And what happens in she is.. Does the second person step up?

Jonathan said:

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Wanderer said:

Casino_Royale said:

That's an incredible factoid by OGH.

It's also bollocks. Reagan? Eisenhower?

Reagan had Bush as his running mate, so Bush was on the ticket. Eisenhower had Nixon as his running mate.

Incredible to think as well that up to 1932 the Republicans had only ever lost four presidential elections (five if you count 1856, which was a sort of dry run for 1860). Shows how long ago it was!

Not so incredible when you think that the Republican's founding and initial victory in 1860 was the trigger for the Civil War which they won.

More incredible is that the party of Lincoln is now the party of the southern white vote, while the party for slavery gets almost all of the black vote.

Indeed. Parties change, but it's impressive how they have swapped. Wonders if it could happen here. If the current Tory programme was shown blind to someone from the 80s, they might assume it was Labour.

Debatable, but if you showed blind Corbyn and Labour's programme to someone from the 80s, I doubt they'd assume it was Tory. There hasn't been a reversal there, just a shift.

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

ThreeQuidder said:

AlastairMeeks said:

FPT:

Casino_Royale said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

AlastairMeeks said:

Casino_Royale said:

So how feasible is it for Trump to get over the line now?

Can he do it? WILL he do it?

I give you another opportunity to withdraw the slur you made last night.

No. It was not a slur; it was a fair comment.

And I will comment as I see fit on the EU referendum Alastair, and my perceptions of the motives of those who vote either way, based upon what they say, just as you do.

I was giving you the opportunity to look like less of a berk.

Unfortunately, it was a fair comment.

You said that you're voting remain (and I'm paraphrasing here) because a Leave vote would see the racists and homophobes gain more power in the country.

But such people can only gain power in the UK by being elected by the British people.

Ergo, you don't trust the British people not to elect racists and homophobes.

Saying you don't like the British people is one step further, but I don't like people who would elect racists and homophobes. But since I trust the British people not to, this doesn't apply to me.

1) you've traduced my logic
2) you ignore the fact that it was suggested that I hate my country

1) Really? What have I said that is inaccurate or illogical?
2) As I understand it, you're inferring something that wasn't implied.

I haven't the time to argue with those who can't read.

Mr. Jonathan, although not as big a switch, Labour have moved from scepticism to loving the EU, with the Conservatives making the return journey.

F1: Hamilton's being investigated by police for apparently taking a selfie (not sure if it's a photo, sounds like it might be a stream) whilst riding his motorbike.

Plato_Says said:

There's some really interesting demographic stuff going on, Sanders is picking up the white vote, especially males - Hillary the blacks.

Mississippi loved Trump even when painted as pointy hat wearer. Apparently, other GOPers spent $45m in the final week of Florida trying to kill him off. He's Teflon.

Philip_Thompson said:

ydoethur said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Wanderer said:

Casino_Royale said:

That's an incredible factoid by OGH.

It's also bollocks. Reagan? Eisenhower?

Reagan had Bush as his running mate, so Bush was on the ticket. Eisenhower had Nixon as his running mate.

Incredible to think as well that up to 1932 the Republicans had only ever lost four presidential elections (five if you count 1856, which was a sort of dry run for 1860). Shows how long ago it was!

Not so incredible when you think that the Republican's founding and initial victory in 1860 was the trigger for the Civil War which they won.

More incredible is that the party of Lincoln is now the party of the southern white vote, while the party for slavery gets almost all of the black vote.

Not sure about Teflon. It did seem to slow his momentum *a bit* when the other candidates started to go all-out on him in debates. He doesn't come over so well when he's on the defensive. I'm sure the Democrats are looking very closely at that.

I must be slow, I've only just recognised Cameron's cunning plan.

Hold an EU referendum in June while there is a split Tory party, lance the boil (he hopes), artificially elevate Labour's council election results, and thus seal Jezza in place.

As a consequence ...Create a Tory hegemony for a decade. Have a statue put up to him. Have it pulled down next century when the seventeen-year-olds want a safe space.

philiph said:

I wish we were having a referendum on in or out.

In meaning in the EU properly, Shengen, Euro and full participation, whereby as a central player we may have some influence and some friends as opposed to sitting outside in a semi permanent sulk doing a perfect impression of Billy No Mates.

Out meaning Out, which may well end up as Billy No Mates as well.

To select the middle ground that feels like we are always in one of these positions:
here, but we don't want to be here,
we will come with you, but not that far or fast,
hey! hold on, that won't suit our special interests

I don't want to be a part of a club that we are in constant conflict with. We will not reap the benefit, share the reward or forge long trustworthy relationships with our partners.

Either in or out are the only logical positions for long term stability and success.

Personally I don't care which so long s it isn't an attempt at the status quo. In ultimate destination of EU is to integrate and then to fragment into national units or regions as it becomes too authoritarian, unwieldy or fractured by economic and nationalistic stresses. That may be 5 years or 55 years.

Denmark and Sweden, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic are also in the EU but outside the eurozone

Mr. Meeks, the crusade comparison is false, in strategic terms. Crusades had to continually succeed or Outremer fell (which happened after a century or two). Leave needs only to win once.

Edited extra bit: on the comment below, it seems the investigation into Hamilton has started and been dropped due to lack of evidence.

JackW said:

Some bright spark PBer has been saying all along it would be a Clinton Trump contest in November but I'm afraid I simply can't recall which old Jacobite and reigning TOTY it was ....

Hilary Clinton Will Be The Forty Fifth President Of The United States.

HCWBTFFPOTUS

Nah. The American people are way too angry with the establishment. DT=POTUS.

HRAWNBP (Hillary Rodham Antichrist will never be prez)

watford30 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

another_richard said:

And likewise:

Most of your fellow Remainers will be starting immediately after the referendum result to subvert it if they lose. Plenty on here are quite happy to admit that.

The EU has a long history of subverting referenda that it loses - if this is such an issue to you then you should wish to leave such an organisation.

There is also the issue of English mayors - North-East devolution was voted down, City mayors were voted down yet Osborne is now imposing new 'City Region' mayors without local people being allowed to vote whether they want one or not.

If subverting the results of referenda was so important to you why should be vociferous on this issue.

snip

If Britain votes Remain, we hear the Leavers start their next campaign.

snip

If Britain votes Remain, we'll get to hear the In camp squabbling about whether the UK goes in deep, or keeps the status quo. There will be a lot of disappointed people.

The winners will not decide the post referendum settlement, but the country as a whole. So, the Leave campaign does not get to choose on its own the terms of exit. And nor does the Remain camp get to choose what our relationship looks like going forward.

AlastairMeeks said:

Another example of Leaver false equivalence. For Remain, this is an argument. Most people on the Remain side see EU membership as a matter of second order importance. Most people on the Leave side see it as a crusade. If Britain votes Leave, we leave (the only person to suggest otherwise is a Leave campaigner). If Britain votes Remain, we hear the Leavers start their next campaign.

And you're way too keen to make a point. I have been vociferous on the last point in the past.

Tbf nobody who wants votes for Remain is going to give a shred of support to the idea that it might be safe to vote Leave because we won't really leave even then.

You seem to rule out the possibility that those who support Remain would push for us to rejoin in the future. I find that quite surprising and I don't see why it would be the case unless one is trying to make a point about some inherent bad faith being present in one side of the argument only. I'm sure the Mandelsons of this world and various representatives of the CBI, City institutions etc would frequently argue for the advantages of getting back into the EU if we were outside. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, it's the nature of democracy for everything to be up for grabs, even the reversal of recent decisions.

Plato_Says said:

It's so refreshing to see Joe Average enthusiastic for a candidate who's proud of his success, rather than pretending to be like them.

The Establishment aren't doing anything for these people, no wonder they're sick of them, their fake concern and lobbyist money.

Patrick said:

JackW said:

Some bright spark PBer has been saying all along it would be a Clinton Trump contest in November but I'm afraid I simply can't recall which old Jacobite and reigning TOTY it was ....

Hilary Clinton Will Be The Forty Fifth President Of The United States.

HCWBTFFPOTUS

Nah. The American people are way too angry with the establishment. DT=POTUS.

HRAWNBP (Hillary Rodham Antichrist will never be prez)

The people are enthusiastic for someone who has promised things he cannot deliver:

- the Mexican government paying for the wall
- Apple moving all its manufacturing back to the US

Given that; how is Trump (really) different from politicians everywhere?

AlastairMeeks said:

watford30 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

another_richard said:

And likewise:

Most of your fellow Remainers will be starting immediately after the referendum result to subvert it if they lose. Plenty on here are quite happy to admit that.

The EU has a long history of subverting referenda that it loses - if this is such an issue to you then you should wish to leave such an organisation.

There is also the issue of English mayors - North-East devolution was voted down, City mayors were voted down yet Osborne is now imposing new 'City Region' mayors without local people being allowed to vote whether they want one or not.

If subverting the results of referenda was so important to you why should be vociferous on this issue.

snip

If Britain votes Remain, we hear the Leavers start their next campaign.

snip

If Britain votes Remain, we'll get to hear the In camp squabbling about whether the UK goes in deep, or keeps the status quo. There will be a lot of disappointed people.

No, we won't. Leaver false equivalence is becoming an epidemic round here. There is absolutely no appetite anywhere for anything beyond the sort of halfhearted semidetached arrangement that the Prime Minister is putting forward.

That may be true as far as it goes. But the question is likely to be whether the half-hearted semi-detached arrangement the PM envisages and thinks he may have got will really be tenable given the way the rest of the EU - and the eurozone in particular - is likely to develop in the next few years. This is, I think, likely to create future strains in the relationship. I'm not at all sure that this referendum - or the so far somewhat pitiful public debate around it - will really have helped matters.

AlastairMeeks said:

another_richard said:

And likewise:

Most of your fellow Remainers will be starting immediately after the referendum result to subvert it if they lose. Plenty on here are quite happy to admit that.

The EU has a long history of subverting referenda that it loses - if this is such an issue to you then you should wish to leave such an organisation.

There is also the issue of English mayors - North-East devolution was voted down, City mayors were voted down yet Osborne is now imposing new 'City Region' mayors without local people being allowed to vote whether they want one or not.

If subverting the results of referenda was so important to you why should be vociferous on this issue.

Another example of Leaver false equivalence. For Remain, this is an argument. Most people on the Remain side see EU membership as a matter of second order importance. Most people on the Leave side see it as a crusade. If Britain votes Leave, we leave (the only person to suggest otherwise is a Leave campaigner). If Britain votes Remain, we hear the Leavers start their next campaign.

And you're way too keen to make a point. I have been vociferous on the last point in the past.

I'm not a Leaver I'm a cynic.

You again ignore that the EU has a long history of subverting the results of referenda it doesn't like - if this issue is so important to you then you should wish to leave such an organisation.

If you want to cast aspersions on subverting referenda results then start with the organisation that does it.

To claim that if Britain votes Leave Britain leaves is drivvel - none of us knows what will happen after a Leave vote.

As to 'city region' mayors - if you were vociferous in your hostility then I don't remember. Still I'm sure they will be mentioned again and you will have the opportunity to display your thoughts.

And you're frothing in your self-righteousness - which is sad to see as you're one of the people I respect most on this site.

Delegates:

Trump 0 (OH)
Trump 52 (Il)
Trump 99 (Fl)
Trump 30 (NC)

Missouri: 19 February 2016: Today, the state Legislature voted in a new Congressional map and changed the date of the U.S. House Primaries to Tuesday 7 June 2016. All other primaries will continue to be on Tuesday 15 March. The revised filing period is 16 to 25 March. The Democrats plan to contest the latest map. We are not sure if this will affect the delegate selection plan. !

Trump has 12 delegates from the state anyway

In the Alphabet Soup of options, if we joined one of them - it'd add considerable heft.

I agree that Leave contagion is a real threat, that's one of the main WTF issues I have with the dismal deal Cameron came back with.

Clearly don't think we're serious.

chestnut said:

HYUFD said:

philiph said:

I wish we were having a referendum on in or out.

In meaning in the EU properly, Shengen, Euro and full participation, whereby as a central player we may have some influence and some friends as opposed to sitting outside in a semi permanent sulk doing a perfect impression of Billy No Mates.

Out meaning Out, which may well end up as Billy No Mates as well.

To select the middle ground that feels like we are always in one of these positions:
here, but we don't want to be here,
we will come with you, but not that far or fast,
hey! hold on, that won't suit our special interests

I don't want to be a part of a club that we are in constant conflict with. We will not reap the benefit, share the reward or forge long trustworthy relationships with our partners.

Either in or out are the only logical positions for long term stability and success.

Personally I don't care which so long s it isn't an attempt at the status quo. In ultimate destination of EU is to integrate and then to fragment into national units or regions as it becomes too authoritarian, unwieldy or fractured by economic and nationalistic stresses. That may be 5 years or 55 years.

Denmark and Sweden, Hungary and Poland and the Czech Republic are also in the EU but outside the eurozone

It will be interesting to see their reaction in the event of a Leave vote.

One of the greatest fears that the EU will have is of Leaver Contagion. It will become particularly acute if an especially impacted eurozone member starts thinking about.

Plato_Says said:

I have slightly more faith that Trump will at least try, rather than play a lot of golf.

rcs1000 said:

Plato_Says said:

It's so refreshing to see Joe Average enthusiastic for a candidate who's proud of his success, rather than pretending to be like them.

The Establishment aren't doing anything for these people, no wonder they're sick of them, their fake concern and lobbyist money.

Patrick said:

JackW said:

Some bright spark PBer has been saying all along it would be a Clinton Trump contest in November but I'm afraid I simply can't recall which old Jacobite and reigning TOTY it was ....

Hilary Clinton Will Be The Forty Fifth President Of The United States.

HCWBTFFPOTUS

Nah. The American people are way too angry with the establishment. DT=POTUS.

HRAWNBP (Hillary Rodham Antichrist will never be prez)

The people are enthusiastic for someone who has promised things he cannot deliver:

- the Mexican government paying for the wall
- Apple moving all its manufacturing back to the US

Given that; how is Trump (really) different from politicians everywhere?

I think the world would be in better shape if governments did less rather than more.

another_richard said:

AlastairMeeks said:

another_richard said:

And likewise:

Most of your fellow Remainers will be starting immediately after the referendum result to subvert it if they lose. Plenty on here are quite happy to admit that.

The EU has a long history of subverting referenda that it loses - if this is such an issue to you then you should wish to leave such an organisation.

There is also the issue of English mayors - North-East devolution was voted down, City mayors were voted down yet Osborne is now imposing new 'City Region' mayors without local people being allowed to vote whether they want one or not.

If subverting the results of referenda was so important to you why should be vociferous on this issue.

Another example of Leaver false equivalence. For Remain, this is an argument. Most people on the Remain side see EU membership as a matter of second order importance. Most people on the Leave side see it as a crusade. If Britain votes Leave, we leave (the only person to suggest otherwise is a Leave campaigner). If Britain votes Remain, we hear the Leavers start their next campaign.

And you're way too keen to make a point. I have been vociferous on the last point in the past.

I'm not a Leaver I'm a cynic.

You again ignore that the EU has a long history of subverting the results of referenda it doesn't like - if this issue is so important to you then you should wish to leave such an organisation.

If you want to cast aspersions on subverting referenda results then start with the organisation that does it.

To claim that if Britain votes Leave Britain leaves is drivvel - none of us knows what will happen after a Leave vote.

As to 'city region' mayors - if you were vociferous in your hostility then I don't remember. Still I'm sure they will be mentioned again and you will have the opportunity to display your thoughts.

And you're frothing in your self-righteousness - which is sad to see as you're one of the people I respect most on this site.

Too right I'm furious. With 100 days to go we've already reached the point where it's not possible to point out the laughable flaws in Leaver groupthink without being told I hate my own country.

This fake democracy, where only one side is supposed to have any homourable insight, is a cancer eating at the nation's polity. It must be defeated.

I fear for this country if the fake democrats win, not because leaving the EU is the be all and end all but because it will represent the triumph of those who cannot accept alternative views, who fear the other and who are afraid of complex problems.