I live near the southern end of the Appalachian Trail, and once in a while the idea of hiking the 2,100 miles popped into my mind, but reading "AWOL on the Appalachian Trail" cured me completely of any such notion.
Bill Bryson, a man who I greatly admire, wrote a book on his attempt on the Appalachian Trial. After reading that I was torn between, "Yes I really want to do it" (only if accompanied by several fierce and totally loyal German Shepherds, plus one or two people with light machine guns) and, "Sod that for a game of soldiers".
The USA can seem like a tricky place.
Yes, I too love Bill Bryson. He lived in Yorkshire and married a Yorkshire girl.
He even wrote an article for National Geographic on Blackpool, where I was born. It's sad to see how far it has fallen.
I live near the southern end of the Appalachian Trail, and once in a while the idea of hiking the 2,100 miles popped into my mind, but reading "AWOL on the Appalachian Trail" cured me completely of any such notion.
Bill Bryson, a man who I greatly admire, wrote a book on his attempt on the Appalachian Trial. After reading that I was torn between, "Yes I really want to do it" (only if accompanied by several fierce and totally loyal German Shepherds, plus one or two people with light machine guns) and, "Sod that for a game of soldiers".
The USA can seem like a tricky place.
"A Walk In The Woods" - published at the turn of the century and it sat unread on my bookshelf for at least five years. I regretted that as soon as I picked it up. Very good book.
My own sleeping problems aren't combining too well with the little 'un's.
The South Downs is a wonderful trail, and one I'd love to do again, although I've done most of it twice at various times. As for the extension, I have a book in front of me stating that the trail opened from Buriton, and it's also online: google 'buriton 1972 south downs way'.
It's not uncommon. The hideous Speyside Way used to end north of Aviemore, but most people just walked on to the larger town. It's now being extended to (I think) Newtonmore.
But all this talking of long-distance walk is making me slightly depressed. I miss the trails ...
I know what you mean about missing the trails and what not. As you get on a bit, though, you might find that you are actually scared to go back over old trails because they might not be as good as you remember them or that the memories of what you did the first time around just heighten how little you can do now or that it has just damn well changed and the world has moved on. As my old mentor once told me, "Never go back".
I still fancy the South Downs Way, though wild horses wouldn't get me up in Snowdonia again and everytime I look at the Thames I just feel sad and old.
I live near the southern end of the Appalachian Trail, and once in a while the idea of hiking the 2,100 miles popped into my mind, but reading "AWOL on the Appalachian Trail" cured me completely of any such notion.
coward
In this particular case, a badge I wear with pride. It takes about 6 months - at least.
I think we should move on. Mr. Jessop might still be about and he seems to have enough on his plate without tortured dreams of walking a two thousand mile wilderness trail.
I live near the southern end of the Appalachian Trail, and once in a while the idea of hiking the 2,100 miles popped into my mind, but reading "AWOL on the Appalachian Trail" cured me completely of any such notion.
Bill Bryson, a man who I greatly admire, wrote a book on his attempt on the Appalachian Trial. After reading that I was torn between, "Yes I really want to do it" (only if accompanied by several fierce and totally loyal German Shepherds, plus one or two people with light machine guns) and, "Sod that for a game of soldiers".
The USA can seem like a tricky place.
Yes, I too love Bill Bryson. He lived in Yorkshire and married a Yorkshire girl.
He even wrote an article for National Geographic on Blackpool, where I was born. It's sad to see how far it has fallen.
I read a Bryson book called running with the hooligans, it was utter rubbish
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
True, but in the Electoral College in 2012 Obama won 61% of Electoral College votes on only 51% of the popular vote, while Romney won only 38% of Electoral College votes despite winning 47% of the national popular vote
The Presidential election is the only one where the demographics favour the Democrats. Don't forget what an awful state the Dem Party is in at the State level, from whence the political bench arises and redistricting is conducted.
My own sleeping problems aren't combining too well with the little 'un's.
The South Downs is a wonderful trail, and one I'd love to do again, although I've done most of it twice at various times. As for the extension, I have a book in front of me stating that the trail opened from Buriton, and it's also online: google 'buriton 1972 south downs way'.
It's not uncommon. The hideous Speyside Way used to end north of Aviemore, but most people just walked on to the larger town. It's now being extended to (I think) Newtonmore.
But all this talking of long-distance walk is making me slightly depressed. I miss the trails ...
I know what you mean about missing the trails and what not. As you get on a bit, though, you might find that you are actually scared to go back over old trails because they might not be as good as you remember them or that the memories of what you did the first time around just heighten how little you can do now or that it has just damn well changed and the world has moved on. As my old mentor once told me, "Never go back".
I still fancy the South Downs Way, though wild horses wouldn't get me up in Snowdonia again and everytime I look at the Thames I just feel sad and old.
I live near the southern end of the Appalachian Trail, and once in a while the idea of hiking the 2,100 miles popped into my mind, but reading "AWOL on the Appalachian Trail" cured me completely of any such notion.
coward
In this particular case, a badge I wear with pride. It takes about 6 months - at least.
I think we should move on. Mr. Jessop might still be about and he seems to have enough on his plate without tortured dreams of walking a two thousand mile wilderness trail.
He could always go to my wife's college and see Clint Eastwood and Tom Hanks on location....
I live near the southern end of the Appalachian Trail, and once in a while the idea of hiking the 2,100 miles popped into my mind, but reading "AWOL on the Appalachian Trail" cured me completely of any such notion.
Bill Bryson, a man who I greatly admire, wrote a book on his attempt on the Appalachian Trial. After reading that I was torn between, "Yes I really want to do it" (only if accompanied by several fierce and totally loyal German Shepherds, plus one or two people with light machine guns) and, "Sod that for a game of soldiers".
The USA can seem like a tricky place.
"A Walk In The Woods" - published at the turn of the century and it sat unread on my bookshelf for at least five years. I regretted that as soon as I picked it up. Very good book.
Not his best book, frankly. But yes, good enough.
I'd admire BB a great deal more if he didn't deny that we desperately need more housing, much of which can only be built on green belt land. He lives, to judge from his book At Home, in a big detached Norfolk rectory, no doubt with plenty of land, while denying almost anybody under about 50 the opportunity to have a similar standard of living.
Not to say he isn't a most entertaining writer of course. My favourite BB moment was when he was backpacking around Europe with a friend as a 20-year-old. They are sharing a hostel dorm room with two men, whose nationality they can't work out, but who kept having sex. They never found out their nationalities, "but we suspected that one of them was Australian, since he seemed much more comfortable Down Under".
I read that aloud to a friend while he was driving and almost caused a serious accident.
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
True, but in the Electoral College in 2012 Obama won 61% of Electoral College votes on only 51% of the popular vote, while Romney won only 38% of Electoral College votes despite winning 47% of the national popular vote
The Presidential election is the only one where the demographics favour the Democrats. Don't forget what an awful state the Dem Party is in at the State level, from whence the political bench arises and redistricting is conducted.
Yes, so while the GOP may have favourable districts for the midterms when it comes to the general election Democrats have a clear advantage in that they can win more states and electoral votes for the same share of the popular vote as a Republican candidate would receive. The presidency still remains the key prize and always will be, winning at the state level tends to be a reflection of opposition to the party in power in the Oval Office, much like local elections in the UK
I live near the southern end of the Appalachian Trail, and once in a while the idea of hiking the 2,100 miles popped into my mind, but reading "AWOL on the Appalachian Trail" cured me completely of any such notion.
Bill Bryson, a man who I greatly admire, wrote a book on his attempt on the Appalachian Trial. After reading that I was torn between, "Yes I really want to do it" (only if accompanied by several fierce and totally loyal German Shepherds, plus one or two people with light machine guns) and, "Sod that for a game of soldiers".
The USA can seem like a tricky place.
"A Walk In The Woods" - published at the turn of the century and it sat unread on my bookshelf for at least five years. I regretted that as soon as I picked it up. Very good book.
Indeed it is, Mr. M., as are all of Mr. Bryson's books. Alas in Herself's last enforced clear out of my bookshelves, my complete Bryson Collection went to the charity shop (where the book section is run by Herself).
Personally, I think the best thing Bryson has done is "Down Under". It even beats "Notes from a small Island" (which to be honest largely describes an England that has long gone and I now find rather sad). However, I haven't read his latest one that seems to have attracted so much attention in the press.
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
I live near the southern end of the Appalachian Trail, and once in a while the idea of hiking the 2,100 miles popped into my mind, but reading "AWOL on the Appalachian Trail" cured me completely of any such notion.
Bill Bryson, a man who I greatly admire, wrote a book on his attempt on the Appalachian Trial. After reading that I was torn between, "Yes I really want to do it" (only if accompanied by several fierce and totally loyal German Shepherds, plus one or two people with light machine guns) and, "Sod that for a game of soldiers".
The USA can seem like a tricky place.
Yes, I too love Bill Bryson. He lived in Yorkshire and married a Yorkshire girl.
He even wrote an article for National Geographic on Blackpool, where I was born. It's sad to see how far it has fallen.
I read a Bryson book called running with the hooligans, it was utter rubbish
I live near the southern end of the Appalachian Trail, and once in a while the idea of hiking the 2,100 miles popped into my mind, but reading "AWOL on the Appalachian Trail" cured me completely of any such notion.
Bill Bryson, a man who I greatly admire, wrote a book on his attempt on the Appalachian Trial. After reading that I was torn between, "Yes I really want to do it" (only if accompanied by several fierce and totally loyal German Shepherds, plus one or two people with light machine guns) and, "Sod that for a game of soldiers".
The USA can seem like a tricky place.
"A Walk In The Woods" - published at the turn of the century and it sat unread on my bookshelf for at least five years. I regretted that as soon as I picked it up. Very good book.
Not his best book, frankly. But yes, good enough.
I'd admire BB a great deal more if he didn't deny that we desperately need more housing, much of which can only be built on green belt land. He lives, to judge from his book At Home, in a big detached Norfolk rectory, no doubt with plenty of land, while denying almost anybody under about 50 the opportunity to have a similar standard of living.
Not to say he isn't a most entertaining writer of course. My favourite BB moment was when he was backpacking around Europe with a friend as a 20-year-old. They are sharing a hostel dorm room with two men, whose nationality they can't work out, but who kept having sex. They never found out their nationalities, "but we suspected that one of them was Australian, since he seemed much more comfortable Down Under".
I read that aloud to a friend while he was driving and almost caused a serious accident.
I find him hilarious for about the first third of his books and then it begins to pall. My two favorite books of his are the two he wrote on the English language - 'The Mother Tongue' and "Made in America".
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Sorry for the late reply (was watching Suffragette) but yes, Republicans in their present mood seem to be placing ideology above electability, much like Labour have done
I find him hilarious for about the first third of his books and then it begins to pall. My two favorite books of his are the two he wrote on the English language - 'The Mother Tongue' and "Made in America".
Mother Tongue - the chapter on the first thousand years, which describes the history of English up to Shakespeare, is the best light summary of that subject that I have ever read.
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
PB will tell you that Merkel is a PC Multiculti Radical Leftist.
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
True, but in the Electoral College in 2012 Obama won 61% of Electoral College votes on only 51% of the popular vote, while Romney won only 38% of Electoral College votes despite winning 47% of the national popular vote
The Presidential election is the only one where the demographics favour the Democrats. Don't forget what an awful state the Dem Party is in at the State level, from whence the political bench arises and redistricting is conducted.
Although not by much. Obama won by 3.9% nationally. The state that gave him victory was Colorado, which he won by 5.6% but the next state below that was Virginia, where the margin was almost exactly the national average.
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
PB will tell you that Merkel is a PC Multiculti Radical Leftist.
Not economically and she is leader of the main centre-right party in Germany regardless of what rightwingers may think of her views
I live near the southern end of the Appalachian Trail, and once in a while the idea of hiking the 2,100 miles popped into my mind, but reading "AWOL on the Appalachian Trail" cured me completely of any such notion.
Bill Bryson, a man who I greatly admire, wrote a book on his attempt on the Appalachian Trial. After reading that I was torn between, "Yes I really want to do it" (only if accompanied by several fierce and totally loyal German Shepherds, plus one or two people with light machine guns) and, "Sod that for a game of soldiers".
The USA can seem like a tricky place.
"A Walk In The Woods" - published at the turn of the century and it sat unread on my bookshelf for at least five years. I regretted that as soon as I picked it up. Very good book.
Not his best book, frankly. But yes, good enough.
I'd admire BB a great deal more if he didn't deny that we desperately need more housing, much of which can only be built on green belt land. He lives, to judge from his book At Home, in a big detached Norfolk rectory, no doubt with plenty of land, while denying almost anybody under about 50 the opportunity to have a similar standard of living.
Not to say he isn't a most entertaining writer of course. My favourite BB moment was when he was backpacking around Europe with a friend as a 20-year-old. They are sharing a hostel dorm room with two men, whose nationality they can't work out, but who kept having sex. They never found out their nationalities, "but we suspected that one of them was Australian, since he seemed much more comfortable Down Under".
I read that aloud to a friend while he was driving and almost caused a serious accident.
I find him hilarious for about the first third of his books and then it begins to pall. My two favorite books of his are the two he wrote on the English language - 'The Mother Tongue' and "Made in America".
Nah, come on, Mr. T, a lot of the really good stuff in Down Under is in the last third, well certainly the last half. So your thesis doesn't really stand up.
There are times when Bryson gets on one of his hobby horses and then he can get a bit tedious, well frankly annoying, but they only last for a few pages so are quite easy to skip even on a first reading. A bit like Jerome really, now and again he goes off on one but soon comes back to the good stuff.
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Ever larger social programs? Ever larger government spending? Ever more US retrenchment from the world? The endless search for always more gun control? This is 'centre right'? Really?
He is by some distance the most left wing president in US history.
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Three points there.
Firstly, to the extent that it is Gerrymandered - and some states do - that can only happen to benefit the GOP if the Republicans already control it at state level.
Secondly, the Republicans won the 2014 House elections by 4.4m votes, so Gerrymandered or not, they still won it fairly comfortably.
Thirdly, it's an exaggeration to say the Dems need a 10m lead for parity. They led by 1.4m in 2012 and finished only 33 seats behind. They do need a lead and the boundaries do favour the Republicans, but not to that extent.
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventu
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wi.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Utterly irrelevant, as arguably Merkel would be considered centre left on some issues in the US. (Though certainly Obama's increase in the top tax rate, initial increase in spending and social liberalism would certainly not place him on the right, nor would his opposition to the Iraq War). I was looking at leaders of the centre right and centre left in their countries.
I would also argue Cameron and Osborne may not be too far from Hillary Clinton but they are miles from Bernie Sanders and closer to Jeb Bush and Rubio than him. You would be correct though to say the likes of Trump, Cruz and Carson are closer to UKIP than the Tories
I live near the southern end of the Appalachian Trail, and once in a while the idea of hiking the 2,100 miles popped into my mind, but reading "AWOL on the Appalachian Trail" cured me completely of any such notion.
Bill Bryson, a man who I greatly admire, wrote a book on his attempt on the Appalachian Trial. After reading that I was torn between, "Yes I really want to do it" (only if accompanied by several fierce and totally loyal German Shepherds, plus one or two people with light machine guns) and, "Sod that for a game of soldiers".
The USA can seem like a tricky place.
"A Walk In The Woods" - published at the turn of the century and it sat unread on my bookshelf for at least five years. I regretted that as soon as I picked it up. Very good book.
Not his best book, frankly. But yes, good enough.
I'd admire BB a great deal more if he didn't deny that we desperately need more housing, much of which can only be built on green belt land. He lives, to judge from his book At Home, in a big detached Norfolk rectory, no doubt with plenty of land, while denying almost anybody under about 50 the opportunity to have a similar standard of living.
Not to say he isn't a most entertaining writer of course. My favourite BB moment was when he was backpacking around Europe with a friend as a 20-year-old. They are sharing a hostel dorm room with two men, whose nationality they can't work out, but who kept having sex. They never found out their nationalities, "but we suspected that one of them was Australian, since he seemed much more comfortable Down Under".
I read that aloud to a friend while he was driving and almost caused a serious accident.
I find him hilarious for about the first third of his books and then it begins to pall. My two favorite books of his are the two he wrote on the English language - 'The Mother Tongue' and "Made in America".
But then, folks from the UK southwest think that "Adge Cutler and the Wurzels" is a Heavy Metal group
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Ever larger social programs? Ever larger government spending? Ever more US retrenchment from the world? The endless search for always more gun control? This is 'centre right'? Really?
He is by some distance the most left wing president in US history.
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
True, but in the Electoral College in 2012 Obama won 61% of Electoral College votes on only 51% of the popular vote, while Romney won only 38% of Electoral College votes despite winning 47% of the national popular vote
The Presidential election is the only one where the demographics favour the Dem.
Although not by much. Obama won by 3.9% nationally. The state that gave him victory was Colorado, which he won by 5.6% but the next state below that was Virginia, where the margin was almost exactly the national average.
He won Nevada by 6%, Iowa by 5%, Colorado by 5.6%, New Hampshire by 6%, Virginia by 3.9%, New Mexico by 10%. Nationally he won by 3.9%. Adding those swing states to the other states where he won by exactly his national vote margin or more you still get Obama winning 285 to Romney's 253. To put that into perspective George W Bush would have lost by 275 to 263 in 2004 if you only add those states he won by his national vote margin or more to his column http://www.270towin.com/
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Ever larger social programs? Ever larger government spending? Ever more US retrenchment from the world? The endless search for always more gun control? This is 'centre right'? Really?
He is by some distance the most left wing president in US history.
Have you seen the internals of the Bloomberg Iowa poll? The GOP voters there have a positive view of Carson because he has:
No experience in foreign policy: 44% Doesn't want a muslim president: 73% Believes gun control helped Hitler: 77% Claimed Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery: 81%
That explains why after Trump or Carson say something "nasty"," controversial or simply nuts" they rise in the polls.
How can any moderate or establishment candidate ever hope to win that crowd? Even if the moderates or the establishment candidates can sound extremist, voters there see foreign policy experience as something negative (Rubio).
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggerati)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Ever larger social programs? Ever larger government spending? Ever more US retrenchment from the world? The endless search for always more gun control? This is 'centre right'? Really?
He is by some distance the most left wing president in US history.
We have an NHS over here @:)
Yes and Obama introduced Obamacare which relatively speaking was a shift to the left in the US (nobody is saying he is left of Attlee!)
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Ever larger social programs? Ever larger government spending? Ever more US retrenchment from the world? The endless search for always more gun control? This is 'centre right'? Really?
He is by some distance the most left wing president in US history.
Seriously? Both Johnson and - particularly - FDR are at least contenders for that. Has Obama ever said anything as radical as the 1933 inaugural?
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Ever larger social programs? Ever larger government spending? Ever more US retrenchment from the world? The endless search for always more gun control? This is 'centre right'? Really?
He is by some distance the most left wing president in US history.
Seriously? Both Johnson and - particularly - FDR are at least contenders for that. Has Obama ever said anything as radical as the 1933 inaugural?
Remember - FDR loathed public sector trade unions.
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
True, but in the Electoral College in 2012 Obama won 61% of Electoral College votes on only 51% of the popular vote, while Romney won only 38% of Electoral College votes despite winning 47% of the national popular vote
The Presidential election is the only one where the demographics favour the Dem.
Although not by much. Obama won by 3.9% nationally. The state that gave him victory was Colorado, which he won by 5.6% but the next state below that was Virginia, where the margin was almost exactly the national average.
He won Nevada by 6%, Iowa by 5%, Colorado by 5.6%, New Hampshire by 6%, Virginia by 3.9%, New Mexico by 10%. Nationally he won by 3.9%. Adding those swing states to the other states where he won by exactly his national vote margin or more you still get Obama winning 285 to Romney's 253. To put that into perspective George W Bush would have lost by 275 to 263 in 2004 if you only add those states he won by his national vote margin or more to his column http://www.270towin.com/
Romney won 206 votes. He lost:
Florida by 0.9% (29 ECV = 235) Ohio by 3.0% (18 ECV = 253) Virginia by 3.9% (13 ECV = 266) Colorado by 5.4% (9 ECV = 273)
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Ever larger social programs? Ever larger government spending? Ever more US retrenchment from the world? The endless search for always more gun control? This is 'centre right'? Really?
He is by some distance the most left wing president in US history.
Seriously? Both Johnson and - particularly - FDR are at least contenders for that. Has Obama ever said anything as radical as the 1933 inaugural?
Remember - FDR loathed public sector trade unions.
Maybe so but he also aggregated enormous power to Washington to command and control the economy and national infrastructure and increased government spending massively.
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Ever larger social programs? Ever larger government spending? Ever more US retrenchment from the world? The endless search for always more gun control? This is 'centre right'? Really?
He is by some distance the most left wing president in US history.
Seriously? Both Johnson and - particularly - FDR are at least contenders for that. Has Obama ever said anything as radical as the 1933 inaugural?
Yes - he didn't like public sector unions - they are not playing with their own money.
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
True, but in the Electoral College in 2012 Obama won 61% of Electoral College votes on only 51% of the popular vote, while Romney won only 38% of Electoral College votes despite winning 47% of the national popular vote
The Presidential election is the only one where the demographics favour the Dem.
Although not by much. Obama won by 3.9% nationally. The state that gave him victory was Colorado, which he won by 5.6% but the next state below that was Virginia, where the margin was almost exactly the national average.
He won Nevada by 6%, Iowa by 5%, Colorado by 5.6%, New Hampshire by 6%, Virginia by 3.9%, New Mexico by 10%. Nationally he won by 3.9%. Adding those swing states to the other states where he won by exactly his national vote margin or more you still get Obama winning 285 to Romney's 253. To put that into perspective George W Bush would have lost by 275 to 263 in 2004 if you only add those states he won by his national vote margin or more to his column http://www.270towin.com/
Romney won 206 votes. He lost:
Florida by 0.9% (29 ECV = 235) Ohio by 3.0% (18 ECV = 253) Virginia by 3.9% (13 ECV = 266) Colorado by 5.4% (9 ECV = 273)
Anything else would have been a bonus.
Yes but of those 4 had Obama and Romney been exactly tied in the popular vote Obama would still have won Virginia and Colorado and the presidency. In 2004 by contrast had George W Bush and Kerry been exactly tied Kerry would have won Ohio, New Mexico and Iowa and the presidency
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Ever larger social programs? Ever larger government spending? Ever more US retrenchment from the world? The endless search for always more gun control? This is 'centre right'? Really?
He is by some distance the most left wing president in US history.
Seriously? Both Johnson and - particularly - FDR are at least contenders for that. Has Obama ever said anything as radical as the 1933 inaugural?
Remember - FDR loathed public sector trade unions.
Maybe so but he also aggregated enormous power to Washington to command and control the economy and national infrastructure and increased government spending massively.
So - again - he is the most left wing president ever.
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Ever larger social programs? Ever larger government spending? Ever more US retrenchment from the world? The endless search for always more gun control? This is 'centre right'? Really?
He is by some distance the most left wing president in US history.
Seriously? Both Johnson and - particularly - FDR are at least contenders for that. Has Obama ever said anything as radical as the 1933 inaugural?
Remember - FDR loathed public sector trade unions.
Maybe so but he also aggregated enormous power to Washington to command and control the economy and national infrastructure and increased government spending massively.
So - again - he is the most left wing president ever.
Though the top tax rate in the US was 94%, under Obama it is 39%
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Ever larger social programs? Ever larger government spending? Ever more US retrenchment from the world? The endless search for always more gun control? This is 'centre right'? Really?
He is by some distance the most left wing president in US history.
Seriously? Both Johnson and - particularly - FDR are at least contenders for that. Has Obama ever said anything as radical as the 1933 inaugural?
Remember - FDR loathed public sector trade unions.
Maybe so but he also aggregated enormous power to Washington to command and control the economy and national infrastructure and increased government spending massively.
So - again - he is the most left wing president ever.
We may have to disagree on this! I don't dispute that Obama is a long way left by American standards but I'd still argue that by the standards of the day, by the scale of the change introduced and by the language employed in any era, Roosevelt stands further left still.
Sorry to come this late at night, but reports are filtering in that an israeli plane has been shot down over southern Syria and the israeli army has crossed the border into Syria to find the missing pilot, heavy fighting is going on.
Sorry to come this late at night, but reports are filtering in that an israeli plane has been shot down over southern Syria and the israeli army has crossed the border into Syria to find the missing pilot, heavy fighting is going on.
This may have been what Yokel was talking about earlier.
Eventually they will get bored of losing and the nutcases will leave the party. It happened to Labour in 1994 and to the Tories in 2005. The GOP have to go through the same process, after 8 years of Obama and probably 8 years of Hilary they will have to reassess what Americans want and recalibrate the party for that.
Remember that Republicans have a majority in Congress, so in a sense they are winning.
In a gerrymandered way. The Democrats need far more votes than the Republicans to win.
In 2016, Democrats have to poll 10 million more than Republicans to win the House.
Democrats pile up huge, but useless, majorities in their safe seats.
Sounds a bit like Labour in the UK.
As left-wing parties increasingly lose elections, so the argument grows that right wing parties win by cheating.
Taken in the week the Liberals have just won a historic victory over the Tories in Canada's general election that is a bit of an exaggeration. Now, for the first time since the early 2000s, more leaders of the G7 are from the centre left than the centre right (Trudeau, Obama, Renzi and Hollande on the left and Merkel, Cameron and Abe on the right)
Obama would be considered centre right here and in most of Europe. It's no surprise that the Tories are closer ideologically to the Dems than to the GOP.
Ever larger social programs? Ever larger government spending? Ever more US retrenchment from the world? The endless search for always more gun control? This is 'centre right'? Really?
He is by some distance the most left wing president in US history.
Seriously? Both Johnson and - particularly - FDR are at least contenders for that. Has Obama ever said anything as radical as the 1933 inaugural?
Remember - FDR loathed public sector trade unions.
Maybe so but he also aggregated enormous power to Washington to command and control the economy and national infrastructure and increased government spending massively.
So - again - he is the most left wing president ever.
Just back from a week in Europe's playground where British, German, Italian and French can bond over the breakfast buffet and enjoy the Spanish sunshine. Europe en fete as it were - plenty of coverage about events in Portugal and in Spain Podemos getting plenty of media along with the Citizens' party.
Interesting to note the changing linguistic order in Mallorca - it's German first, then British with Russian coming a close third. Menus now have Russian sections after the Spanish, German and English.
With profuse apologies to Nick (excellent piece by the way), something I noticed while driving round was a town called Felanitx and I began to muse on all the places I could think of ENDING in "X" - Appomatox being an obvious example but I started to struggle after that.
So, my alternative to yet another debate on the EU - can anyone think of places ending in "X" ? I exclude anything with "Cross" by the way as that's just short-hand.
Comments
He even wrote an article for National Geographic on Blackpool, where I was born. It's sad to see how far it has fallen.
I'll get my coat.....
Dave won't thank me for it
I'd admire BB a great deal more if he didn't deny that we desperately need more housing, much of which can only be built on green belt land. He lives, to judge from his book At Home, in a big detached Norfolk rectory, no doubt with plenty of land, while denying almost anybody under about 50 the opportunity to have a similar standard of living.
Not to say he isn't a most entertaining writer of course. My favourite BB moment was when he was backpacking around Europe with a friend as a 20-year-old. They are sharing a hostel dorm room with two men, whose nationality they can't work out, but who kept having sex. They never found out their nationalities, "but we suspected that one of them was Australian, since he seemed much more comfortable Down Under".
I read that aloud to a friend while he was driving and almost caused a serious accident.
Personally, I think the best thing Bryson has done is "Down Under". It even beats "Notes from a small Island" (which to be honest largely describes an England that has long gone and I now find rather sad). However, I haven't read his latest one that seems to have attracted so much attention in the press.
Stop the weekend here,,,,
I assume his parents like tongue twisters
There are times when Bryson gets on one of his hobby horses and then he can get a bit tedious, well frankly annoying, but they only last for a few pages so are quite easy to skip even on a first reading. A bit like Jerome really, now and again he goes off on one but soon comes back to the good stuff.
He is by some distance the most left wing president in US history.
Firstly, to the extent that it is Gerrymandered - and some states do - that can only happen to benefit the GOP if the Republicans already control it at state level.
Secondly, the Republicans won the 2014 House elections by 4.4m votes, so Gerrymandered or not, they still won it fairly comfortably.
Thirdly, it's an exaggeration to say the Dems need a 10m lead for parity. They led by 1.4m in 2012 and finished only 33 seats behind. They do need a lead and the boundaries do favour the Republicans, but not to that extent.
I would also argue Cameron and Osborne may not be too far from Hillary Clinton but they are miles from Bernie Sanders and closer to Jeb Bush and Rubio than him. You would be correct though to say the likes of Trump, Cruz and Carson are closer to UKIP than the Tories
http://www.270towin.com/
Florida by 0.9% (29 ECV = 235)
Ohio by 3.0% (18 ECV = 253)
Virginia by 3.9% (13 ECV = 266)
Colorado by 5.4% (9 ECV = 273)
Anything else would have been a bonus.