I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Hmm. The whole point is that Trump can secure the nomination by actually winning the election. If he falls short of 1237 then he hasn't won, he just has a plurality of delegates.
Iowa Nevada South Carolina American Samoa Arkansas Colorado Georgia Massachusetts Minnesota Oklahoma Texas Virginia Louisiana Maine Michigan Florida Illinois North Carolina
Nixon's presidency was politically disastrous but historically successful with major achievements to his name in domestic and foreign policy.
That's true. And I could see Hillary being a much more effective than either Trump or Cruz. For all Trump's bluster, Hillary really knows how to get deals done in Washington and beyond. However, I still think she'll end up deeply unpopular and out after one term even if she leaves a meaningful legacy (which has to be questionable if the Democrats can't take control of Congress this year).
Serious question. Do you think that the Republicans might secretly prefer a Clinton presidency with a Republican congress to a Trump presidency?
My automatic reservation would be Supreme Court appointments, but they could cut deals on that over say healthcare legislation.
Secretly, some will undoubtedly do so. She'll be no harder to work with 2017-21 than Trump and give the party a chance of installing a much better candidate in the White House at the 2020 election.
The SC nominations (they still need congressional approval) would be a big question but then what would Trump do? And the SC question is one that has a longer timespan than four years. A disastrous Trump presidency could see them lose control of the whole system for 2, 4, 6, who knows how many years afterwards - and if the retirements / deaths don't come in the next four, that could shift the balance of the Court for decades at a time when they could do nothing about it bar shout.
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Indeed. Much as we may all wish it wasn't happening Trump is clearly the most popular candidate on the Republican side and he should be the Republicans Presidential candidate.
I agree. If the Republicans are bonkers enough to pick Trump fair and square then that should be accepted.
Hillary will be an excellent President.
Point proved. Criminal v Trump and people still side for the leftie
Every politician with a few years has picked up a bit of patina.
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Indeed. Much as we may all wish it wasn't happening Trump is clearly the most popular candidate on the Republican side and he should be the Republicans Presidential candidate.
I agree. If the Republicans are bonkers enough to pick Trump fair and square then that should be accepted.
Hillary will be an excellent President.
You forgot the smiley at the end so we knew you were joking and were not really insane.
Oh my god I missed it .... I'll get Mrs JackW in a burka forthwith ....
Does Harvey Nicks do burkas? Nothing but the best I am sure.
This Civil war in the SE does sound dangerous. The Midlands needs a wall - and for the mexicans to pay for it!
Leicester has the M69 to prevent access already.
Clogged by refugees fleeing Coventry, desperate to soak up the sights of Leicester...
Here in Birmingham we have invented the M6 to stop refugees from any direction.
I get held up leaving Birmingham, not entering it though
On your point about Trump, yes, I agree it is likely he will do better than his polling. I doubt if it will be enough to win. There might be some shock flipping of certain traditional loyalties in the election -perhaps Illinois and Michigan will go red, and Arkansas blue - but it's unlikely to affect the overall result.
If I were advising Trump, I'd advise him not to go big on his backstory and try to pose as a champion of aspiration. After all, Clinton came from a much humbler background and is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice too. A smarter move be would be to ask how she made all that money. That could, with a little luck, be a killer point for him as there are an awful lot of banks and money to the Clinton Foundation involved that could look rather shady if presented in the right way.
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
I'm slightly more concerned that there's even such a *thing* as the "European Traffic Police Network"
We were sold this thing as being a free trade area.
One thing for sure is that Cruz has gone all in on this with his vociferous denials. Having been unfaithful is not fatal to being President, ask Bill, but to be found to be lying about it usually is (Bill again being the exception).
My guess is that one of these women will come forward although descriptions of them as hookers doesn't help and he will be toast. But who wants to live the life of a Monica? It is possible that they will stay silent. Either way Trump beats him but maybe not by enough to win outright. Can they really give the nomination to a guy who has only won his own state? Surely not.
Indeed.
It would be better for Cruz if they all issued flat denials because at the moment it's the "no smoke without fire" situation. Fatal if the claims are correct of course given the outright denial by Cruz but still damaging even if incorrect certainly if not challenged head on. On the other hand reacting to the story even if it is untrue just perpetuates it for a few more days headlines which may be the lesser price to pay.
These ladies will though still be viewed as potential "Monica's" (perhaps unfairly ) so until they personally each clear the air which in the US is normally a lawsuit and until they do Damage limitation is obstructed. Simply Ignoring such claims and innuendo just doesn't cut it at this level in fact it creates the opposite affect and just gives the story more credence.
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Indeed. Much as we may all wish it wasn't happening Trump is clearly the most popular candidate on the Republican side and he should be the Republicans Presidential candidate.
I agree. If the Republicans are bonkers enough to pick Trump fair and square then that should be accepted.
Hillary will be an excellent President.
Point proved. Criminal v Trump and people still side for the leftie
Every politician with a few years has picked up a bit of patina.
Yes but there is a world of difference between patina and rust below the waterline.
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Trump needs to be beaten fair and square. But the idea he has any particular grievance or need to call for the ref is absurd. He dishes out more than he gets. His stuff on birth certificates hardly demonstrates a man who respects popular mandates.
3. I'm still of the belief that Sanders could pull it off. But if he can't then it's Trump vs Clinton. And Trump will tear her apart on the campaign - her endless weak points - liar, warmongerer, wall street shill - all play to his campaign strengths. And for establishment "stop Trump" types they hate her already. Will they vote for a Clinton?
FWIW, my US family (having been backers of Jeb as the candidate with the greatest sense of the public service ethos) are likely to vote Clinton. They are justifying it to themselves as making their decision solely on foreign policy / America's role in the world...
I asked them about Kaisch, and apparently it's worth digging hard on him. There's a reason why the establishment isn't backing him. It's been euphemistically described to me as "anger issues" but no one will be drawn on more precise details than that. Never known so many people clam up so fast.
Foreign policy will be a centre piece of the election, likely decisive.
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Agreed. The Labour party must to have learned now to vote for the person they want rather than selecting the wrong one - Brown and Corbyn are examples of what happens when you select a candidate.
Eh? Corbyn was so NOT the candidate of the party establishment. He was easily the most popular candidate with the membership, elected fair and square. TBH Brown would have won a vote of the membership easily too.
As for Trump, as a leftie I certainly prefer him to Cruz. With Cruz we know we'll get a reactionary in the Goldwater class, preobably worse. With Trump it's a complete roll of the dice - amid all the bombast, he has avoided some of the more extreme conservative positions. Possibly we'd get a perfectly good President. Possibly it'd be a disaster. But I'd give him say a 20% chance of being quite popular with lefties in the end.
Oh my god I missed it .... I'll get Mrs JackW in a burka forthwith ....
Does Harvey Nicks do burkas? Nothing but the best I am sure.
This Civil war in the SE does sound dangerous. The Midlands needs a wall - and for the mexicans to pay for it!
Leicester has the M69 to prevent access already.
Clogged by refugees fleeing Coventry, desperate to soak up the sights of Leicester...
Here in Birmingham we have invented the M6 to stop refugees from any direction.
I get held up leaving Birmingham, not entering it though
On your point about Trump, yes, I agree it is likely he will do better than his polling. I doubt if it will be enough to win. There might be some shock flipping of certain traditional loyalties in the election -perhaps Illinois and Michigan will go red, and Arkansas blue - but it's unlikely to affect the overall result.
If I were advising Trump, I'd advise him not to go big on his backstory and try to pose as a champion of aspiration. After all, Clinton came from a much humbler background and is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice too. A smarter move be would be to ask how she made all that money. That could, with a little luck, be a killer point for him as there are an awful lot of banks and money to the Clinton Foundation involved that could look rather shady if presented in the right way.
Agreed. In my eyes Trump is the Republican Obama - proof that hard work can take anyone to the top in America. Electing Clinton would be to acknowledge it is a closed shop.
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Trump needs to be beaten fair and square. But the idea he has any particular grievance or need to call for the ref is absurd. He dishes out more than he gets. His stuff on birth certificates hardly demonstrates a man who respects popular mandates.
Iowa Nevada South Carolina American Samoa Arkansas Colorado Georgia Massachusetts Minnesota Oklahoma Texas Virginia Louisiana Maine Michigan Florida Illinois North Carolina
Caucuses and primaries cannot be compared, and you have to control for the crowded field.
The news media is talking about Trump’s problems with women,
To be mean and take your valuable point out of context, Trump's never had a problem with women. Quite the reverse, in fact. That's how he was able to wither a journalist who mocked his hairstyle with the words, 'Maybe you have better hair than me. But then I get more pussy than you do.'
Interesting question for a journalist to any of the lovely, sophisticated and above all young ladies who have married (or otherwise engaged with) Trump: 'What first attracted you to this elderly, promiscuous, strange looking billionaire?'
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
I bet many times more people in the EU will die this year from not wearing seatbelts, of by others who are not wearing seatbelts, than will be killed by terrorists.
But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment.
"I bet many times more people in the EU will die this year from not wearing seatbelts, of by others who are not wearing seatbelts, than will be killed by terrorists." How many people in a car/van die in the UK because of not wearing a seatbelt? Anyone know? I would guess that the number of deaths in vehicles is circa 1,400 (of the 1,700+) but any stats out there on seat belts?
"But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment." If you read it that way, I did not, I would just want police engaged in observation and stopping vehicles to be doing work against serious crime and terrorism. In Belgium they have a mere 600 people working for the intelligence services with a hundreds of terrorist suspects to watch. They clearly do need more resources.
and No, a police force assigning resources to watching for seat belts in cars is not also using that same resource against terrorism.... Unless you know better on manpower deployment.
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
More people will be killed and seriously injured in traffic collisions this week than by terrorists . The fact that you are having an attack of the vapours over terrorism, doesn't mean the police shouldn't be, as one of their normal duties, trying to reduce the casualties inflicted by stupid people in cars.
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Agreed. The Labour party must to have learned now to vote for the person they want rather than selecting the wrong one - Brown and Corbyn are examples of what happens when you select a candidate.
Eh? Corbyn was so NOT the candidate of the party establishment. He was easily the most popular candidate with the membership, elected fair and square. TBH Brown would have won a vote of the membership easily too.
As for Trump, as a leftie I certainly prefer him to Cruz. With Cruz we know we'll get a reactionary in the Goldwater class, preobably worse. With Trump it's a complete roll of the dice - amid all the bombast, he has avoided some of the more extreme conservative positions. Possibly we'd get a perfectly good President. Possibly it'd be a disaster. But I'd give him say a 20% chance of being quite popular with lefties in the end.
Agree Corbyn was the most popular candidate with the membership. But from all steps in the election from the nominations "to have a debate" to the 3 quidders it felt a bit contrived. Likewise having a coronation for Brown was wrong.
Oh my god I missed it .... I'll get Mrs JackW in a burka forthwith ....
Does Harvey Nicks do burkas? Nothing but the best I am sure.
This Civil war in the SE does sound dangerous. The Midlands needs a wall - and for the mexicans to pay for it!
Leicester has the M69 to prevent access already.
Clogged by refugees fleeing Coventry, desperate to soak up the sights of Leicester...
Here in Birmingham we have invented the M6 to stop refugees from any direction.
I get held up leaving Birmingham, not entering it though
On your point about Trump, yes, I agree it is likely he will do better than his polling. I doubt if it will be enough to win. There might be some shock flipping of certain traditional loyalties in the election -perhaps Illinois and Michigan will go red, and Arkansas blue - but it's unlikely to affect the overall result.
If I were advising Trump, I'd advise him not to go big on his backstory and try to pose as a champion of aspiration. After all, Clinton came from a much humbler background and is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice too. A smarter move be would be to ask how she made all that money. That could, with a little luck, be a killer point for him as there are an awful lot of banks and money to the Clinton Foundation involved that could look rather shady if presented in the right way.
Agreed. In my eyes Trump is the Republican Obama - proof that hard work can take anyone to the top in America. Electing Clinton would be to acknowledge it is a closed shop.
Actually, my point was the opposite of that. It was that Clinton made it to the top financially and politically from low down and she could trump him (sorry) in any debate on that. But there are very real questions over how she did it that could be exploited by a ruthless opponent. The question is whether Trump will have the sense to back off far enough from his own hype to use it.
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
More people will be killed and seriously injured in traffic collisions this week than by terrorists . The fact that you are having an attack of the vapours over terrorism, doesn't mean the police shouldn't be, as one of their normal duties, trying to reduce the casualties inflicted by stupid people in cars.
I think the difference is if you are killed because you are not wearing a seatbelt you are partly responsible so should take responsibility yourself. If you are blown up commuting to work you cannot do anything about it so would expect the state to assist.
Oh my god I missed it .... I'll get Mrs JackW in a burka forthwith ....
Does Harvey Nicks do burkas? Nothing but the best I am sure.
This Civil war in the SE does sound dangerous. The Midlands needs a wall - and for the mexicans to pay for it!
Leicester has the M69 to prevent access already.
Clogged by refugees fleeing Coventry, desperate to soak up the sights of Leicester...
Here in Birmingham we have invented the M6 to stop refugees from any direction.
I get held up leaving Birmingham, not entering it though
On your point about Trump, yes, I agree it is likely he will do better than his polling. I doubt if it will be enough to win. There might be some shock flipping of certain traditional loyalties in the election -perhaps Illinois and Michigan will go red, and Arkansas blue - but it's unlikely to affect the overall result.
If I were advising Trump, I'd advise him not to go big on his backstory and try to pose as a champion of aspiration. After all, Clinton came from a much humbler background and is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice too. A smarter move be would be to ask how she made all that money. That could, with a little luck, be a killer point for him as there are an awful lot of banks and money to the Clinton Foundation involved that could look rather shady if presented in the right way.
Agreed. In my eyes Trump is the Republican Obama - proof that hard work can take anyone to the top in America. Electing Clinton would be to acknowledge it is a closed shop.
Poor trump. That glass ceiling must be hard to break through. Those female presidents have it all sewn up.
Oh my god I missed it .... I'll get Mrs JackW in a burka forthwith ....
Does Harvey Nicks do burkas? Nothing but the best I am sure.
This Civil war in the SE does sound dangerous. The Midlands needs a wall - and for the mexicans to pay for it!
Leicester has the M69 to prevent access already.
Clogged by refugees fleeing Coventry, desperate to soak up the sights of Leicester...
Here in Birmingham we have invented the M6 to stop refugees from any direction.
I get held up leaving Birmingham, not entering it though
On your point about Trump, yes, I agree it is likely he will do better than his polling. I doubt if it will be enough to win. There might be some shock flipping of certain traditional loyalties in the election -perhaps Illinois and Michigan will go red, and Arkansas blue - but it's unlikely to affect the overall result.
If I were advising Trump, I'd advise him not to go big on his backstory and try to pose as a champion of aspiration. After all, Clinton came from a much humbler background and is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice too. A smarter move be would be to ask how she made all that money. That could, with a little luck, be a killer point for him as there are an awful lot of banks and money to the Clinton Foundation involved that could look rather shady if presented in the right way.
Agreed. In my eyes Trump is the Republican Obama - proof that hard work can take anyone to the top in America. Electing Clinton would be to acknowledge it is a closed shop.
Actually, my point was the opposite of that. It was that Clinton made it to the top financially and politically from low down and she could trump him (sorry) in any debate on that. But there are very real questions over how she did it that could be exploited by a ruthless opponent. The question is whether Trump will have the sense to back off far enough from his own hype to use it.
I think my point is slightly different - Hilary has Bill's coat tails to ride on whereas Trump has only his own steam.
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
I bet many times more people in the EU will die this year from not wearing seatbelts, of by others who are not wearing seatbelts, than will be killed by terrorists.
But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment.
"I bet many times more people in the EU will die this year from not wearing seatbelts, of by others who are not wearing seatbelts, than will be killed by terrorists." How many people in a car/van die in the UK because of not wearing a seatbelt? Anyone know? I would guess that the number of deaths in vehicles is circa 1,400 (of the 1,700+) but any stats out there on seat belts?
"But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment." If you read it that way, I did not, I would just want police engaged in observation and stopping vehicles to be doing work against serious crime and terrorism. In Belgium they have a mere 600 people working for the intelligence services with a hundreds of terrorist suspects to watch. They clearly do need more resources.
and No, a police force assigning resources to watching for seat belts in cars is not also using that same resource against terrorism.... Unless you know better on manpower deployment.
A quick google came up with newspaper reports from 2010 that said a study had showed that 1/3rd of all those dying in road accidents were not wearing seatbelts.
Obviously a proportion of those would have died anyway if the accident was severe enough (a seatbelt will not save you from being crushed and is of limited value in deceleration injuries).
So I suppose that puts an upper limit on the numbers. A very wild guess would be maybe a couple of hundred deaths a year? Still far more than die from terrorism.
However, I do understand the motivation behind trying to separate out the two things. I think it unhelpful and arising from a desire not to confront some ugly truths (that some people do like IS and want to help them) by disassociating people from their own choices, but it can be easily overextended and that will always worry people.
I agree, but my point was simpler - not that people who make the separation are right, but that the Sun could not reasonably assume that they didn't exist, and were therefore overstating their own poll. The proportion who support ISIS will be lower than the proportion who feel vague sympathy for the volunteers, but the Sun's headline suggested they were identical.
IIRC there is separate polling data on the number of people who do in fact have at least some sympathy with ISIS - I vaguely recall that it was surprisingly not very different among Muslims and non-Muslims (8% and 6% or something like that).
Edit: I see TCP's post pointing out that the adjudication was on a different point (that respondents may have thought that many people were going to Syria to fight vs Assad or vs ISIS), and there's something in that too. Again, it's actually irrelevant whether the respondents were right or not, but the report was wrong.
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Agreed. The Labour party must to have learned now to vote for the person they want rather than selecting the wrong one - Brown and Corbyn are examples of what happens when you select a candidate.
Eh? Corbyn was so NOT the candidate of the party establishment. He was easily the most popular candidate with the membership, elected fair and square. TBH Brown would have won a vote of the membership easily too.
As for Trump, as a leftie I certainly prefer him to Cruz. With Cruz we know we'll get a reactionary in the Goldwater class, preobably worse. With Trump it's a complete roll of the dice - amid all the bombast, he has avoided some of the more extreme conservative positions. Possibly we'd get a perfectly good President. Possibly it'd be a disaster. But I'd give him say a 20% chance of being quite popular with lefties in the end.
Agree Corbyn was the most popular candidate with the membership. But from all steps in the election from the nominations "to have a debate" to the 3 quidders it felt a bit contrived. Likewise having a coronation for Brown was wrong.
That kind of proves the point though: in an attempt to have a selection *not* an election the PLP threw the membership a bone in the hope that Corbyn would be unpopular but allow them to deflect accusations of a stitch up. Instead they inadvertently created a genuine election which the "wrong" guy one.
Welcome to PB btw, it's good to see from your Trump/Obama comment that the right *can* do comedy (or at least self-parody).
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
I bet many times more people in the EU will die this year from not wearing seatbelts, of by others who are not wearing seatbelts, than will be killed by terrorists.
But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment.
"I bet many times more people in the EU will die this year from not wearing seatbelts, of by others who are not wearing seatbelts, than will be killed by terrorists." How many people in a car/van die in the UK because of not wearing a seatbelt? Anyone know? I would guess that the number of deaths in vehicles is circa 1,400 (of the 1,700+) but any stats out there on seat belts?
"But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment." If you read it that way, I did not, I would just want police engaged in observation and stopping vehicles to be doing work against serious crime and terrorism. In Belgium they have a mere 600 people working for the intelligence services with a hundreds of terrorist suspects to watch. They clearly do need more resources.
and No, a police force assigning resources to watching for seat belts in cars is not also using that same resource against terrorism.... Unless you know better on manpower deployment.
On non-seat belt fatalities in the EU:
Failure to wear a seat belt is the 2nd biggest cause of road death, after speeding but ahead of drink-driving. An EU road safety study (2008)pdf(175 kB) Choose translations of the previous link concludes that action targeting the use of seat belts could save up to 7 300 lives a year in the EU.
So fairly considerable numbers, and worth a short campaign IMO.
Also, people who do not wear seatbelts might also be breaking other laws. Watching police reality programs on TV (I know...), it's surprising how often people pulled up for minor infractions have other issues, such as no licence or insurance.
Oh my god I missed it .... I'll get Mrs JackW in a burka forthwith ....
Does Harvey Nicks do burkas? Nothing but the best I am sure.
This Civil war in the SE does sound dangerous. The Midlands needs a wall - and for the mexicans to pay for it!
Leicester has the M69 to prevent access already.
Clogged by refugees fleeing Coventry, desperate to soak up the sights of Leicester...
Here in Birmingham we have invented the M6 to stop refugees from any direction.
I get held up leaving Birmingham, not entering it though
On your point about Trump, yes, I agree it is likely he will do better than his polling. I doubt if it will be enough to win. There might be some shock flipping of certain traditional loyalties in the election -perhaps Illinois and Michigan will go red, and Arkansas blue - but it's unlikely to affect the overall result.
If I were advising Trump, I'd advise him not to go big on his backstory and try to pose as a champion of aspiration. After all, Clinton came from a much humbler background and is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice too. A smarter move be would be to ask how she made all that money. That could, with a little luck, be a killer point for him as there are an awful lot of banks and money to the Clinton Foundation involved that could look rather shady if presented in the right way.
Agreed. In my eyes Trump is the Republican Obama - proof that hard work can take anyone to the top in America. Electing Clinton would be to acknowledge it is a closed shop.
Actually, my point was the opposite of that. It was that Clinton made it to the top financially and politically from low down and she could trump him (sorry) in any debate on that. But there are very real questions over how she did it that could be exploited by a ruthless opponent. The question is whether Trump will have the sense to back off far enough from his own hype to use it.
“son, only two types of people go into politics. Those with no money like me; and those from rich families who do it for their egos.”
The Clintons are a perfect example of the former, two local Arkansas politicians who made millions by peddling influence. Trump fits the second category.
Oh my god I missed it .... I'll get Mrs JackW in a burka forthwith ....
Does Harvey Nicks do burkas? Nothing but the best I am sure.
This Civil war in the SE does sound dangerous. The Midlands needs a wall - and for the mexicans to pay for it!
Leicester has the M69 to prevent access already.
Clogged by refugees fleeing Coventry, desperate to soak up the sights of Leicester...
Here in Birmingham we have invented the M6 to stop refugees from any direction.
I get held up leaving Birmingham, not entering it though
On your point about Trump, yes, I agree it is likely he will do better than his polling. I doubt if it will be enough to win. There might be some shock flipping of certain traditional loyalties in the election -perhaps Illinois and Michigan will go red, and Arkansas blue - but it's unlikely to affect the overall result.
If I were advising Trump, I'd advise him not to go big on his backstory and try to pose as a champion of aspiration. After all, Clinton came from a much humbler background and is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice too. A smarter move be would be to ask how she made all that money. That could, with a little luck, be a killer point for him as there are an awful lot of banks and money to the Clinton Foundation involved that could look rather shady if presented in the right way.
Agreed. In my eyes Trump is the Republican Obama - proof that hard work can take anyone to the top in America. Electing Clinton would be to acknowledge it is a closed shop.
Poor trump. That glass ceiling must be hard to break through. Those female presidents have it all down up.
No, Obama has broken the glass ceiling, and fair play to him no matter how much I disagree with his views. Electing Clinton would be putting bombproof glass back into it. Would love to see a woman President, but would need to be one who has got their themselves.
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
More people will be killed and seriously injured in traffic collisions this week than by terrorists . The fact that you are having an attack of the vapours over terrorism, doesn't mean the police shouldn't be, as one of their normal duties, trying to reduce the casualties inflicted by stupid people in cars.
I think the difference is if you are killed because you are not wearing a seatbelt you are partly responsible so should take responsibility yourself. If you are blown up commuting to work you cannot do anything about it so would expect the state to assist.
People die because other people are not wearing belts, where does that leave your point?
However, I do understand the motivation behind trying to separate out the two things. I think it unhelpful and arising from a desire not to confront some ugly truths (that some people do like IS and want to help them) by disassociating people from their own choices, but it can be easily overextended and that will always worry people.
IIRC there is separate polling data on the number of people who do in fact have at least some sympathy with ISIS - I vaguely recall that it was surprisingly not very different among Muslims and non-Muslims (8% and 6% or something like that).
Yes, a rather worrying and baffling stat, I hope it's nonsense.
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
I bet many times more people in the EU will die this year from not wearing seatbelts, of by others who are not wearing seatbelts, than will be killed by terrorists.
But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment.
"I bet many times more people in the EU will die this year from not wearing seatbelts, of by others who are not wearing seatbelts, than will be killed by terrorists." How many people in a car/van die in the UK because of not wearing a seatbelt? Anyone know? I would guess that the number of deaths in vehicles is circa 1,400 (of the 1,700+) but any stats out there on seat belts?
"But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment." If you read it that way, I did not, I would just want police engaged in observation and stopping vehicles to be doing work against serious crime and terrorism. In Belgium they have a mere 600 people working for the intelligence services with a hundreds of terrorist suspects to watch. They clearly do need more resources.
and No, a police force assigning resources to watching for seat belts in cars is not also using that same resource against terrorism.... Unless you know better on manpower deployment.
From the AA - I can't copy and paste so I will summarise:
7% of adults don't wear a seatbelt As this doubles the risk of death in an accident, the proportion not wearing a seatbelt killed should be 15% of the total road fatalities It is actually 34%, because those drivers who do not wear a seatbelt are three times as likely to cause a crash in the first place. Therefore, identifying those who are not wearing them is a good way of reducing accidents that may hurt innocent people (the AA call these drivers 'crash magnets')
So actually, it is a good way of trying to save over 1,000 lives a year in our roads alone, never mind in other parts of Europe where standards of driving and car safety are often much lower.
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Agreed. The Labour party must to have learned now to vote for the person they want rather than selecting the wrong one - Brown and Corbyn are examples of what happens when you select a candidate.
Eh? Corbyn was so NOT the candidate of the party establishment. He was easily the most popular candidate with the membership, elected fair and square. TBH Brown would have won a vote of the membership easily too.
As for Trump, as a leftie I certainly prefer him to Cruz. With Cruz we know we'll get a reactionary in the Goldwater class, preobably worse. With Trump it's a complete roll of the dice - amid all the bombast, he has avoided some of the more extreme conservative positions. Possibly we'd get a perfectly good President. Possibly it'd be a disaster. But I'd give him say a 20% chance of being quite popular with lefties in the end.
Agree Corbyn was the most popular candidate with the membership. But from all steps in the election from the nominations "to have a debate" to the 3 quidders it felt a bit contrived. Likewise having a coronation for Brown was wrong.
That kind of proves the point though: in an attempt to have a selection *not* an election the PLP threw the membership a bone in the hope that Corbyn would be unpopular but allow them to deflect accusations of a stitch up. Instead they inadvertently created a genuine election which the "wrong" guy one.
Welcome to PB btw, it's good to see from your Trump/Obama comment that the right *can* do comedy (or at least self-parody).
Thank you. If only Trump was a black woman entrepreneur we could all unite behind him / her! There must be one of those somewhere in America.
Oh my god I missed it .... I'll get Mrs JackW in a burka forthwith ....
Does Harvey Nicks do burkas? Nothing but the best I am sure.
This Civil war in the SE does sound dangerous. The Midlands needs a wall - and for the mexicans to pay for it!
Leicester has the M69 to prevent access already.
Clogged by refugees fleeing Coventry, desperate to soak up the sights of Leicester...
Here in Birmingham we have invented the M6 to stop refugees from any direction.
I get held up leaving Birmingham, not entering it though
On your point about Trump, yes, I agree it is likely he will do better than his polling. I doubt if it will be enough to win. There might be some shock flipping of certain traditional loyalties in the election -perhaps Illinois and Michigan will go red, and Arkansas blue - but it's unlikely to affect the overall result.
If I were advising Trump, I'd advise him not to go big on his backstory and try to pose as a champion of aspiration. After all, Clinton came from a much humbler background and is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice too. A smarter move be would be to ask how she made all that money. That could, with a little luck, be a killer point for him as there are an awful lot of banks and money to the Clinton Foundation involved that could look rather shady if presented in the right way.
Agreed. In my eyes Trump is the Republican Obama - proof that hard work can take anyone to the top in America. Electing Clinton would be to acknowledge it is a closed shop.
Poor trump. That glass ceiling must be hard to break through. Those female presidents have it all down up.
No, Obama has broken the glass ceiling, and fair play to him no matter how much I disagree with his views. Electing Clinton would be putting bombproof glass back into it. Would love to see a woman President, but would need to be one who has got their themselves.
Oh my god I missed it .... I'll get Mrs JackW in a burka forthwith ....
Does Harvey Nicks do burkas? Nothing but the best I am sure.
This Civil war in the SE does sound dangerous. The Midlands needs a wall - and for the mexicans to pay for it!
Leicester has the M69 to prevent access already.
Clogged by refugees fleeing Coventry, desperate to soak up the sights of Leicester...
Here in Birmingham we have invented the M6 to stop refugees from any direction.
I get held up leaving Birmingham, not entering it though
On your point about Trump, yes, I agree it is likely he will do better than his polling. I doubt if it will be enough to win. There might be some shock flipping of certain traditional loyalties in the election -perhaps Illinois and Michigan will go red, and Arkansas blue - but it's unlikely to affect the overall result.
If I were advising Trump, I'd advise him not to go big on his backstory and try to pose as a champion of aspiration. After all, Clinton came from a much humbler background and is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice too. A smarter move be would be to ask how she made all that money. That could, with a little luck, be a killer point for him as there are an awful lot of banks and money to the Clinton Foundation involved that could look rather shady if presented in the right way.
Agreed. In my eyes Trump is the Republican Obama - proof that hard work can take anyone to the top in America. Electing Clinton would be to acknowledge it is a closed shop.
Poor trump. That glass ceiling must be hard to break through. Those female presidents have it all down up.
No, Obama has broken the glass ceiling, and fair play to him no matter how much I disagree with his views. Electing Clinton would be putting bombproof glass back into it. Would love to see a woman President, but would need to be one who has got their themselves.
Maybe the GOP should introduce billionaire only shortlists to create a level playing field for this minority.
Iowa Nevada South Carolina American Samoa Arkansas Colorado Georgia Massachusetts Minnesota Oklahoma Texas Virginia Louisiana Maine Michigan Florida Illinois North Carolina
Caucuses and primaries cannot be compared, and you have to control for the crowded field.
IPSO "5% of those surveyed had a lot of sympathy, 14% some sympathy and 71% no sympathy with “young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria” IPSO "Those who responded to the question might not have intended for their answers to be understood as relating to those joining IS; a number of British Muslims had left the UK to fight against IS, or alongside anti-Assad forces or various Sunni groups. The newspaper had therefore distorted the poll results by presenting them as demonstrating “sympathy for jihadis”." https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/rulings/IPSOrulings-detail.html?id=331 Clearly we should pay more attention to the British Muslims who had left the UK to fight against IS, or alongside anti-Assad forces or various Sunni groups. Anyone seen numbers in the hundreds?
I wonder what a poll in the 1930s asking "Do you have sympathy with young people who leave the UK to join fighters in Spain" would have revealed.
It broke by accident on CNN when a Trump supporter challenged Amanda live on air, then the Cruz camp finally acknowledged the story.
There's huge resistance to take Cruz down as the media detest Trump, and want anyone else. It took days before Edwards or Tiger stories got traction - just too hot to touch.
The Sun repeated the NE story first, then the Mail.
This story Cruz story seems to have generated very little interest in the UK media. Is it big in the US? It's strange that it's getting such scant coverage.
The Washington Times is very much a niche publication on the right and far less read than the Post.
Morning all,
If you haven't seen the CNN incident, it's up on Washington Post:
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
More people will be killed and seriously injured in traffic collisions this week than by terrorists . The fact that you are having an attack of the vapours over terrorism, doesn't mean the police shouldn't be, as one of their normal duties, trying to reduce the casualties inflicted by stupid people in cars.
I think the difference is if you are killed because you are not wearing a seatbelt you are partly responsible so should take responsibility yourself. If you are blown up commuting to work you cannot do anything about it so would expect the state to assist.
People die because other people are not wearing belts, where does that leave your point?
If someone is / is not wearing a belt that makes no difference to the others they may kill.
Oh my god I missed it .... I'll get Mrs JackW in a burka forthwith ....
Does Harvey Nicks do burkas? Nothing but the best I am sure.
This Civil war in the SE does sound dangerous. The Midlands needs a wall - and for the mexicans to pay for it!
Leicester has the M69 to prevent access already.
Clogged by refugees fleeing Coventry, desperate to soak up the sights of Leicester...
Here in Birmingham we have invented the M6 to stop refugees from any direction.
I get held up leaving Birmingham, not entering it though
On your point about Trump, yes, I agree it is likely he will do better than his polling. I doubt if it will be enough to win. There might be some shock flipping of certain traditional loyalties in the election -perhaps Illinois and Michigan will go red, and Arkansas blue - but it's unlikely to affect the overall result.
If I were advising Trump, I'd advise him not to go big on his backstory and try to pose as a champion of aspiration. After all, Clinton came from a much humbler background and is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice too. A smarter move be would be to ask how she made all that money. That could, with a little luck, be a killer point for him as there are an awful lot of banks and money to the Clinton Foundation involved that could look rather shady if presented in the right way.
Agreed. In my eyes Trump is the Republican Obama - proof that hard work can take anyone to the top in America. Electing Clinton would be to acknowledge it is a closed shop.
Poor trump. That glass ceiling must be hard to break through. Those female presidents have it all down up.
No, Obama has broken the glass ceiling, and fair play to him no matter how much I disagree with his views. Electing Clinton would be putting bombproof glass back into it. Would love to see a woman President, but would need to be one who has got their themselves.
What do you mean by "got there themselves"?
Didn't come from the established political elite. Obama got there himself. Hilary Clinton can't. Trump can.
Oh my god I missed it .... I'll get Mrs JackW in a burka forthwith ....
Does Harvey Nicks do burkas? Nothing but the best I am sure.
This Civil war in the SE does sound dangerous. The Midlands needs a wall - and for the mexicans to pay for it!
Leicester has the M69 to prevent access already.
Clogged by refugees fleeing Coventry, desperate to soak up the sights of Leicester...
Here in Birmingham we have invented the M6 to stop refugees from any direction.
I get held up leaving Birmingham, not entering it though
On your point about Trump, yes, I agree it is likely he will do better than his polling. I doubt if it will be enough to win. There might be some shock flipping of certain traditional loyalties in the election -perhaps Illinois and Michigan will go red, and Arkansas blue - but it's unlikely to affect the overall result.
If I were advising Trump, I'd advise him not to go big on his backstory and try to pose as a champion of aspiration. After all, Clinton came from a much humbler background and is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice too. A smarter move be would be to ask how she made all that money. That could, with a little luck, be a killer point for him as there are an awful lot of banks and money to the Clinton Foundation involved that could look rather shady if presented in the right way.
Agreed. In my eyes Trump is the Republican Obama - proof that hard work can take anyone to the top in America. Electing Clinton would be to acknowledge it is a closed shop.
Poor trump. That glass ceiling must be hard to break through. Those female presidents have it all down up.
No, Obama has broken the glass ceiling, and fair play to him no matter how much I disagree with his views. Electing Clinton would be putting bombproof glass back into it. Would love to see a woman President, but would need to be one who has got their themselves.
Maybe the GOP should introduce billionaire only shortlists to create a level playing field for this minority.
No the US should have fair elections - political and monetary background should be irrelevant. Obama wasn't a billionaire or a member of the political elite and he won, he is the poster boy for how it should be done.
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
More people will be killed and seriously injured in traffic collisions this week than by terrorists . The fact that you are having an attack of the vapours over terrorism, doesn't mean the police shouldn't be, as one of their normal duties, trying to reduce the casualties inflicted by stupid people in cars.
I think the difference is if you are killed because you are not wearing a seatbelt you are partly responsible so should take responsibility yourself. If you are blown up commuting to work you cannot do anything about it so would expect the state to assist.
People die because other people are not wearing belts, where does that leave your point?
If someone is / is not wearing a belt that makes no difference to the others they may kill.
It does if a rear seat passenger is launched into a front seat passenger, killing them in the process.
No the US should have fair elections - political and monetary background should be irrelevant. Obama wasn't a billionaire or a member of the political elite and he won, he is the poster boy for how it should be done.
By spending more money on his election than anyone else ever had done in the history of US politics?
This is how Trump-ism works. The disheartening reality for journalists is that the Republican presidential front-runner and his allies are getting frighteningly good at forcing them down roads they have tried to avoid.
It broke by accident on CNN when a Trump supporter challenged Amanda live on air, then the Cruz camp finally acknowledged the story.
There's huge resistance to take Cruz down as the media detest Trump, and want anyone else. It took days before Edwards or Tiger stories got traction - just too hot to touch.
The Sun repeated the NE story first, then the Mail.
This story Cruz story seems to have generated very little interest in the UK media. Is it big in the US? It's strange that it's getting such scant coverage.
The Washington Times is very much a niche publication on the right and far less read than the Post.
Morning all,
If you haven't seen the CNN incident, it's up on Washington Post:
I wonder whether Trump's best chance of becoming POTUS is in fact to stand against Hillary, rather than see her replaced on account of the current email investigation? That way he really gets to dish whatever dirt he can find.
This is how Trump-ism works. The disheartening reality for journalists is that the Republican presidential front-runner and his allies are getting frighteningly good at forcing them down roads they have tried to avoid.
It broke by accident on CNN when a Trump supporter challenged Amanda live on air, then the Cruz camp finally acknowledged the story.
There's huge resistance to take Cruz down as the media detest Trump, and want anyone else. It took days before Edwards or Tiger stories got traction - just too hot to touch.
The Sun repeated the NE story first, then the Mail.
This story Cruz story seems to have generated very little interest in the UK media. Is it big in the US? It's strange that it's getting such scant coverage.
The Washington Times is very much a niche publication on the right and far less read than the Post.
Morning all,
If you haven't seen the CNN incident, it's up on Washington Post:
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
More people will be killed and seriously injured in traffic collisions this week than by terrorists . The fact that you are having an attack of the vapours over terrorism, doesn't mean the police shouldn't be, as one of their normal duties, trying to reduce the casualties inflicted by stupid people in cars.
I think the difference is if you are killed because you are not wearing a seatbelt you are partly responsible so should take responsibility yourself. If you are blown up commuting to work you cannot do anything about it so would expect the state to assist.
People die because other people are not wearing belts, where does that leave your point?
If someone is / is not wearing a belt that makes no difference to the others they may kill.
Wrong, if somebody is wearing a belt then that can not only prevent their death but the deaths of others that they may have been launched into otherwise.
Besides seat belt laws don't apply on private property but only on public roads. If you want to be a maniac on your own land then feel free but if you want to be on public roads then obey the public laws. Roads are a necessary artery for the nation to commute but if there is a road fatality then the Police are obliged to close the road down and take evidence etc which can cause havoc for thousands of commuters. If the accident is just a minor collission with no fatalities it can be cleared up much quicker and may not even result in a road closure.
Why should thousands of commuters who are paying their taxes to fund public roads for them to use have the use of the road denied to them because one selfish dead prick decided he didn't need to wear his seat belt?
Why should people need to scrape a dead body off the road and all the associated trauma with that because one selfish dead prick decided he didn't need to wear his seat belt?
Why should a Police officer have to undergo the sad event of informing the family of the deceased of their passing all because he didn't need to wear his seat belt?
If you want access to public roads that everyone in the nation is paying their taxes to use then obey the damned laws!
...Well, the EU does have a Counter-Terrorism Coordinator. He is, as it happens, a Belgian, Gilles de Kerchove. His predecessor resigned in 2007, because he felt that his post, which was set up after the Madrid bombings of 2004, had no proper powers. It is no disrespect to Mr de Kerchove, or his nationality, to suggest that he may not have been able to move things on very much.
For five or six years now, the EU has wrangled over a “passenger names record directive”, which, if passed, would make air-passenger manifests available to the relevant security authorities of all member states. Theresa May had another go at a meeting of the EU Justice and Home Affairs Ministers two days after the bombing. But still nothing has actually, well, happened.
Oh my god I missed it .... I'll get Mrs JackW in a burka forthwith ....
Does Harvey Nicks do burkas? Nothing but the best I am sure.
This Civil war in the SE does sound dangerous. The Midlands needs a wall - and for the mexicans to pay for it!
Leicester has the M69 to prevent access already.
Clogged by refugees fleeing Coventry, desperate to soak up the sights of Leicester...
Here in Birmingham we have invented the M6 to stop refugees from any direction.
I get held up leaving Birmingham, not entering it though
On your point about Trump, yes, I agree it is likely he will do better than his polling. I doubt if it will be enough to win. There might be some shock flipping of certain traditional loyalties in the election -perhaps Illinois and Michigan will go red, and Arkansas blue - but it's unlikely to affect the overall result.
If I were advising Trump, I'd advise him not to go big on his backstory and try to pose as a champion of aspiration. After all, Clinton came from a much humbler background and is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice too. A smarter move be would be to ask how she made all that money. That could, with a little luck, be a killer point for him as there are an awful lot of banks and money to the Clinton Foundation involved that could look rather shady if presented in the right way.
Agreed. In my eyes Trump is the Republican Obama - proof that hard work can take anyone to the top in America. Electing Clinton would be to acknowledge it is a closed shop.
Poor trump. That glass ceiling must be hard to break through. Those female presidents have it all down up.
No, Obama has broken the glass ceiling, and fair play to him no matter how much I disagree with his views. Electing Clinton would be putting bombproof glass back into it. Would love to see a woman President, but would need to be one who has got their themselves.
What do you mean by "got there themselves"?
Didn't come from the established political elite. Obama got there himself. Hilary Clinton can't. Trump can.
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Hmm. The whole point is that Trump can secure the nomination by actually winning the election. If he falls short of 1237 then he hasn't won, he just has a plurality of delegates.
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
More people will be killed and seriously injured in traffic collisions this week than by terrorists . The fact that you are having an attack of the vapours over terrorism, doesn't mean the police shouldn't be, as one of their normal duties, trying to reduce the casualties inflicted by stupid people in cars.
I think the difference is if you are killed because you are not wearing a seatbelt you are partly responsible so should take responsibility yourself. If you are blown up commuting to work you cannot do anything about it so would expect the state to assist.
People die because other people are not wearing belts, where does that leave your point?
If someone is / is not wearing a belt that makes no difference to the others they may kill.
Wrong, if somebody is wearing a belt then that can not only prevent their death but the deaths of others that they may have been launched into otherwise.
Besides seat belt laws don't apply on private property but only on public roads. If you want to be a maniac on your own land then feel free but if you want to be on public roads then obey the public laws. Roads are a necessary artery for the nation to commute but if there is a road fatality then the Police are obliged to close the road down and take evidence etc which can cause havoc for thousands of commuters. If the accident is just a minor collission with no fatalities it can be cleared up much quicker and may not even result in a road closure.
Why should thousands of commuters who are paying their taxes to fund public roads for them to use have the use of the road denied to them because one selfish dead prick decided he didn't need to wear his seat belt?
Why should people need to scrape a dead body off the road and all the associated trauma with that because one selfish dead prick decided he didn't need to wear his seat belt?
Why should a Police officer have to undergo the sad event of informing the family of the deceased of their passing all because he didn't need to wear his seat belt?
If you want access to public roads that everyone in the nation is paying their taxes to use then obey the damned laws!
Sir Richard speaks of the “Third Party Rule”, which is “essential to intelligence cooperation worldwide” and inadequately understood by politicians. It states that “the recipient of intelligence from one nation cannot pass it on to a third without the originator’s agreement”. If he does so, trust breaks down, and intelligence dries up.
The EU has 28 member states, so the phrase “Third Party Rule” hardly does justice to the problem. A “28 Parties Rule” would be more like it. If you propose to tell your secrets to Romania, Greece, Cyprus, Belgium - indeed, you might as well just put them out on the internet. This explains why, as General Michael Haydon, the former chief of the CIA, said yesterday, the EU “is not a natural contributor to national security”
Mr. Boy, if you're in the market for politically incorrect comedy, The Adventures of Sir Edric (by me) releases next week. Might be worth checking a sample (when it's up) and seeing if you like it.
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Hmm. The whole point is that Trump can secure the nomination by actually winning the election. If he falls short of 1237 then he hasn't won, he just has a plurality of delegates.
If you're explaining, you're losing.
Perception matters
Indeed and if Trump continues hoovering up the states but falls just short then he's almost certainly the nominee. But if we imagine if Kasich wins say the last 15 States in a row (for example) and Trump has a plurality but falls short then Kasich could easily argue that Trump lost it at the end and he has the momentum to take a contested nomination.
This story Cruz story seems to have generated very little interest in the UK media. Is it big in the US? It's strange that it's getting such scant coverage.
The Washington Times is very much a niche publication on the right and far less read than the Post.
It is reported the story has been doing the rounds for a while and Breitbart sat on it - one of their journalists tweeted about being scooped when the Enquirer came out. The mainstream media can now report Cruz' reaction to the original story.
The Daily Beast reported that they didn't sit on the story as such. Rather they were shown a video of Cruz emerging from hotel receptions on several occasions with a particular woman who isn't his wife. It was presented as evidence that he is having an affair, but it was stated that nothing untoward was shown on the video. They decided not to run with it as no more proof was presented when asked for.
I have to say that anyone who bases their world view solely on the National Enquirer and the Sun Myung Moon Times - sorry, Washington Times - needs to reassess their eagerness to believe things that entertain them, rather than things that are probably true
I wonder whether Trump's best chance of becoming POTUS is in fact to stand against Hillary, rather than see her replaced on account of the current email investigation? That way he really gets to dish whatever dirt he can find.
He would have a much better chance against Sanders imo. (I know the current GE polling has Sanders beating him easily.)
The problem with dishing dirt on Hillary is, what new dirt is there?
I have to say that anyone who bases their world view solely on the National Enquirer and the Sun Myung Moon Times - sorry, Washington Times - needs to reassess their eagerness to believe things that entertain them, rather than things that are probably true
I have to say that anyone who bases their world view solely on the National Enquirer and the Sun Myung Moon Times - sorry, Washington Times - needs to reassess their eagerness to believe things that entertain them, rather than things that are probably true
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
Many will be focussed on catching terrorists. Police forces should be able to have more than one thing on at a time
I bet many times more people in the EU will die this year from not wearing seatbelts, of by others who are not wearing seatbelts, than will be killed by terrorists.
But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment.
It is not even an EU initiative. TISPOL is a UK registered public limited company set up by various European police forces to coordinate traffic policing matters. Whilst it gets funding from the EU it is not an EU body, includes non EU members (Norway) and does not include all EU members.
Using what seems to be a very worthwhile initiative as a means of bashing the EU when it is not even an EU body seems rather short sighted.
Mr. Boy, if you're in the market for politically incorrect comedy, The Adventures of Sir Edric (by me) releases next week. Might be worth checking a sample (when it's up) and seeing if you like it.
I think other people have misinterpreted my seat belt comments below. I think people who don't wear seatbelts are moronic idiots who deserve all they get. However when my friend (who is a traffic policeman) tells bereaved relatives the bad news they don't usually ask if the other driver was wearing a seatbelt as it is not the main cause of accidents. In his experience most accidents are caused by excess speed, unqualified drivers, distraction (texting), alcohol and then drugs (in that order). All these offences need to be wiped out alongside educating people to reduce deaths on the road and reduce his very busy workload.
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Hmm. The whole point is that Trump can secure the nomination by actually winning the election. If he falls short of 1237 then he hasn't won, he just has a plurality of delegates.
If you're explaining, you're losing.
Perception matters
If it comes to a contested convention it's numbers that will matter.
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Agreed. The Labour party must to have learned now to vote for the person they want rather than selecting the wrong one - Brown and Corbyn are examples of what happens when you select a candidate.
Eh? Corbyn was so NOT the candidate of the party establishment. He was easily the most popular candidate with the membership, elected fair and square. TBH Brown would have won a vote of the membership easily too.
As for Trump, as a leftie I certainly prefer him to Cruz. With Cruz we know we'll get a reactionary in the Goldwater class, preobably worse. With Trump it's a complete roll of the dice - amid all the bombast, he has avoided some of the more extreme conservative positions. Possibly we'd get a perfectly good President. Possibly it'd be a disaster. But I'd give him say a 20% chance of being quite popular with lefties in the end.
Agree Corbyn was the most popular candidate with the membership. But from all steps in the election from the nominations "to have a debate" to the 3 quidders it felt a bit contrived. Likewise having a coronation for Brown was wrong.
That kind of proves the point though: in an attempt to have a selection *not* an election the PLP threw the membership a bone in the hope that Corbyn would be unpopular but allow them to deflect accusations of a stitch up. Instead they inadvertently created a genuine election which the "wrong" guy one.
Welcome to PB btw, it's good to see from your Trump/Obama comment that the right *can* do comedy (or at least self-parody).
Thank you. If only Trump was a black woman entrepreneur we could all unite behind him / her! There must be one of those somewhere in America.
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
Many will be focussed on catching terrorists. Police forces should be able to have more than one thing on at a time
I bet many times more people in the EU will die this year from not wearing seatbelts, of by others who are not wearing seatbelts, than will be killed by terrorists.
But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment.
It is not even an EU initiative. TISPOL is a UK registered public limited company set up by various European police forces to coordinate traffic policing matters. Whilst it gets funding from the EU it is not an EU body, includes non EU members (Norway) and does not include all EU members.
Using what seems to be a very worthwhile initiative as a means of bashing the EU when it is not even an EU body seems rather short sighted.
Traffic policing body is helping enforce traffic laws (rather than terrorism laws) seems about as shocking as finding out a bear has shat in the woods.
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
Many will be focussed on catching terrorists. Police forces should be able to have more than one thing on at a time
I bet many times more people in the EU will die this year from not wearing seatbelts, of by others who are not wearing seatbelts, than will be killed by terrorists.
But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment.
It is not even an EU initiative. TISPOL is a UK registered public limited company set up by various European police forces to coordinate traffic policing matters. Whilst it gets funding from the EU it is not an EU body, includes non EU members (Norway) and does not include all EU members.
Using what seems to be a very worthwhile initiative as a means of bashing the EU when it is not even an EU body seems rather short sighted.
Traffic policing body is helping enforce traffic laws (rather than terrorism laws) seems about as shocking as finding out a bear has shat in the woods.
Certainly, if you're not wearing a seatbelt, you put others at risk, if your vehicle crashes or breaks suddenly. It's such an obviously sensible thing to do that it's hard to see why anyone would object.
Morris Dancer, will Waterstones be stocking your book?
I am a little unsettled by the anti-Trump meme from the lefties. Stopping the most popular candidate winning elections is a step on the road to becoming Syria.
Embrace the Trump
Hmm. The whole point is that Trump can secure the nomination by actually winning the election. If he falls short of 1237 then he hasn't won, he just has a plurality of delegates.
If you're explaining, you're losing.
Perception matters
If it comes to a contested convention it's numbers that will matter.
To a degree. Mandate and perceptions will also matter, not least with the delegates themselves, who'll be thinking ahead to November and how fixing the convention will play out with the public.
But - if Trump doesn't win outright then he has a fight on his hands. Much like Britain shrugs off UKIP winning one seat with 13% of the vote while the SNP get 56 off 5%, so the Americans accept their system.
There is a reason why the convention is a backstop selection process and why candidates need a majority of delegates, namely that a lot happens between Iowa and Cleveland, and if a clear choice hasn't been made, for whatever reason, then delegates should have the chance to consider what might not have been known back in February.
Trump might be the most popular GOP contender with Republican primary voters but he's (1) not more popular than the rest put together, and (2) *less* popular than any other contender vs Hillary. Both are legitimate reasons for passing over him.
He would of course scream blue murder if it's tried and if he is very close to 1237 then he may well be seen to have a point (for that matter, if he is very close to 1237 then he ought to pick up the difference anyway). But what's seen as legitimate is a matter of perception, and perception is a matter of debate. Undoubtedly, a 'stolen' nomination would set the GOP's campaign off to a bad start but that could be recoverable. Indeed, that may have to be exactly the calculation delegates will need to make.
“son, only two types of people go into politics. Those with no money like me; and those from rich families who do it for their egos.”
The Clintons are a perfect example of the former, two local Arkansas politicians who made millions by peddling influence. Trump fits the second category.
Or from a sense of duty and a desire to serve the public
Mr. F, hmm. I don't believe so. Distribution's more a publisher area, though as I write that a bigger reason why not springs to mind.
The initial release will be e-book and limited edition hardback (the paperback will follow later). It's a bit pricey, but if you either loathe e-books or really like hardbacks (or limited edition ones), you can pre-order the hardback [NB the counter is wrong. I know at least one person has pre-ordered it, so there's fewer than the original 100 left].
I have to say that anyone who bases their world view solely on the National Enquirer and the Sun Myung Moon Times - sorry, Washington Times - needs to reassess their eagerness to believe things that entertain them, rather than things that are probably true
Don't you think Cruz should sue?
I can't think of the last time a politician in a general election sued, and won both.
"The week of action was to part the first Tispol (European Traffic Police Network) seatbelt enforcement campaign of the year, and officers all over Europe carried out co-ordinated checks. "
Many will be focussed on catching terrorists. Police forces should be able to have more than one thing on at a time
I bet many times more people in the EU will die this year from not wearing seatbelts, of by others who are not wearing seatbelts, than will be killed by terrorists.
But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment.
It is not even an EU initiative. TISPOL is a UK registered public limited company set up by various European police forces to coordinate traffic policing matters. Whilst it gets funding from the EU it is not an EU body, includes non EU members (Norway) and does not include all EU members.
Using what seems to be a very worthwhile initiative as a means of bashing the EU when it is not even an EU body seems rather short sighted.
Traffic policing body is helping enforce traffic laws (rather than terrorism laws) seems about as shocking as finding out a bear has shat in the woods.
Yarp.
Is that the noise a bear makes when shitting in the woods?
Comments
Lets fact check this.
True except in:
Iowa
Nevada
South Carolina
American Samoa
Arkansas
Colorado
Georgia
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Oklahoma
Texas
Virginia
Louisiana
Maine
Michigan
Florida
Illinois
North Carolina
The SC nominations (they still need congressional approval) would be a big question but then what would Trump do? And the SC question is one that has a longer timespan than four years. A disastrous Trump presidency could see them lose control of the whole system for 2, 4, 6, who knows how many years afterwards - and if the retirements / deaths don't come in the next four, that could shift the balance of the Court for decades at a time when they could do nothing about it bar shout.
But few will say so.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/12057110/BBC-urged-to-ban-right-wing-comedian-Andrew-Lawrence.html
On your point about Trump, yes, I agree it is likely he will do better than his polling. I doubt if it will be enough to win. There might be some shock flipping of certain traditional loyalties in the election -perhaps Illinois and Michigan will go red, and Arkansas blue - but it's unlikely to affect the overall result.
If I were advising Trump, I'd advise him not to go big on his backstory and try to pose as a champion of aspiration. After all, Clinton came from a much humbler background and is now rich beyond the dreams of avarice too. A smarter move be would be to ask how she made all that money. That could, with a little luck, be a killer point for him as there are an awful lot of banks and money to the Clinton Foundation involved that could look rather shady if presented in the right way.
We were sold this thing as being a free trade area.
It would be better for Cruz if they all issued flat denials because at the moment it's the "no smoke without fire" situation. Fatal if the claims are correct of course given the outright denial by Cruz but still damaging even if incorrect certainly if not challenged head on. On the other hand reacting to the story even if it is untrue just perpetuates it for a few more days headlines which may be the lesser price to pay.
These ladies will though still be viewed as potential "Monica's" (perhaps unfairly ) so until they personally each clear the air which in the US is normally a lawsuit and until they do Damage limitation is obstructed. Simply Ignoring such claims and innuendo just doesn't cut it at this level in fact it creates the opposite affect and just gives the story more credence.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/22/tom_bevan_on_bbc_radio_will_be_fascinating_to_see_trump_attack_hillary_from_the_left_on_foreign_policy.html
As for Trump, as a leftie I certainly prefer him to Cruz. With Cruz we know we'll get a reactionary in the Goldwater class, preobably worse. With Trump it's a complete roll of the dice - amid all the bombast, he has avoided some of the more extreme conservative positions. Possibly we'd get a perfectly good President. Possibly it'd be a disaster. But I'd give him say a 20% chance of being quite popular with lefties in the end.
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/19/471102628/yes-clintons-gotten-the-most-votes-but-gop-has-more-overall
Interesting question for a journalist to any of the lovely, sophisticated and above all young ladies who have married (or otherwise engaged with) Trump: 'What first attracted you to this elderly, promiscuous, strange looking billionaire?'
If that sounds like jealousy...
How many people in a car/van die in the UK because of not wearing a seatbelt? Anyone know?
I would guess that the number of deaths in vehicles is circa 1,400 (of the 1,700+) but any stats out there on seat belts?
"But what does that matter if it get in the way of just another mindless bash-the-EU comment."
If you read it that way, I did not, I would just want police engaged in observation and stopping vehicles to be doing work against serious crime and terrorism. In Belgium they have a mere 600 people working for the intelligence services with a hundreds of terrorist suspects to watch. They clearly do need more resources.
and No, a police force assigning resources to watching for seat belts in cars is not also using that same resource against terrorism.... Unless you know better on manpower deployment.
Obviously a proportion of those would have died anyway if the accident was severe enough (a seatbelt will not save you from being crushed and is of limited value in deceleration injuries).
So I suppose that puts an upper limit on the numbers. A very wild guess would be maybe a couple of hundred deaths a year? Still far more than die from terrorism.
IIRC there is separate polling data on the number of people who do in fact have at least some sympathy with ISIS - I vaguely recall that it was surprisingly not very different among Muslims and non-Muslims (8% and 6% or something like that).
Edit: I see TCP's post pointing out that the adjudication was on a different point (that respondents may have thought that many people were going to Syria to fight vs Assad or vs ISIS), and there's something in that too. Again, it's actually irrelevant whether the respondents were right or not, but the report was wrong.
Welcome to PB btw, it's good to see from your Trump/Obama comment that the right *can* do comedy (or at least self-parody).
And figures from 2009 in the UK claims 370 people who would have survived if they had worn seatbelts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8197875.stm
So fairly considerable numbers, and worth a short campaign IMO.
Also, people who do not wear seatbelts might also be breaking other laws. Watching police reality programs on TV (I know...), it's surprising how often people pulled up for minor infractions have other issues, such as no licence or insurance.
“son, only two types of people go into politics. Those with no money like me; and those from rich families who do it for their egos.”
The Clintons are a perfect example of the former, two local Arkansas politicians who made millions by peddling influence. Trump fits the second category.
7% of adults don't wear a seatbelt
As this doubles the risk of death in an accident, the proportion not wearing a seatbelt killed should be 15% of the total road fatalities
It is actually 34%, because those drivers who do not wear a seatbelt are three times as likely to cause a crash in the first place.
Therefore, identifying those who are not wearing them is a good way of reducing accidents that may hurt innocent people (the AA call these drivers 'crash magnets')
So actually, it is a good way of trying to save over 1,000 lives a year in our roads alone, never mind in other parts of Europe where standards of driving and car safety are often much lower.
Food for thought.
https://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/aa-seat-belt-report.pdf
After Rubio has dropped out, Trump has beaten her every contest, mind.
If you haven't seen the CNN incident, it's up on Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/25/this-remarkable-cnn-exchange-took-the-ted-cruz-affair-rumors-from-the-tabloids-into-the-mainstream/
Watch the sense of panic spread on the anchor's face. Presumably her producer is shouting in her ear.
Watching the Edwards/Carpenter interview and the recent CNN exchange together is very very telling.
Amanda dished it out, but can't take the heat.
Traffic cops also track movements very well. They are a key part of state surveillance of terror suspects.
~
Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton 10h10 hours ago
The top 25 hedge fund managers make more than all of the kindergarten teachers in America combined. That’s not acceptable.
Besides seat belt laws don't apply on private property but only on public roads. If you want to be a maniac on your own land then feel free but if you want to be on public roads then obey the public laws. Roads are a necessary artery for the nation to commute but if there is a road fatality then the Police are obliged to close the road down and take evidence etc which can cause havoc for thousands of commuters. If the accident is just a minor collission with no fatalities it can be cleared up much quicker and may not even result in a road closure.
Why should thousands of commuters who are paying their taxes to fund public roads for them to use have the use of the road denied to them because one selfish dead prick decided he didn't need to wear his seat belt?
Why should people need to scrape a dead body off the road and all the associated trauma with that because one selfish dead prick decided he didn't need to wear his seat belt?
Why should a Police officer have to undergo the sad event of informing the family of the deceased of their passing all because he didn't need to wear his seat belt?
If you want access to public roads that everyone in the nation is paying their taxes to use then obey the damned laws!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12204515/The-EU-is-a-huge-version-of-Belgium-and-it-cant-deal-with-the-modern-world.html
Perception matters
First pre-release review's here: http://booksbylkevans.com/2016/03/23/review-of-the-adventures-of-sir-edric-by-thaddeus-white/
Not that it's going to happen.
The problem with dishing dirt on Hillary is, what new dirt is there?
Using what seems to be a very worthwhile initiative as a means of bashing the EU when it is not even an EU body seems rather short sighted.
I think other people have misinterpreted my seat belt comments below. I think people who don't wear seatbelts are moronic idiots who deserve all they get. However when my friend (who is a traffic policeman) tells bereaved relatives the bad news they don't usually ask if the other driver was wearing a seatbelt as it is not the main cause of accidents. In his experience most accidents are caused by excess speed, unqualified drivers, distraction (texting), alcohol and then drugs (in that order). All these offences need to be wiped out alongside educating people to reduce deaths on the road and reduce his very busy workload.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3510358/Humiliation-Met-Police-CPS-tells-NO-right-charge-talent-agency-boss-inciting-racial-hatred-Brussels-tweet-NOT-appear-court-today.html
BELGIUM: Security official at a Nuclear plant 50km from #Brussels has been killed and his ID card stolen - @ladh
MT @MarQs__ security officer which was shot in #Charleroi was working at the #Belgian #Tihange #nuclear power plant https://t.co/oiyEbO9oB4
Killed whilst walking his dog
BELGIUM: Belgian police used @WhatsApp to communicate during #BrusselsAttacks. Emergency networks were down.
https://t.co/vzNLrecIQh
Were they also of the opinion that a few drinks made them better drivers?
I think that the only person who survived the car crash that killed Princess Diana was the one wearing a seatbelt.
Torin Douglas
As the @Independent prints its last, look back at its great launch @MediatelNews #Media1986 https://t.co/Hx01fRUCOS https://t.co/CaUSlj2on9
I know of one person who survived an awful car accident (just) almost certainly because of having worn a seatbelt.
And what's the proposal: only two options - increase the salaries of kindergarten teachers of cap the income of fund managers.
Morris Dancer, will Waterstones be stocking your book?
Cleveland has asked for federal aid to buy 2,000 sets of riot gear in preparation for Republican Convention in July.
They are becoming a parody of themselves
But - if Trump doesn't win outright then he has a fight on his hands. Much like Britain shrugs off UKIP winning one seat with 13% of the vote while the SNP get 56 off 5%, so the Americans accept their system.
There is a reason why the convention is a backstop selection process and why candidates need a majority of delegates, namely that a lot happens between Iowa and Cleveland, and if a clear choice hasn't been made, for whatever reason, then delegates should have the chance to consider what might not have been known back in February.
Trump might be the most popular GOP contender with Republican primary voters but he's (1) not more popular than the rest put together, and (2) *less* popular than any other contender vs Hillary. Both are legitimate reasons for passing over him.
He would of course scream blue murder if it's tried and if he is very close to 1237 then he may well be seen to have a point (for that matter, if he is very close to 1237 then he ought to pick up the difference anyway). But what's seen as legitimate is a matter of perception, and perception is a matter of debate. Undoubtedly, a 'stolen' nomination would set the GOP's campaign off to a bad start but that could be recoverable. Indeed, that may have to be exactly the calculation delegates will need to make.
The initial release will be e-book and limited edition hardback (the paperback will follow later). It's a bit pricey, but if you either loathe e-books or really like hardbacks (or limited edition ones), you can pre-order the hardback [NB the counter is wrong. I know at least one person has pre-ordered it, so there's fewer than the original 100 left].
http://shop.ticketyboopress.co.uk/index.php?id_product=97&controller=product
If by some chance that does ever get enacted, I'm sure she and her husband won't be paying it
He's not shrinking from this stuff.