Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile in the White House race the reverberations from t

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited August 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile in the White House race the reverberations from the Fox News GOP contenders debate comtinue

One reaction to Thursday's Fox News GOP debate. pic.twitter.com/dSiiyBCrCN

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • First ..... again!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,063
    For some reason I keep thinking of the ouroboros.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,208
    @HYUFD FPT

    Rubio may help in Florida. But so will Bush, so I don't think there is much net benefit.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Glad the Tea Partiests have turned on those pinko commies broadcasting their propaganda!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,139
    edited August 2015
    Trump supporters vs. Fox News is rather like watching a wasp landing on a stinging nettle. You know somebody is going to get stung, and you don't really care who it is. So you can just sit back and enjoy the fun!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,208
    antifrank said:

    For some reason I keep thinking of the ouroboros.

    That reference led me to discover this. So thank you.

    Ragnar later has a son with another woman named Kráka and this son is born with the image of a white snake in one eye. ... the son was named Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye.

    Sometimes I love how literal the Norse are!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,063
    Charles said:

    antifrank said:

    For some reason I keep thinking of the ouroboros.

    That reference led me to discover this. So thank you.

    Ragnar later has a son with another woman named Kráka and this son is born with the image of a white snake in one eye. ... the son was named Sigurd Snake-in-the-Eye.

    Sometimes I love how literal the Norse are!
    That Ragnar was also known as Ragnar Hairy Breeches. There was a real life Einar the Paunch Shaker.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,516
    edited August 2015
    matt said:

    matt said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Any PBers heard of the Trump controversy r.e his Megyn Kelly comments?

    You can't make this up. Nor can I seriously believe there are people out there who actively LIKE this man.

    New NBC post-debate poll

    Trump 23%
    Cruz 13%
    Carson 11%
    Fiorina 8%
    Rubio 8%
    https://mobile.twitter.com/rwwilmington/status/630387473953226752
    Fiorina must be considered a serious contender. She's yet to be wrong-footed in a single appearance during the campaign. The problem with the theory that she is running for VP is that she is outclassing the rest.

    The post-debate interview she did with Chris Matthews is worth watching as it was a masterclass.

    I can't see Fiorina winning but I can see her as the VP nominee, it will be either her or Rubio (assuming Rubio is not nominee)
    Fiorina would be a good VP pick. She can talk the talk but as her business record shows, at the top she's ultimately found out, and found out very very badly. Of course, she has ovaries so will find those count against her with the GOP base.
    She was boss of HP when the dot com bubble burst and by a factor of about ten is by far the best communicator.


    She was at HP for 5 years after the crash. There was no material change.
    Her 'success' at HP is well illustrated by the fact that she let a disgruntled former employee register her own name as a domain. http://carlyfiorina.org/
    Silicon Valley would quite happily vote for almost anyone else, they see the HP/Compaq merger about as well as we see the RBS/Lloyds merger this side of the pond.

    HP shares rose 10% on the day she was pushed out!
    http://www.forbes.com/2005/02/09/cx_sr_0208carly.html
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,208
    re: the header "what a difference Trump makes" what evidence do you have that it's down to Trump?
  • The Donald was the hero Patrick Bateman in America Psycho. I expect to see that novel returning to the best-sellers lists.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,443

    Glad the Tea Partiests have turned on those pinko commies broadcasting their propaganda!

    Yes, it's weird seeing Fox being boycotted for not being right wing enough!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,527
    from the clips of the debate I've seen Senator Rubio struck me as the most impressive and Senator Cruz the least. Having a history of getting US elections wildly wrong I now expect the next President of the United States to be Senator Ted Cruz.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532
    Charles said:

    @HYUFD FPT

    Rubio may help in Florida. But so will Bush, so I don't think there is much net benefit.

    Florida is no means a given even for Bush against Hillary who is popular there, especially with New York expats
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532
    edited August 2015
    Roger said:

    from the clips of the debate I've seen Senator Rubio struck me as the most impressive and Senator Cruz the least. Having a history of getting US elections wildly wrong I now expect the next President of the United States to be Senator Ted Cruz.

    If the GOP candidate loses next year, especially if it is another moderate like Bush, I expect Cruz to be nominee in 2020
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532
    edited August 2015
    antifrank said:
    Unlike Corbyn, Burnham does not rule out airstrikes in Syria, but is cautious

    "...his party would "do the responsible thing".

    "ISIL need to be disrupted, of course they do. We would look at it seriously."

    But he added: “The message I would just send back to Cameron at this stage is: treat us with respect because it’s not about the Labour party. The Opposition is the country in this, we’ve got to test what they are saying on behalf of the country"
  • SpeedySpeedy Posts: 12,100
    Was one of those rules of journalism "give the people what they want"?

    Fox News seem to have betrayed their fans.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,208
    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    @HYUFD FPT

    Rubio may help in Florida. But so will Bush, so I don't think there is much net benefit.

    Florida is no means a given even for Bush against Hillary who is popular there, especially with New York expats
    It's not a given for either of them, but I don't see Rubio as the strongest addition to a Bush ticket because it's doubling up on Florida.

    Although many retirees in Florida are NY/NJ Jews and that community is trending away from the Dems for other reasons
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532
    edited August 2015
    Charles said:

    HYUFD said:

    Charles said:

    @HYUFD FPT

    Rubio may help in Florida. But so will Bush, so I don't think there is much net benefit.

    Florida is no means a given even for Bush against Hillary who is popular there, especially with New York expats
    It's not a given for either of them, but I don't see Rubio as the strongest addition to a Bush ticket because it's doubling up on Florida.

    Although many retirees in Florida are NY/NJ Jews and that community is trending away from the Dems for other reasons
    Hillary is seen as more pro Israel than a generic Democrat but Rubio may lock up and increase Cuban turnout for Bush which could help him over the line in Florida. In terms of locking up swing states the best ticket for the GOP could be Bush-Kasich which would help in Florida and Ohio, though 2 late middle aged white men on the ticket may not be inspiring enough to defeat America's first woman president
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 89
    Ted Cruz is currently 2nd in polls at 14% but 40/1 with sportingbet.
    Fiorina is 8% in polls but generally 33/1.The only female in race.Kusack is 30/1 with Unibet 5 times the odds of Walker and yet their chances must be quite similar.Take your pick.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,643
    edited August 2015
    O/T:

    "Camila Batmanghelidjh’s Kids Company is being investigated over claims that thousands of pounds of the charity’s money was spent on paying the boarding school costs of her chauffeur’s daughter.
    The Charity Commission has launched a probe into allegations by former Kids Company employees that the charity helped bankroll a place for the teenage daughter of Jeton Cavolli, her personal driver, at Dauntsey’s School in Wiltshire –where fees reach £28,000 a year."


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3190596/Kids-Company-paid-private-school-fees-daughter-toppled-boss-s-chauffeur-Charity-chiefs-launch-probe-claim-pupil-bankrolled.html
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    HYUFD said:

    antifrank said:
    Unlike Corbyn, Burnham does not rule out airstrikes in Syria, but is cautious

    "...his party would "do the responsible thing".

    "ISIL need to be disrupted, of course they do. We would look at it seriously."

    But he added: “The message I would just send back to Cameron at this stage is: treat us with respect because it’s not about the Labour party. The Opposition is the country in this, we’ve got to test what they are saying on behalf of the country"
    Well, someone needs to be asking questions about our on-going bombing campaign. Cameron seems to have committed our military to an open ended war for which there is no obvious war aim or end point and which has meant his government have to re-write his massively flawed 2010 SDR. It is a shame that with Labour so intent on its own squabbles there is nobody that feels able to ask some very necessary questions.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Roger said:

    from the clips of the debate I've seen Senator Rubio struck me as the most impressive and Senator Cruz the least. Having a history of getting US elections wildly wrong I now expect the next President of the United States to be Senator Ted Cruz.

    Cruz is not a natural born citizen, as is made plain by both the majority and dissent in Rogers v Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

    Mr Justice BLACKMUN, delivering the opinion of the court
    'Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process...

    'The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place.'


    Mr Justice BLACK, dissenting
    'Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.'
    (my bolds)

  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,579
    antifrank said:
    LOL, this is what I mean about some people losing all grip on what "left-wing" actually means. Even right-wing Tory MPs disagree with going into Syria.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,623
    @RodCrosby

    So: you think the Justices will subvert the will of the American people? My money is on some weasel reasoning that makes him eligible, should he win.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,974
    edited August 2015

    Glad the Tea Partiests have turned on those pinko commies broadcasting their propaganda!

    Yes, it's weird seeing Fox being boycotted for not being right wing enough!

    Last month the Guardian was labelled a Tory rag by Corbynites unhappy with an editorial.

    We are not dealing with the normal run of the mill devotees here….
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    AndyJS said:

    O/T:

    "Camila Batmanghelidjh’s Kids Company is being investigated over claims that thousands of pounds of the charity’s money was spent on paying the boarding school costs of her chauffeur’s daughter.
    The Charity Commission has launched a probe into allegations by former Kids Company employees that the charity helped bankroll a place for the teenage daughter of Jeton Cavolli, her personal driver, at Dauntsey’s School in Wiltshire –where fees reach £28,000 a year."


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3190596/Kids-Company-paid-private-school-fees-daughter-toppled-boss-s-chauffeur-Charity-chiefs-launch-probe-claim-pupil-bankrolled.html

    Colour me sceptical. As Sir Humphrey once said, Civil Service enquiries are for announcing not to find out what went on. On any reasonable basis the enquiry announced by the Charity Commission could be done and dusted in a week, there are very few actors and the records are available. I bet it runs on for months and eventually will be forgotten without it ever reporting.

    If the Daily Mail really wanted to do the country a favour it would keep track of all the enquiries that are announced and comment on when they report, or not.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Good evening, everyone.

    Viking nicknames are a mixture of fearsome (Erik Blood-axe, Ivar the Boneless) and the silly (Keith Flatnose, and the aforementioned Ragnar Hairy Breeches).
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    rcs1000 said:

    @RodCrosby

    So: you think the Justices will subvert the will of the American people? My money is on some weasel reasoning that makes him eligible, should he win.

    As the Justices have made clear already, they do not accept their role includes removal of a President. That is Congress's job, either by refusing to ratify an ineligible president-elect, or by impeaching him...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532
    Danny565 said:

    antifrank said:
    LOL, this is what I mean about some people losing all grip on what "left-wing" actually means. Even right-wing Tory MPs disagree with going into Syria.
    No, most Tory MPs back action against ISIS, as do most of the country, that is not the same as action against Assad as was the case before. Even Burnham has said ISIS need to be stopped, just that action should be taken cautiously, only Corbyn is against
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532

    HYUFD said:

    antifrank said:
    Unlike Corbyn, Burnham does not rule out airstrikes in Syria, but is cautious

    "...his party would "do the responsible thing".

    "ISIL need to be disrupted, of course they do. We would look at it seriously."

    But he added: “The message I would just send back to Cameron at this stage is: treat us with respect because it’s not about the Labour party. The Opposition is the country in this, we’ve got to test what they are saying on behalf of the country"
    Well, someone needs to be asking questions about our on-going bombing campaign. Cameron seems to have committed our military to an open ended war for which there is no obvious war aim or end point and which has meant his government have to re-write his massively flawed 2010 SDR. It is a shame that with Labour so intent on its own squabbles there is nobody that feels able to ask some very necessary questions.
    Yougov a few weeks ago had a plurality in favour of groundtroops against ISIS for the first time and a comfortable majority for airstrikes
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    This is the poison that fanatical Islam preaches:
    Ian Geldard ‏@igeldard 6m6 minutes ago
    Dad let daughter die, rather than be touched by rescuer http://bit.ly/1Iw9Lfb #Dubai
  • MikeK said:

    This is the poison that fanatical Islam preaches:
    Ian Geldard ‏@igeldard 6m6 minutes ago
    Dad let daughter die, rather than be touched by rescuer http://bit.ly/1Iw9Lfb #Dubai


    If you are being prosecuted by the Dubai authorities, you in a very small minority indeed.

    "Lt. Col. Burqibah added that the girl’s father was later arrested by Dubai Police for stopping the rescue team from saving his daughter’s life and doing their job.

    “He was prosecuted and sued by the concerned authorities.”
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 943
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    antifrank said:
    Unlike Corbyn, Burnham does not rule out airstrikes in Syria, but is cautious

    "...his party would "do the responsible thing".

    "ISIL need to be disrupted, of course they do. We would look at it seriously."

    But he added: “The message I would just send back to Cameron at this stage is: treat us with respect because it’s not about the Labour party. The Opposition is the country in this, we’ve got to test what they are saying on behalf of the country"
    Well, someone needs to be asking questions about our on-going bombing campaign. Cameron seems to have committed our military to an open ended war for which there is no obvious war aim or end point and which has meant his government have to re-write his massively flawed 2010 SDR. It is a shame that with Labour so intent on its own squabbles there is nobody that feels able to ask some very necessary questions.
    Yougov a few weeks ago had a plurality in favour of groundtroops against ISIS for the first time and a comfortable majority for airstrikes
    Air strikes are the fun equivalent of an iGame for politicians, if you want to do serious damage, you need boots on the ground.

    We do not have them. We do not have the back up supply chain.

    Please ask Dr. Liam Fox, why?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Mikkil ‏@MikkiL 2h2 hours ago
    Katie Hopkins plots new career in POLITICS...and she wants to campaign for UKIP http://ln.is/shr.gs/2Xiwa fantastic news @KTHopkins welcome

    Yes, welcome Katie, we can do with your spunk!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    antifrank said:
    Unlike Corbyn, Burnham does not rule out airstrikes in Syria, but is cautious

    "...his party would "do the responsible thing".

    "ISIL need to be disrupted, of course they do. We would look at it seriously."

    But he added: “The message I would just send back to Cameron at this stage is: treat us with respect because it’s not about the Labour party. The Opposition is the country in this, we’ve got to test what they are saying on behalf of the country"
    Well, someone needs to be asking questions about our on-going bombing campaign. Cameron seems to have committed our military to an open ended war for which there is no obvious war aim or end point and which has meant his government have to re-write his massively flawed 2010 SDR. It is a shame that with Labour so intent on its own squabbles there is nobody that feels able to ask some very necessary questions.
    Yougov a few weeks ago had a plurality in favour of groundtroops against ISIS for the first time and a comfortable majority for airstrikes
    The public is always in favour of action, until we've been in situ for a few years and then always ask "Why did we go in the first place ?"
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 20,643
    "'Marauding' migrants threaten our standard of living, says Philip Hammond

    Senior Labour figures accuse foreign secretary of scaremongering after he claims Europe ‘can’t protect itself’ if forced to take millions of migrants"


    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/09/african-migrants-threaten-eu-standard-living-philip-hammond
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,623
    RodCrosby said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @RodCrosby

    So: you think the Justices will subvert the will of the American people? My money is on some weasel reasoning that makes him eligible, should he win.

    As the Justices have made clear already, they do not accept their role includes removal of a President. That is Congress's job, either by refusing to ratify an ineligible president-elect, or by impeaching him...
    In other words, Article Two of the United States Constitution is utterly irrelevant. Congress will not fail to ratify a democratically elected President, and nor will the courts intervene.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,316

    Glad the Tea Partiests have turned on those pinko commies broadcasting their propaganda!

    Yes, it's weird seeing Fox being boycotted for not being right wing enough!

    Last month the Guardian was labelled a Tory rag by Corbynites unhappy with an editorial.

    We are not dealing with the normal run of the mill devotees here….
    You have to remember that social media can bring together odd ball people in a way that wasnt possible in the past. Some saddo in his mums bedroom could have knocked that up in ten minutes, tweets it, it gets retweeted by someone who has a journalist following him, then it becomes a big story.

    There isnt really any kind of quality control or filtering on social media. Anyone could label themselves as a Corbynite and then get someone like Brand of Owen Jones to retweet a boycott and then that becomes a big story as if it represents a general perception.

    Twitter only has so much influence because journalists and all their mates use it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Pulpstar, chocolate cake is very popular, but nobody wants to be fat.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 18,063
    Danny565 said:

    antifrank said:
    LOL, this is what I mean about some people losing all grip on what "left-wing" actually means. Even right-wing Tory MPs disagree with going into Syria.
    I'm sceptical about air strikes myself. But it's definitely a gesture to the peacenik left.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,316

    Glad the Tea Partiests have turned on those pinko commies broadcasting their propaganda!

    Yes, it's weird seeing Fox being boycotted for not being right wing enough!
    Im not sure if i read it on here or elsewhere. In the US the print media is dull boring and worthy, while its the television broadcasting where all the exciting debate and exploring of ideas come from. In the UK its the other way round.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    antifrank said:
    Unlike Corbyn, Burnham does not rule out airstrikes in Syria, but is cautious

    "...his party would "do the responsible thing".

    "ISIL need to be disrupted, of course they do. We would look at it seriously."

    But he added: “The message I would just send back to Cameron at this stage is: treat us with respect because it’s not about the Labour party. The Opposition is the country in this, we’ve got to test what they are saying on behalf of the country"
    Well, someone needs to be asking questions about our on-going bombing campaign. Cameron seems to have committed our military to an open ended war for which there is no obvious war aim or end point and which has meant his government have to re-write his massively flawed 2010 SDR. It is a shame that with Labour so intent on its own squabbles there is nobody that feels able to ask some very necessary questions.
    Yougov a few weeks ago had a plurality in favour of groundtroops against ISIS for the first time and a comfortable majority for airstrikes
    How does YouGov come into this? What has their, undoubtedly dodgy, survey got to do with asking about war aims and the SDR? If you want to argue that HMG can do what it likes if YouGov says it is OK then fair enough but I am not convinced that such an approach will lead to good governance.

    The UK is engaged in a war, its troops and treasure are being expended on bombing places and people. However, HMG seems remarkably shy of telling us what good such action is doing, how long it will go on for, and what they hope to achieve. Then last week it was quietly announced that a Squadron of Tornados that should have gone out of service under Cameron's 2010 SDR now will remain in use for at least another 12 months. Where is that extra money coming from? What is being cut to keep that squadron, which Cameron said we would not need, in service?

    Really there are lots of questions that should be being asked of HMG. What YouGov reports is neither here nor there.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 2,656
    edited August 2015
    Wonder whether you read this interview with Guido?

    https://www.mediadecoded.com/guido-fawkes-the-qa/

    He said something to that effect: "The US has news-with-views TV and bland newspapers. The UK has bland TV with vibrant and partisan newspapers. They all have their relationships with power."
    notme said:

    Glad the Tea Partiests have turned on those pinko commies broadcasting their propaganda!

    Yes, it's weird seeing Fox being boycotted for not being right wing enough!
    Im not sure if i read it on here or elsewhere. In the US the print media is dull boring and worthy, while its the television broadcasting where all the exciting debate and exploring of ideas come from. In the UK its the other way round.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 943
    AndyJS said:

    "'Marauding' migrants threaten our standard of living, says Philip Hammond

    Senior Labour figures accuse foreign secretary of scaremongering after he claims Europe ‘can’t protect itself’ if forced to take millions of migrants"


    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/09/african-migrants-threaten-eu-standard-living-philip-hammond

    Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).

    Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Eye, it's not just where to put people, it's strain on schools, hospitals, roads, the rising issue of enclaves which a politically correct establishment are unwilling to confront and so on.

    Not to mention that thousands die in attempted migration, and the ultimate goal must be to make the countries of origin safer and more prosperous.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,208
    RodCrosby said:

    Roger said:

    from the clips of the debate I've seen Senator Rubio struck me as the most impressive and Senator Cruz the least. Having a history of getting US elections wildly wrong I now expect the next President of the United States to be Senator Ted Cruz.

    Cruz is not a natural born citizen, as is made plain by both the majority and dissent in Rogers v Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

    Mr Justice BLACKMUN, delivering the opinion of the court
    'Our National Legislature indulged the foreign-born child with presumptive citizenship, subject to subsequent satisfaction of a reasonable residence requirement, rather than to deny him citizenship outright, as concededly it had the power to do, and relegate the child, if he desired American citizenship, to the more arduous requirements of the usual naturalization process...

    'The proper emphasis is on what the statute permits him to gain from the possible starting point of noncitizenship, not on what he claims to lose from the possible starting point of full citizenship to which he has no constitutional right in the first place.'


    Mr Justice BLACK, dissenting
    'Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word "naturalize" in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," Art. I, § 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.'
    (my bolds)

    You're wasting your brain cells.

    No one (serious) is going to challenge the eligibility of a presidential candidate.

    And if they are elected, the Supreme Court would never take the case
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    antifrank said:
    Unlike Corbyn, Burnham does not rule out airstrikes in Syria, but is cautious

    "...his party would "do the responsible thing".

    "ISIL need to be disrupted, of course they do. We would look at it seriously."

    But he added: “The message I would just send back to Cameron at this stage is: treat us with respect because it’s not about the Labour party. The Opposition is the country in this, we’ve got to test what they are saying on behalf of the country"
    Well, someone needs to be asking questions about our on-going bombing campaign. Cameron seems to have committed our military to an open ended war for which there is no obvious war aim or end point and which has meant his government have to re-write his massively flawed 2010 SDR. It is a shame that with Labour so intent on its own squabbles there is nobody that feels able to ask some very necessary questions.
    Yougov a few weeks ago had a plurality in favour of groundtroops against ISIS for the first time and a comfortable majority for airstrikes
    The public is always in favour of action, until we've been in situ for a few years and then always ask "Why did we go in the first place ?"
    No, the public were clearly opposed to any airstrikes on Syria, were divided on Iraq and were originally opposed to groundtroops in Syria until the Tunisia massacre
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 18,208
    rcs1000 said:

    @RodCrosby

    So: you think the Justices will subvert the will of the American people? My money is on some weasel reasoning that makes him eligible, should he win.

    You've anticipated my post.

    But I reckon the SC wouldn't even take the case.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532
    OchEye said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    antifrank said:
    Unlike Corbyn, Burnham does not rule out airstrikes in Syria, but is cautious

    "...his party would "do the responsible thing".

    "ISIL need to be disrupted, of course they do. We would look at it seriously."

    But he added: “The message I would just send back to Cameron at this stage is: treat us with respect because it’s not about the Labour party. The Opposition is the country in this, we’ve got to test what they are saying on behalf of the country"
    Well, someone needs to be asking questions about our on-going bombing campaign. Cameron seems to have committed our military to an open ended war for which there is no obvious war aim or end point and which has meant his government have to re-write his massively flawed 2010 SDR. It is a shame that with Labour so intent on its own squabbles there is nobody that feels able to ask some very necessary questions.
    Yougov a few weeks ago had a plurality in favour of groundtroops against ISIS for the first time and a comfortable majority for airstrikes
    Air strikes are the fun equivalent of an iGame for politicians, if you want to do serious damage, you need boots on the ground.

    We do not have them. We do not have the back up supply chain.

    Please ask Dr. Liam Fox, why?
    Osborne has now ringfenced defence
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    antifrank said:
    Unlike Corbyn, Burnham does not rule out airstrikes in Syria, but is cautious

    "...his party would "do the responsible thing".

    "ISIL need to be disrupted, of course they do. We would look at it seriously."

    But he added: “The message I would just send back to Cameron at this stage is: treat us with respect because it’s not about the Labour party. The Opposition is the country in this, we’ve got to test what they are saying on behalf of the country"
    Well, someone needs to be asking questions about our on-going bombing campaign. Cameron seems to have committed our military to an open ended war for which there is no obvious war aim or end point and which has meant his government have to re-write his massively flawed 2010 SDR. It is a shame that with Labour so intent on its own squabbles there is nobody that feels able to ask some very necessary questions.
    Yougov a few weeks ago had a plurality in favour of groundtroops against ISIS for the first time and a comfortable majority for airstrikes
    How does YouGov come into this? What has their, undoubtedly dodgy, survey got to do with asking about war aims and the SDR? If you want to argue that HMG can do what it likes if YouGov says it is OK then fair enough but I am not convinced that such an approach will lead to good governance.

    The UK is engaged in a war, its troops and treasure are being expended on bombing places and people. However, HMG seems remarkably shy of telling us what good such action is doing, how long it will go on for, and what they hope to achieve. Then last week it was quietly announced that a Squadron of Tornados that should have gone out of service under Cameron's 2010 SDR now will remain in use for at least another 12 months. Where is that extra money coming from? What is being cut to keep that squadron, which Cameron said we would not need, in service?

    Really there are lots of questions that should be being asked of HMG. What YouGov reports is neither here nor there.
    It helps if the government has public support and one way or another ISIS has to be confronted and cannot be ignored, even if ideally that would be part of a coalition incorporating the Kurds and regional powers
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    HYUFD said:

    OchEye said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    antifrank said:
    Unlike Corbyn, Burnham does not rule out airstrikes in Syria, but is cautious

    "...his party would "do the responsible thing".

    "ISIL need to be disrupted, of course they do. We would look at it seriously."

    But he added: “The message I would just send back to Cameron at this stage is: treat us with respect because it’s not about the Labour party. The Opposition is the country in this, we’ve got to test what they are saying on behalf of the country"
    Well, someone needs to be asking questions about our on-going bombing campaign. Cameron seems to have committed our military to an open ended war for which there is no obvious war aim or end point and which has meant his government have to re-write his massively flawed 2010 SDR. It is a shame that with Labour so intent on its own squabbles there is nobody that feels able to ask some very necessary questions.
    Yougov a few weeks ago had a plurality in favour of groundtroops against ISIS for the first time and a comfortable majority for airstrikes
    Air strikes are the fun equivalent of an iGame for politicians, if you want to do serious damage, you need boots on the ground.

    We do not have them. We do not have the back up supply chain.

    Please ask Dr. Liam Fox, why?
    Osborne has now ringfenced defence
    No, Osborne has done an accounting trick and included expenditure as defence when it isn't, then claimed the UK will meet the NATO minimum. He has also loaded onto the MoD budget items which previously were funded from elsewhere thus effecting a hidden cut. Osborne learned a lot about being Chancellor from Gordon Brown.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    rcs1000 said:

    RodCrosby said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @RodCrosby

    So: you think the Justices will subvert the will of the American people? My money is on some weasel reasoning that makes him eligible, should he win.

    As the Justices have made clear already, they do not accept their role includes removal of a President. That is Congress's job, either by refusing to ratify an ineligible president-elect, or by impeaching him...
    In other words, Article Two of the United States Constitution is utterly irrelevant. Congress will not fail to ratify a democratically elected President, and nor will the courts intervene.
    For the time being that appears to be the case. I wonder what the position would be if the president-elect was younger than 35 years, or had resided in the US for less than 14 years...
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,316

    Wonder whether you read this interview with Guido?

    https://www.mediadecoded.com/guido-fawkes-the-qa/

    He said something to that effect: "The US has news-with-views TV and bland newspapers. The UK has bland TV with vibrant and partisan newspapers. They all have their relationships with power."

    notme said:

    Glad the Tea Partiests have turned on those pinko commies broadcasting their propaganda!

    Yes, it's weird seeing Fox being boycotted for not being right wing enough!
    Im not sure if i read it on here or elsewhere. In the US the print media is dull boring and worthy, while its the television broadcasting where all the exciting debate and exploring of ideas come from. In the UK its the other way round.
    Ah yes, thats it, obviously channelling Mr Staines. There is an argument that non terrestrial TV stations are so numerous now that there should be no political restriction placed upon them.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    antifrank said:
    Unlike Corbyn, Burnham does not rule out airstrikes in Syria, but is cautious

    "...his party would "do the responsible thing".

    "ISIL need to be disrupted, of course they do. We would look at it seriously."

    But he added: “The message I would just send back to Cameron at this stage is: treat us with respect because it’s not about the Labour party. The Opposition is the country in this, we’ve got to test what they are saying on behalf of the country"
    Well, someone needs to be asking questions about our on-going bombing campaign. Cameron seems to have committed our military to an open ended war for which there is no obvious war aim or end point and which has meant his government have to re-write his massively flawed 2010 SDR. It is a shame that with Labour so intent on its own squabbles there is nobody that feels able to ask some very necessary questions.
    Yougov a few weeks ago had a plurality in favour of groundtroops against ISIS for the first time and a comfortable majority for airstrikes
    How does YouGov come into this? What has their, undoubtedly dodgy, survey got to do with asking about war aims and the SDR? If you want to argue that HMG can do what it likes if YouGov says it is OK then fair enough but I am not convinced that such an approach will lead to good governance.

    The UK is engaged in a war, its troops and treasure are being expended on bombing places and people. However, HMG seems remarkably shy of telling us what good such action is doing, how long it will go on for, and what they hope to achieve. Then last week it was quietly announced that a Squadron of Tornados that should have gone out of service under Cameron's 2010 SDR now will remain in use for at least another 12 months. Where is that extra money coming from? What is being cut to keep that squadron, which Cameron said we would not need, in service?

    Really there are lots of questions that should be being asked of HMG. What YouGov reports is neither here nor there.
    It helps if the government has public support and one way or another ISIS has to be confronted and cannot be ignored, even if ideally that would be part of a coalition incorporating the Kurds and regional powers
    I agree. However, that doesn't mean HMG should not have to answer questions about what it is doing.
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    As I typed politicalbetting into the iPad, i sang it to the tune of 'polly' by nirvana... Anyone else done that?
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 943

    Mr. Eye, it's not just where to put people, it's strain on schools, hospitals, roads, the rising issue of enclaves which a politically correct establishment are unwilling to confront and so on.

    Not to mention that thousands die in attempted migration, and the ultimate goal must be to make the countries of origin safer and more prosperous.

    Mr Dancer,

    The problem exists that we in the UK are living in one of the richest countries on this planet.

    We have never funded countries in Africa and Asia to the extent that now it is far easier to make a living with an AK47 in your hand rather than back breaking work tilling fields.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Eye, funding other countries?

    That's a mad idea.

    What's required is stability, opportunity, economic growth and so on. Just throwing money at countries is not sensible.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 943
    5

    Mr. Eye, funding other countries?

    That's a mad idea.

    What's required is stability, opportunity, economic growth and so on. Just throwing money at countries is not sensible.

    Your choice, their fingers on triggers. Which would you rather be, in front of the barrel or behind?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 40,070
    Mr. Eye, not sure being against throwing money at every country less wealthy than us amounts to a choice between getting shot or toting a gun.

    Anyway, I am off for the night.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,939
    Is Trump sensing a threat?

    @realDonaldTrump: I just realized that if you listen to Carly Fiorina for more than ten minutes straight, you develop a massive headache. She has zero chance!
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 42,097
    We were quite heavily involved in a fair few countries in Asia and Africa around a couple of hundred years ago...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532

    HYUFD said:

    OchEye said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    antifrank said:
    Unlike Corbyn, Burnham does not rule out airstrikes in Syria, but is cautious

    "...his party would "do the responsible thing".

    "ISIL need to be disrupted, of course they do. We would look at it seriously."

    But he added: “The message I would just send back to Cameron at this stage is: treat us with respect because it’s not about the Labour party. The Opposition is the country in this, we’ve got to test what they are saying on behalf of the country"
    Well, someone needs to be asking questions about our on-going bombing campaign. Cameron seems to have committed our military to an open ended war for which there is no obvious war aim or end point and which has meant his government have to re-write his massively flawed 2010 SDR. It is a shame that with Labour so intent on its own squabbles there is nobody that feels able to ask some very necessary questions.
    Yougov a few weeks ago had a plurality in favour of groundtroops against ISIS for the first time and a comfortable majority for airstrikes
    Air strikes are the fun equivalent of an iGame for politicians, if you want to do serious damage, you need boots on the ground.

    We do not have them. We do not have the back up supply chain.

    Please ask Dr. Liam Fox, why?
    Osborne has now ringfenced defence
    No, Osborne has done an accounting trick and included expenditure as defence when it isn't, then claimed the UK will meet the NATO minimum. He has also loaded onto the MoD budget items which previously were funded from elsewhere thus effecting a hidden cut. Osborne learned a lot about being Chancellor from Gordon Brown.
    He included spending on the secret services, but arguably they play as important a role against the likes of ISIS as conventional forces
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 943

    Mr. Eye, not sure being against throwing money at every country less wealthy than us amounts to a choice between getting shot or toting a gun.

    Anyway, I am off for the night.

    Sweet dreams, just don't think of the opening sequences in the 007 films which is "shot" through the barrel of a gun, just before Bond turns, shoots, and the blood red colour rolls over the screen. Oops, Sorry.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,532

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    antifrank said:
    Unlike Corbyn, Burnham does not rule out airstrikes in Syria, but is cautious

    "...his party would "do the responsible thing".

    "ISIL need to be disrupted, of course they do. We would look at it seriously."

    But he added: “The message I would just send back to Cameron at this stage is: treat us with respect because it’s not about the Labour party. The Opposition is the country in this, we’ve got to test what they are saying on behalf of the country"
    Well, someone needs to be asking questions about our on-going bombing campaign. Cameron seems to have committed our military to an open ended war for which there is no obvious war aim or end point and which has meant his government have to re-write his massively flawed 2010 SDR. It is a shame that with Labour so intent on its own squabbles there is nobody that feels able to ask some very necessary questions.
    Yougov a few weeks ago had a plurality in favour of groundtroops against ISIS for the first time and a comfortable majority for airstrikes
    How does YouGov come into this? What has their, undoubtedly dodgy, survey got to do with asking about war aims and the SDR? If you want to argue that HMG can do what it likes if YouGov says it is OK then fair enough but I am not convinced that such an approach will lead to good governance.

    The UK is engaged in a war, its troops and treasure are being expended on bombing places and people. However, HMG seems remarkably shy of telling us what good such action is doing, how long it will go on for, and what they hope to achieve. Then last week it was quietly announced that a Squadron of Tornados that should have gone out of service under Cameron's 2010 SDR now will remain in use for at least another 12 months. Where is that extra money coming from? What is being cut to keep that squadron, which Cameron said we would not need, in service?

    Really there are lots of questions that should be being asked of HMG. What YouGov reports is neither here nor there.
    It helps if the government has public support and one way or another ISIS has to be confronted and cannot be ignored, even if ideally that would be part of a coalition incorporating the Kurds and regional powers
    I agree. However, that doesn't mean HMG should not have to answer questions about what it is doing.
    That is true
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 6,803
    OchEye said:

    AndyJS said:

    "'Marauding' migrants threaten our standard of living, says Philip Hammond

    Senior Labour figures accuse foreign secretary of scaremongering after he claims Europe ‘can’t protect itself’ if forced to take millions of migrants"


    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/09/african-migrants-threaten-eu-standard-living-philip-hammond

    Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).

    Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
    When you start to live in one of England's overcrowded cities you might shut up about scare mongering pal.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,127
    OchEye said:

    AndyJS said:

    "'Marauding' migrants threaten our standard of living, says Philip Hammond

    Senior Labour figures accuse foreign secretary of scaremongering after he claims Europe ‘can’t protect itself’ if forced to take millions of migrants"


    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/09/african-migrants-threaten-eu-standard-living-philip-hammond

    Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).

    Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
    "We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man"

    Infrastructure? Schools? Hospitals? Places to work? Places to party? Buying food? Relaxing?

    Don't be silly.

  • I've just realised that I could have even more fun with puns involving Trump than I did with Ed Balls or Greece.

    Trump for President.
  • I thought the Cybernats were batshit crazy deluded halfwits but you must be in Bizarro world if you think Fox News is a front for pinkos and lefties.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,112
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/08/the-british-left-s-hypocritical-embrace-of-islamism.html

    Written by someone who knows what he is talking about, unlike idiots like Corbyn.
  • The Times are reporting Tory MPs are going to revolt over cuts to tax credits that are paid to soap dodging parasites on welfare who breed like rabbits the poor
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,369
    OchEye said:

    AndyJS said:

    "'Marauding' migrants threaten our standard of living, says Philip Hammond

    Senior Labour figures accuse foreign secretary of scaremongering after he claims Europe ‘can’t protect itself’ if forced to take millions of migrants"


    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/09/african-migrants-threaten-eu-standard-living-philip-hammond

    Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).

    Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
    The Isle of Man seems an eminently sensible place for us to park our illegal immigrants. Why has no one thought about it before?
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 2,656
    notme said:

    Wonder whether you read this interview with Guido?

    https://www.mediadecoded.com/guido-fawkes-the-qa/

    He said something to that effect: "The US has news-with-views TV and bland newspapers. The UK has bland TV with vibrant and partisan newspapers. They all have their relationships with power."

    notme said:

    Glad the Tea Partiests have turned on those pinko commies broadcasting their propaganda!

    Yes, it's weird seeing Fox being boycotted for not being right wing enough!
    Im not sure if i read it on here or elsewhere. In the US the print media is dull boring and worthy, while its the television broadcasting where all the exciting debate and exploring of ideas come from. In the UK its the other way round.
    Ah yes, thats it, obviously channelling Mr Staines. There is an argument that non terrestrial TV stations are so numerous now that there should be no political restriction placed upon them.
    I think Guido's said that before. Thought it was an interesting point, though it's hardly fair to say that US newspapers stick rigidly to neutrality. Compare the Washington Times to the New York Times (or indeed the Washington Post). And some minor channels in Britain have only a dubious claim to impartiality; RT advertises itself as an "alternative" to the mainstream media. Though best-suited to conspiracy theorists and Putinophiles.
  • flightpath01flightpath01 Posts: 4,903
    notme said:

    Glad the Tea Partiests have turned on those pinko commies broadcasting their propaganda!

    Yes, it's weird seeing Fox being boycotted for not being right wing enough!

    Last month the Guardian was labelled a Tory rag by Corbynites unhappy with an editorial.

    We are not dealing with the normal run of the mill devotees here….
    You have to remember that social media can bring together odd ball people in a way that wasnt possible in the past. Some saddo in his mums bedroom could have knocked that up in ten minutes, tweets it, it gets retweeted by someone who has a journalist following him, then it becomes a big story.

    There isnt really any kind of quality control or filtering on social media. Anyone could label themselves as a Corbynite and then get someone like Brand of Owen Jones to retweet a boycott and then that becomes a big story as if it represents a general perception.

    Twitter only has so much influence because journalists and all their mates use it.
    The cross section of Corbynites interviewed attending one of his meetings on BBC News a short while ago did not show much variation from a pretty predicable red flag flying norm. The cost of flying that flag is the last thing on their minds.
  • ReggieCideReggieCide Posts: 2,369

    notme said:

    Glad the Tea Partiests have turned on those pinko commies broadcasting their propaganda!

    Yes, it's weird seeing Fox being boycotted for not being right wing enough!

    Last month the Guardian was labelled a Tory rag by Corbynites unhappy with an editorial.

    We are not dealing with the normal run of the mill devotees here….
    You have to remember that social media can bring together odd ball people in a way that wasnt possible in the past. Some saddo in his mums bedroom could have knocked that up in ten minutes, tweets it, it gets retweeted by someone who has a journalist following him, then it becomes a big story.

    There isnt really any kind of quality control or filtering on social media. Anyone could label themselves as a Corbynite and then get someone like Brand of Owen Jones to retweet a boycott and then that becomes a big story as if it represents a general perception.

    Twitter only has so much influence because journalists and all their mates use it.
    The cross section of Corbynites interviewed attending one of his meetings on BBC News a short while ago did not show much variation from a pretty predicable red flag flying norm. The cost of flying that flag is the last thing on their minds.
    The BBC is expert at finding needles in haystacks so it's no surprise it can find reds up Corbyn's jacksie.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 7,335

    notme said:

    Wonder whether you read this interview with Guido?

    https://www.mediadecoded.com/guido-fawkes-the-qa/

    He said something to that effect: "The US has news-with-views TV and bland newspapers. The UK has bland TV with vibrant and partisan newspapers. They all have their relationships with power."

    notme said:

    Glad the Tea Partiests have turned on those pinko commies broadcasting their propaganda!

    Yes, it's weird seeing Fox being boycotted for not being right wing enough!
    Im not sure if i read it on here or elsewhere. In the US the print media is dull boring and worthy, while its the television broadcasting where all the exciting debate and exploring of ideas come from. In the UK its the other way round.
    Ah yes, thats it, obviously channelling Mr Staines. There is an argument that non terrestrial TV stations are so numerous now that there should be no political restriction placed upon them.
    I think Guido's said that before. Thought it was an interesting point, though it's hardly fair to say that US newspapers stick rigidly to neutrality. Compare the Washington Times to the New York Times (or indeed the Washington Post). And some minor channels in Britain have only a dubious claim to impartiality; RT advertises itself as an "alternative" to the mainstream media. Though best-suited to conspiracy theorists and Putinophiles.
    I'll be impressed if you can find any alternative to the mainstream media that isn't vilified as a haven for 'conspiracy theorists'. The latter is an automatic consequence of the former.
  • mattmatt Posts: 1,612

    The Times are reporting Tory MPs are going to revolt over cuts to tax credits that are paid to soap dodging parasites on welfare who breed like rabbits the poor

    Quite possibly true but bear in mind I suspect journalists are desperate for any story other than Labour MPS fling shit at each other like monkeys on speed. Is Davis Davis in London and hunting for someone to listen to him?
  • matt said:

    The Times are reporting Tory MPs are going to revolt over cuts to tax credits that are paid to soap dodging parasites on welfare who breed like rabbits the poor

    Quite possibly true but bear in mind I suspect journalists are desperate for any story other than Labour MPS fling shit at each other like monkeys on speed. Is Davis Davis in London and hunting for someone to listen to him?
    Guto Bebb and Andrew Percy are the MPs who have gone on the record.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    notme said:

    Wonder whether you read this interview with Guido?

    https://www.mediadecoded.com/guido-fawkes-the-qa/

    He said something to that effect: "The US has news-with-views TV and bland newspapers. The UK has bland TV with vibrant and partisan newspapers. They all have their relationships with power."

    notme said:

    Glad the Tea Partiests have turned on those pinko commies broadcasting their propaganda!

    Yes, it's weird seeing Fox being boycotted for not being right wing enough!
    Im not sure if i read it on here or elsewhere. In the US the print media is dull boring and worthy, while its the television broadcasting where all the exciting debate and exploring of ideas come from. In the UK its the other way round.
    Ah yes, thats it, obviously channelling Mr Staines. There is an argument that non terrestrial TV stations are so numerous now that there should be no political restriction placed upon them.
    I think Guido's said that before. Thought it was an interesting point, though it's hardly fair to say that US newspapers stick rigidly to neutrality. Compare the Washington Times to the New York Times (or indeed the Washington Post). And some minor channels in Britain have only a dubious claim to impartiality; RT advertises itself as an "alternative" to the mainstream media. Though best-suited to conspiracy theorists and Putinophiles.
    I'll be impressed if you can find any alternative to the mainstream media that isn't vilified as a haven for 'conspiracy theorists'. The latter is an automatic consequence of the former.
    That's because you claim everything from the New York Times to Fox News to the Daily Kos to all be the same 'mainstream media' because they all believe 9/11 was not an inside job.
  • notmenotme Posts: 2,316
    matt said:

    The Times are reporting Tory MPs are going to revolt over cuts to tax credits that are paid to soap dodging parasites on welfare who breed like rabbits the poor

    Quite possibly true but bear in mind I suspect journalists are desperate for any story other than Labour MPS fling shit at each other like monkeys on speed. Is Davis Davis in London and hunting for someone to listen to him?
    I dont think youll find a single Tory MP who thinks that tax credits in their current state are in anyway desirable. But we are where we are. The system definitely needs to be massively curbed. But this is going to cause difficulties. People need to be weaned off these kind of things. The business of government carries on, it doesnt matter how quickly a saving comes on stream as long as it happens. You put systems in place that change as peoples circumstances change.

    Same for the spare room subsidy. Anyone with more than an ounce of common sense could tell that it was an absurd situation that somehow the size of your family had no connection to the amount of housing benefit you would receive in the public sector but did in the private sector. But changing peoples lives so dramatically and quickly caused unnecessary difficulties.

    It would have been no issue at all to phase it in. First of all to apply to all new tenants, then to apply a single room penalty for the first year and a second room penalty after that.

    Give people time to adjust.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    edited August 2015
    Cyclefree said:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/08/the-british-left-s-hypocritical-embrace-of-islamism.html

    Written by someone who knows what he is talking about, unlike idiots like Corbyn.

    Those poll numbers are very worrying. It sounds like 30 to 40% of Muslims are seriously extreme, even if they are not jihadists. It was a serious mistake to let these families in. Labour still refuses to admit its mistakes here. The Conservatives are starting to get a grip, but I worry that more religious extremists will just come via Marseille or Rotterdam once they have EU passports.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    OchEye said:

    AndyJS said:

    "'Marauding' migrants threaten our standard of living, says Philip Hammond

    Senior Labour figures accuse foreign secretary of scaremongering after he claims Europe ‘can’t protect itself’ if forced to take millions of migrants"


    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/09/african-migrants-threaten-eu-standard-living-philip-hammond

    Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).

    Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
    When you start to live in one of England's overcrowded cities you might shut up about scare mongering pal.
    Or a town in the home counties where they constantly want to build on the beautiful countryside adjacent to them.
  • The Times are reporting Tory MPs are going to revolt over cuts to tax credits that are paid to soap dodging parasites on welfare who breed like rabbits the poor

    LOL what???!!!

    I wonder why.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Someone is a natural born American if they are born naturally an American. That means anyone American at birth. The place of birth is irrelevent and never factored into American citizenship law until after the Civil War.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 943

    OchEye said:

    AndyJS said:

    "'Marauding' migrants threaten our standard of living, says Philip Hammond

    Senior Labour figures accuse foreign secretary of scaremongering after he claims Europe ‘can’t protect itself’ if forced to take millions of migrants"


    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/09/african-migrants-threaten-eu-standard-living-philip-hammond

    Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).

    Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
    The Isle of Man seems an eminently sensible place for us to park our illegal immigrants. Why has no one thought about it before?
    Mr Cide,

    I do trust you are being sarcastic rather than possibly being as thick as a knot in a plank
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,579

    The Times are reporting Tory MPs are going to revolt over cuts to tax credits that are paid to soap dodging parasites on welfare who breed like rabbits the poor

    Well well. This again shows why so many Labour members want a leader who's actually committed to doing some Opposition, rather than a leader who whips Labour MPs to abstain. There's going to be opportunities to stop Tory things hapenning right now with just a small number of Tory MPs who have a bit of conscience.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 943

    OchEye said:

    AndyJS said:

    "'Marauding' migrants threaten our standard of living, says Philip Hammond

    Senior Labour figures accuse foreign secretary of scaremongering after he claims Europe ‘can’t protect itself’ if forced to take millions of migrants"


    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/09/african-migrants-threaten-eu-standard-living-philip-hammond

    Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).

    Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
    "We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man"

    Infrastructure? Schools? Hospitals? Places to work? Places to party? Buying food? Relaxing?

    Don't be silly.

    Ah! Someone who has difficulty in using their reading skills, which part of :" We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible). " did you not understand?
  • Danny565 said:

    The Times are reporting Tory MPs are going to revolt over cuts to tax credits that are paid to soap dodging parasites on welfare who breed like rabbits the poor

    Well well. This again shows why so many Labour members want a leader who's actually committed to doing some Opposition, rather than a leader who whips Labour MPs to abstain. There's going to be opportunities to stop Tory things hapenning right now with just a small number of Tory MPs who have a bit of conscience.
    With Corbyn as leader, complacency from Tory MPs that he'll lead Labour to oblivion could help with this as well.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    JEO said:

    Someone is a natural born American if they are born naturally an American. That means anyone American at birth. The place of birth is irrelevent and never factored into American citizenship law until after the Civil War.

    Rubbish. Aside from the Naturalization Acts from 1790 onwards conferring naturalized citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens, as explained in Rogers v Bellei we have....

    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring): “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.’"

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857) (J. Daniel concurring)

    'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.

    (my bold)
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 943

    OchEye said:

    AndyJS said:

    "'Marauding' migrants threaten our standard of living, says Philip Hammond

    Senior Labour figures accuse foreign secretary of scaremongering after he claims Europe ‘can’t protect itself’ if forced to take millions of migrants"


    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/09/african-migrants-threaten-eu-standard-living-philip-hammond

    Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).

    Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
    When you start to live in one of England's overcrowded cities you might shut up about scare mongering pal.
    And when you decide to leave your over crowded city, which believe it or not, doesn't really exist in the UK compared to other parts of the planet, you will still find that the built over parts of the country only accounts for 2.5% of the total land mass.

    You are being conned into believing a myth.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    Both pundits in the BBC newspaper wrap-up are agreeing that Philip Hammond is using racist language and whipping up hatred against immigrants. Presenter nods in agreement.

    Fair and balanced.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    RodCrosby said:

    JEO said:

    Someone is a natural born American if they are born naturally an American. That means anyone American at birth. The place of birth is irrelevent and never factored into American citizenship law until after the Civil War.

    Rubbish. Aside from the Naturalization Acts from 1790 onwards conferring naturalized citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens, as explained in Rogers v Bellei we have....

    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring): “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.’"

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857) (J. Daniel concurring)

    'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.

    (my bold)
    Actually the Naturalization Act of 1790, the chronologically closest US law to the signing of the constitution states this:

    "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    edited August 2015

    The Times are reporting Tory MPs are going to revolt over cuts to tax credits that are paid to soap dodging parasites on welfare who breed like rabbits the poor

    Are there actual figures which show what percentage of overall child benefit [ I know they are not tax credits ] are given to the 3rd, 4th....nth children. Since many parents have only one child, I suspect the figure for more than 2 children is less than 5%.

    CB could be seen also as an encouragement to have more British born children. We know , if the birth rate is less than 2.1 then population will eventually begin to fall unless...........

    ,,,,,,,,,,we have immigration. Someone has to work and pay the taxes !
  • isamisam Posts: 24,352
    JEO said:

    Both pundits in the BBC newspaper wrap-up are agreeing that Philip Hammond is using racist language and whipping up hatred against immigrants. Presenter nods in agreement.

    Fair and balanced.

    And had Farage said it, the partisan fools on here would be frothing with faux outrage
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    OchEye said:

    AndyJS said:

    "'Marauding' migrants threaten our standard of living, says Philip Hammond

    Senior Labour figures accuse foreign secretary of scaremongering after he claims Europe ‘can’t protect itself’ if forced to take millions of migrants"


    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/09/african-migrants-threaten-eu-standard-living-philip-hammond

    Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).

    Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
    The Isle of Man seems an eminently sensible place for us to park our illegal immigrants. Why has no one thought about it before?
    They don't like 'comeovers' (people from the mainland) in the IOM. Illegals would stand no chance...

    Rockall would be a better prospect, for a handful at least.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 6,579
    edited August 2015
    JEO said:

    Both pundits in the BBC newspaper wrap-up are agreeing that Philip Hammond is using racist language and whipping up hatred against immigrants. Presenter nods in agreement.

    Fair and balanced.

    One of the pundits was from the Sun, tbf it would've been a fair assumption to think she would take the opposite views to Yasmin Alibhai Brown when the BBC booked her :p
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,385

    Danny565 said:

    The Times are reporting Tory MPs are going to revolt over cuts to tax credits that are paid to soap dodging parasites on welfare who breed like rabbits the poor

    Well well. This again shows why so many Labour members want a leader who's actually committed to doing some Opposition, rather than a leader who whips Labour MPs to abstain. There's going to be opportunities to stop Tory things hapenning right now with just a small number of Tory MPs who have a bit of conscience.
    With Corbyn as leader, complacency from Tory MPs that he'll lead Labour to oblivion could help with this as well.
    I think it'd actually make Tory MPs more weary of rebelling in that they'd have to vote with a big left wing block. Labour's best chance of getting rebel Tory MPs on side is to appear reasonable and not vote against everything. There's certainly an 'idealistic' wing of the Conservative party like Goldsmith, Rees Mogg, Davis etc. who couldn't care less about the effect on the party if they think it's worth taking a stand.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 943
    RodCrosby said:

    OchEye said:

    AndyJS said:

    "'Marauding' migrants threaten our standard of living, says Philip Hammond

    Senior Labour figures accuse foreign secretary of scaremongering after he claims Europe ‘can’t protect itself’ if forced to take millions of migrants"


    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/aug/09/african-migrants-threaten-eu-standard-living-philip-hammond

    Interesting facts much overlooked, only 2.5% of the UK is built on. We could hold the entire human population on the Isle of Man (not comfortably admittedly, but possible).

    Scare mongering sells papers, take what you read with a pinch of salt, and you will probably be over spicing the media.
    The Isle of Man seems an eminently sensible place for us to park our illegal immigrants. Why has no one thought about it before?
    They don't like 'comeovers' (people from the mainland) in the IOM. Illegals would stand no chance...

    Rockall would be a better prospect, for a handful at least.
    Suggest that some people read the second world war history of the IoM when it was used as a forced internment camp
  • Artist said:

    Danny565 said:

    The Times are reporting Tory MPs are going to revolt over cuts to tax credits that are paid to soap dodging parasites on welfare who breed like rabbits the poor

    Well well. This again shows why so many Labour members want a leader who's actually committed to doing some Opposition, rather than a leader who whips Labour MPs to abstain. There's going to be opportunities to stop Tory things hapenning right now with just a small number of Tory MPs who have a bit of conscience.
    With Corbyn as leader, complacency from Tory MPs that he'll lead Labour to oblivion could help with this as well.
    I think it'd actually make Tory MPs more weary of rebelling in that they'd have to vote with a big left wing block. Labour's best chance of getting rebel Tory MPs on side is to appear reasonable and not vote against everything. There's certainly an 'idealistic' wing of the Conservative party like Goldsmith, Rees Mogg, Davis etc. who couldn't care less about the effect on the party if they think it's worth taking a stand.
    I originally thought too - however, alternatively there is the idea that it doesn't matter if the Tories vote with a big left-wing block. That they'll consider Corbyn so unelectable that when push comes to shove, people will still opt Tory anyway - that the argument of destabilising the party is false, given they are up against a candidate that won't win a GE anyway, so there is no reason to toe the party line. Indeed, some may rationalise that opposing measures like this may make the Tories look less right-wing, and more moderate.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    JEO said:

    RodCrosby said:

    JEO said:

    Someone is a natural born American if they are born naturally an American. That means anyone American at birth. The place of birth is irrelevent and never factored into American citizenship law until after the Civil War.

    Rubbish. Aside from the Naturalization Acts from 1790 onwards conferring naturalized citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens, as explained in Rogers v Bellei we have....

    The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring): “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.’"

    “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857) (J. Daniel concurring)

    'At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.' Minor v. Happersett (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.

    (my bold)
    Actually the Naturalization Act of 1790, the chronologically closest US law to the signing of the constitution states this:

    "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."
    Indeed. "considered as" is the language of naturalization. And Congress realized they had sowed confusion (under which you are still labouring) when they removed the NBC wording in 1795. No statute since has purported to confer NBC status on anyone, as obviously they can't...
Sign In or Register to comment.