Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The New Political Divide, Part II – trying to make sense of WH

SystemSystem Posts: 11,008
edited November 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The New Political Divide, Part II – trying to make sense of WH2016

 

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • Options
    First!
  • Options
    It looks like being the case that only Obama will have received more votes than Hillary Clinton in a presidential election. If she had been a decent candidate, she probably would have got the most ever.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,924

    rcs1000 said:

    weejonnie said:

    nunu said:

    nunu said:

    OK someone answer me this apart from the parties they are standing for what are the big differences between Sarkozy and Le Pen? Whether good or bad?

    Le Pen is more anti-free trade, including the EU.
    A very popular position to have these days.
    I am not anti free trade - I am against companies gaming the market. Given the choice of my family, friends, neighbours or countrymen having a high standard of living or another country's residents having a better standard of living at our expense, I would definitely prefer the former.

    If Ford wants to expand into the Mexican Market then they can invest in building, equipping and manning factories in Mexico - I have no problems with that. What I object to is Ford expanding into the American market at the cost of American jobs.

    If I was a British firm looking to expand in the American market then, again, I would have no problems with creating jobs in America. I would have no problem with a British firm investing in Britain to produce the goods - there is a significant difference you see in ethics.

    (You only need to look at the UK balance of trade to realise that we are impoverishing ourselves at an ever-faster rate.)
    The great irony is that the US has actually increased the number of cars it makes since NAFTA was introduced in 1994. Far more jobs have moved to Tennessee and Alabama than to Mexico.
    Which was a combination of union bashing (non-union plants), lowered wages and moving plants to the industrial dead zones of the US. Not so much drect NAFTA effects as adaption to globalisation...
    The other issue is that plants have become much more automated, and require far less semi skilled labour. Fort Dearborn used to employ 130,000 people. It now make more trucks with 4,000.
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    For those looking for some hard numbers to analyze, here is a great piece.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/11/12/501848636/7-reasons-donald-trump-won-the-presidential-election

    The lessons I draw:

    1. Trump's better relative performance with young people and latinos boils down to larger numbers of those demographics going to third party candidates, rather than Trump appealing to them more than traditional GOP candidates.

    2. The black vote has fallen back to more 'normal' levels of participation without a black presidential candidate

    3. The non-college white vote is now lost to the Dems. They are no longer competitive nor the 'natural' representative (read protector in some lefty thought) of this group.

    4. Charisma matters in close elections.
  • Options
    FPT: F1: humbug. The weather forecast appears to have changed, to rain.

    I can't write an alternate pre-race piece, but if it does rain a lot, consider Verstappen, Hulkenberg and Button. Maybe Red Bull to top score.

    For comedy value, my pre-race piece is here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/brazil-pre-race-2016.html
  • Options
    FPT
    Sean_F said:

    malcolmg said:

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Leader of the UK's biggest group of MEPs at the European parliament.
    He IS a UK opposition leader. He is just not THE UK opposition leader.

    But the idea of "the opposition" is a peculiarly British concept, anyway, and doesn't make great sense here at home, except for the privileges they get by being recognised as such in Parliament. But a Corbyn as leader of "the opposition" clearly doesn't speak for or lead the SNP, LibDems, UKIP, Greens et al (leaving aside whether or not he is leading his own party). You can't blame foreign media for not knowing or not being bothered.
    It is great to see the Tories squirming , humiliated by Nigel as he nips off to discuss with "The Donald" how crap May and the Tories are. Will be magic when Trump insists he will deal with UK via Nigel.
    Is Nigel Farage the first foreign statesman to meet the President-elect?
    I think "Statesman" may be pushing it a bit.....
  • Options
    EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    @MTimT thanks - a good read.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,242
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    weejonnie said:

    nunu said:

    nunu said:

    OK someone answer me this apart from the parties they are standing for what are the big differences between Sarkozy and Le Pen? Whether good or bad?

    Le Pen is more anti-free trade, including the EU.
    A very popular position to have these days.
    I am not anti free trade - I am against companies gaming the market. Given the choice of my family, friends, neighbours or countrymen having a high standard of living or another country's residents having a better standard of living at our expense, I would definitely prefer the former.

    If Ford wants to expand into the Mexican Market then they can invest in building, equipping and manning factories in Mexico - I have no problems with that. What I object to is Ford expanding into the American market at the cost of American jobs.

    If I was a British firm looking to expand in the American market then, again, I would have no problems with creating jobs in America. I would have no problem with a British firm investing in Britain to produce the goods - there is a significant difference you see in ethics.

    (You only need to look at the UK balance of trade to realise that we are impoverishing ourselves at an ever-faster rate.)
    The great irony is that the US has actually increased the number of cars it makes since NAFTA was introduced in 1994. Far more jobs have moved to Tennessee and Alabama than to Mexico.
    Which was a combination of union bashing (non-union plants), lowered wages and moving plants to the industrial dead zones of the US. Not so much drect NAFTA effects as adaption to globalisation...
    The other issue is that plants have become much more automated, and require far less semi skilled labour. Fort Dearborn used to employ 130,000 people. It now make more trucks with 4,000.
    Sorry - yes, the other important factor.

    Talking of betting, buy Tesla and SpaceX (if you can). Yes, Trump seems the anti-Elon. But consider...

    Elon has consistently, for decades:

    1) In sourced. Built factories in the US. Not merely screwdriver plants, but as he has developed his businesses, moved stuff from the supply chain on shore. The Gigafactory for batteries is the latest example. Taking jobs from South East Asia and bringing them to the US.

    2) Energy independence - no Aaaaayraaaab Oil required to power a Tesla Model 3

    3) American Exceptionalism - it's all about belief in America - not just jobs. The latest plan for SpaceX is to build the largest rocket in human history. And conquer Mars...

    Interesting synergies there....
  • Options
    I see jahadi jez is telling the Donald to grow up...Jez has never grown up, holding on to the same view he held as a teenager.
  • Options
    MTimT said:

    For those looking for some hard numbers to analyze, here is a great piece.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/11/12/501848636/7-reasons-donald-trump-won-the-presidential-election

    The lessons I draw:

    1. Trump's better relative performance with young people and latinos boils down to larger numbers of those demographics going to third party candidates, rather than Trump appealing to them more than traditional GOP candidates.

    2. The black vote has fallen back to more 'normal' levels of participation without a black presidential candidate

    3. The non-college white vote is now lost to the Dems. They are no longer competitive nor the 'natural' representative (read protector in some lefty thought) of this group.

    4. Charisma matters in close elections.

    Al good points, especially re: 4. Charisma. Nowhere is the cult of personality more applicable to success imho, than the US.

    BTW MrT, didn’t you post a breakdown of the Governorships /Houses etc lost by the Dems since 2008? Would appreciate a repost if so.

    Cheers Corporeal, looking forward to the last instalment.
  • Options
    MTimT said:

    For those looking for some hard numbers to analyze, here is a great piece.

    http://www.npr.org/2016/11/12/501848636/7-reasons-donald-trump-won-the-presidential-election

    The lessons I draw:

    1. Trump's better relative performance with young people and latinos boils down to larger numbers of those demographics going to third party candidates, rather than Trump appealing to them more than traditional GOP candidates.

    2. The black vote has fallen back to more 'normal' levels of participation without a black presidential candidate

    3. The non-college white vote is now lost to the Dems. They are no longer competitive nor the 'natural' representative (read protector in some lefty thought) of this group.

    4. Charisma matters in close elections.

    Point 1 is interesting. Requires some more research.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,924



    Sorry - yes, the other important factor.

    Talking of betting, buy Tesla and SpaceX (if you can). Yes, Trump seems the anti-Elon. But consider...

    Elon has consistently, for decades:

    1) In sourced. Built factories in the US. Not merely screwdriver plants, but as he has developed his businesses, moved stuff from the supply chain on shore. The Gigafactory for batteries is the latest example. Taking jobs from South East Asia and bringing them to the US.

    2) Energy independence - no Aaaaayraaaab Oil required to power a Tesla Model 3

    3) American Exceptionalism - it's all about belief in America - not just jobs. The latest plan for SpaceX is to build the largest rocket in human history. And conquer Mars...

    Interesting synergies there....

    Tesla, made in California in factories devoid of workers without PhDs, is stuffing the citizens of Detroit far more than the Mexicans ever could.

    I can't make investment advice, given my job!
  • Options
    The final sentence of this thread! Oh my.
  • Options
    NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 703
    Nigel Farage incoming on Fox News again. The female presenter just mispronounced his first name. :smile:
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,903
    rcs1000 said:



    Sorry - yes, the other important factor.

    Talking of betting, buy Tesla and SpaceX (if you can). Yes, Trump seems the anti-Elon. But consider...

    Elon has consistently, for decades:

    1) In sourced. Built factories in the US. Not merely screwdriver plants, but as he has developed his businesses, moved stuff from the supply chain on shore. The Gigafactory for batteries is the latest example. Taking jobs from South East Asia and bringing them to the US.

    2) Energy independence - no Aaaaayraaaab Oil required to power a Tesla Model 3

    3) American Exceptionalism - it's all about belief in America - not just jobs. The latest plan for SpaceX is to build the largest rocket in human history. And conquer Mars...

    Interesting synergies there....

    Tesla, made in California in factories devoid of workers without PhDs, is stuffing the citizens of Detroit far more than the Mexicans ever could.

    I can't make investment advice, given my job!
    I don't hold any Tesla stock, but if I did I'd probably hold it to be perfectly honest - doesn't particularly look like a buy or sell to me right now.

    Hold :D
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2016
    Mark Zuckerberg has said Facebook will do more to tackle fake news

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37967783

    Looks like Facebook will be back to just cat videos then...if Twitter takes a similar censorship approach there won't be any traffic!

    More seriously who is going to judge if it is fake & how fake does take have to be? There are loads of posts you see on Facebook and Twitter which aren't 100% true.
  • Options
    I see Jim the washing machine salesman's expenses are looking dodgy (again).
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,918
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Sorry - yes, the other important factor.

    Talking of betting, buy Tesla and SpaceX (if you can). Yes, Trump seems the anti-Elon. But consider...

    Elon has consistently, for decades:

    1) In sourced. Built factories in the US. Not merely screwdriver plants, but as he has developed his businesses, moved stuff from the supply chain on shore. The Gigafactory for batteries is the latest example. Taking jobs from South East Asia and bringing them to the US.

    2) Energy independence - no Aaaaayraaaab Oil required to power a Tesla Model 3

    3) American Exceptionalism - it's all about belief in America - not just jobs. The latest plan for SpaceX is to build the largest rocket in human history. And conquer Mars...

    Interesting synergies there....

    Tesla, made in California in factories devoid of workers without PhDs, is stuffing the citizens of Detroit far more than the Mexicans ever could.

    I can't make investment advice, given my job!
    I don't hold any Tesla stock, but if I did I'd probably hold it to be perfectly honest - doesn't particularly look like a buy or sell to me right now.

    Hold :D
    Trump's election might just have stymied Tesla's buy-out of Solar City. If so, one part of Musk's empire might be in trouble.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
  • Options
    NeilVW said:

    Nigel Farage incoming on Fox News again. The female presenter just mispronounced his first name. :smile:

    Niggle?
  • Options
    NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 703

    NeilVW said:

    Nigel Farage incoming on Fox News again. The female presenter just mispronounced his first name. :smile:

    Niggle?
    Sort of rhyming with "repel". :smiley:
  • Options

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Sorry - yes, the other important factor.

    Talking of betting, buy Tesla and SpaceX (if you can). Yes, Trump seems the anti-Elon. But consider...

    Elon has consistently, for decades:

    1) In sourced. Built factories in the US. Not merely screwdriver plants, but as he has developed his businesses, moved stuff from the supply chain on shore. The Gigafactory for batteries is the latest example. Taking jobs from South East Asia and bringing them to the US.

    2) Energy independence - no Aaaaayraaaab Oil required to power a Tesla Model 3

    3) American Exceptionalism - it's all about belief in America - not just jobs. The latest plan for SpaceX is to build the largest rocket in human history. And conquer Mars...

    Interesting synergies there....

    Tesla, made in California in factories devoid of workers without PhDs, is stuffing the citizens of Detroit far more than the Mexicans ever could.

    I can't make investment advice, given my job!
    I don't hold any Tesla stock, but if I did I'd probably hold it to be perfectly honest - doesn't particularly look like a buy or sell to me right now.

    Hold :D
    Trump's election might just have stymied Tesla's buy-out of Solar City. If so, one part of Musk's empire might be in trouble.
    I was under the impression all of musks empire was highly dependent on the us government subsidies.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    It looks like being the case that only Obama will have received more votes than Hillary Clinton in a presidential election. If she had been a decent candidate, she probably would have got the most ever.

    Of course she is probably the candidate who has had the most votes AGAINST her as well.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,799

    It looks like being the case that only Obama will have received more votes than Hillary Clinton in a presidential election. If she had been a decent candidate, she probably would have got the most ever.

    I find it extraordinary that she thought it unnecessary to campaign in Wisconsin or Michigan, both of which have Republican governors, legislatures, and senators.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    I see jahadi jez is telling the Donald to grow up...Jez has never grown up, holding on to the same view he held as a teenager.

    His consistently pro-migration message in the face of all comers is truly the gift that keeps on giving .... to his opponents.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,924
    edited November 2016
    To some extent at least Hillary was running against her own back story. Trump could hang 'Crooked Hillary' on her because of the carelessness (?arrogance) over the emails, and, surely because of Bill's equal carelessness with his private parts. She seemed then to value being First Lady over her 'honour' as a 'respectable' wife.
    Benghazi too was messy and left a nasty aftertaste, and th Goldmann Sachs etc connection didn't sit well with the 'peoples candidate' image.
    And where that back story hurt her was in Middle America, where people claim at any rate to value plain speaking and fair dealing. Just the people who feel left behind.
  • Options

    More seriously who is going to judge if it is fake & how fake does take have to be?

    The same people who judged what was 'trending', of course.

  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,242

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Sorry - yes, the other important factor.

    Talking of betting, buy Tesla and SpaceX (if you can). Yes, Trump seems the anti-Elon. But consider...

    Elon has consistently, for decades:

    1) In sourced. Built factories in the US. Not merely screwdriver plants, but as he has developed his businesses, moved stuff from the supply chain on shore. The Gigafactory for batteries is the latest example. Taking jobs from South East Asia and bringing them to the US.

    2) Energy independence - no Aaaaayraaaab Oil required to power a Tesla Model 3

    3) American Exceptionalism - it's all about belief in America - not just jobs. The latest plan for SpaceX is to build the largest rocket in human history. And conquer Mars...

    Interesting synergies there....

    Tesla, made in California in factories devoid of workers without PhDs, is stuffing the citizens of Detroit far more than the Mexicans ever could.

    I can't make investment advice, given my job!
    I don't hold any Tesla stock, but if I did I'd probably hold it to be perfectly honest - doesn't particularly look like a buy or sell to me right now.

    Hold :D
    Trump's election might just have stymied Tesla's buy-out of Solar City. If so, one part of Musk's empire might be in trouble.
    I was under the impression all of musks empire was highly dependent on the us government subsidies.
    No - not really. Unless you count contracts to do actual stuff as subsidies. The genuine subsidy is the ZEV subsidy, which is due to end soon anyway.
  • Options
    weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Sorry - yes, the other important factor.

    Talking of betting, buy Tesla and SpaceX (if you can). Yes, Trump seems the anti-Elon. But consider...

    Elon has consistently, for decades:

    1) In sourced. Built factories in the US. Not merely screwdriver plants, but as he has developed his businesses, moved stuff from the supply chain on shore. The Gigafactory for batteries is the latest example. Taking jobs from South East Asia and bringing them to the US.

    2) Energy independence - no Aaaaayraaaab Oil required to power a Tesla Model 3

    3) American Exceptionalism - it's all about belief in America - not just jobs. The latest plan for SpaceX is to build the largest rocket in human history. And conquer Mars...

    Interesting synergies there....

    Tesla, made in California in factories devoid of workers without PhDs, is stuffing the citizens of Detroit far more than the Mexicans ever could.

    I can't make investment advice, given my job!
    I don't hold any Tesla stock, but if I did I'd probably hold it to be perfectly honest - doesn't particularly look like a buy or sell to me right now.

    Hold :D
    Trump's election might just have stymied Tesla's buy-out of Solar City. If so, one part of Musk's empire might be in trouble.
    I was under the impression all of musks empire was highly dependent on the us government subsidies.
    There are going to be a lot of renewables firms who are actually going to charge market price for their products. The latest Tesla vehicle is going on sale for $35,000.

    Yes there have been great advances in electrical storage capacity but until economies of scale can cut in then pure electric cars are going to be seen more on the moviescreen than through the windscreen.
  • Options
    Interesting full page ad in today's MoS from Tesco. They claim to have brought their own brand drinks below the threshold for the " Sugar Tax " 17 months early. Proper Sin Taxes should raise no or little revenue as they should be about changing behaviour. Too early to tell on this one. Though big brands advertising on the basis of verifiable and meaningful CSR claims is one tiny strand in framing a response to the Great Revolt.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,918

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Sorry - yes, the other important factor.

    Talking of betting, buy Tesla and SpaceX (if you can). Yes, Trump seems the anti-Elon. But consider...

    Elon has consistently, for decades:

    1) In sourced. Built factories in the US. Not merely screwdriver plants, but as he has developed his businesses, moved stuff from the supply chain on shore. The Gigafactory for batteries is the latest example. Taking jobs from South East Asia and bringing them to the US.

    2) Energy independence - no Aaaaayraaaab Oil required to power a Tesla Model 3

    3) American Exceptionalism - it's all about belief in America - not just jobs. The latest plan for SpaceX is to build the largest rocket in human history. And conquer Mars...

    Interesting synergies there....

    Tesla, made in California in factories devoid of workers without PhDs, is stuffing the citizens of Detroit far more than the Mexicans ever could.

    I can't make investment advice, given my job!
    I don't hold any Tesla stock, but if I did I'd probably hold it to be perfectly honest - doesn't particularly look like a buy or sell to me right now.

    Hold :D
    Trump's election might just have stymied Tesla's buy-out of Solar City. If so, one part of Musk's empire might be in trouble.
    I was under the impression all of musks empire was highly dependent on the us government subsidies.
    Yes.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-subsidy-aggregation-1466638430

    Although in the case of SpaceX they get something back in return. In the case of SolarCity and Tesla, the 'returns' for the government's largesse are less obvious.

    Musk was fairly vocally against Trump, and Trump didn't appear to favour green schemes. Combine these two and Tesla and SolarCity might find themselves with a few problems.

    I'd expect Tesla to fair better than Solar City - they might just have scraped to the point where their cars are more affordable without the government rebate.

    SpaceX might - or might not - have spectacular opportunities under Trump.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,242
    weejonnie said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Sorry - yes, the other important factor.

    Talking of betting, buy Tesla and SpaceX (if you can). Yes, Trump seems the anti-Elon. But consider...

    Elon has consistently, for decades:

    1) In sourced. Built factories in the US. Not merely screwdriver plants, but as he has developed his businesses, moved stuff from the supply chain on shore. The Gigafactory for batteries is the latest example. Taking jobs from South East Asia and bringing them to the US.

    2) Energy independence - no Aaaaayraaaab Oil required to power a Tesla Model 3

    3) American Exceptionalism - it's all about belief in America - not just jobs. The latest plan for SpaceX is to build the largest rocket in human history. And conquer Mars...

    Interesting synergies there....

    Tesla, made in California in factories devoid of workers without PhDs, is stuffing the citizens of Detroit far more than the Mexicans ever could.

    I can't make investment advice, given my job!
    I don't hold any Tesla stock, but if I did I'd probably hold it to be perfectly honest - doesn't particularly look like a buy or sell to me right now.

    Hold :D
    Trump's election might just have stymied Tesla's buy-out of Solar City. If so, one part of Musk's empire might be in trouble.
    I was under the impression all of musks empire was highly dependent on the us government subsidies.
    There are going to be a lot of renewables firms who are actually going to charge market price for their products. The latest Tesla vehicle is going on sale for $35,000.

    Yes there have been great advances in electrical storage capacity but until economies of scale can cut in then pure electric cars are going to be seen more on the moviescreen than through the windscreen.
    Given the Gigafactory, no-one else will have the cheaper batteries to compete with Tesla & the Model 3.

    There are already some lobbyists whining that all this vertical integration gives him too much market power.

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,918

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Sorry - yes, the other important factor.

    Talking of betting, buy Tesla and SpaceX (if you can). Yes, Trump seems the anti-Elon. But consider...

    Elon has consistently, for decades:

    1) In sourced. Built factories in the US. Not merely screwdriver plants, but as he has developed his businesses, moved stuff from the supply chain on shore. The Gigafactory for batteries is the latest example. Taking jobs from South East Asia and bringing them to the US.

    2) Energy independence - no Aaaaayraaaab Oil required to power a Tesla Model 3

    3) American Exceptionalism - it's all about belief in America - not just jobs. The latest plan for SpaceX is to build the largest rocket in human history. And conquer Mars...

    Interesting synergies there....

    Tesla, made in California in factories devoid of workers without PhDs, is stuffing the citizens of Detroit far more than the Mexicans ever could.

    I can't make investment advice, given my job!
    I don't hold any Tesla stock, but if I did I'd probably hold it to be perfectly honest - doesn't particularly look like a buy or sell to me right now.

    Hold :D
    Trump's election might just have stymied Tesla's buy-out of Solar City. If so, one part of Musk's empire might be in trouble.
    I was under the impression all of musks empire was highly dependent on the us government subsidies.
    No - not really. Unless you count contracts to do actual stuff as subsidies. The genuine subsidy is the ZEV subsidy, which is due to end soon anyway.
    Ahem:
    http://watchdog.org/230562/telsa-cap-and-trade/

    There are many ways that Musk has been sucking at the taxpayers' teats. Most seem perfectly reasonable: e.g. enticements to open a factory in this state versus that state. Others appear more questionable.

    I find it hard to get a handle on Musk. I really, really want to like him, and I admire him in many ways. But sometimes he's just a ... git. I wouldn't want to work for him (even if I was good enough, which I'm not).
  • Options
    Americans are so ignorant about anything that goes on beyond their own country, that they probably do believe Nigel Farage is Leader of the Opposition. That photo just shows what a party of alpha males UKIP are and I don't think Suzanne Evans stands a chance.

    Full marks to NF for being the first to meet Trump but in the grand scheme of things he is playing a very dangerous game and should stop rubbishing the PM. If David Cameron and Osborne were still in government, then some very serious grovelling would now be going on behind the scenes.

  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024

    It looks like being the case that only Obama will have received more votes than Hillary Clinton in a presidential election. If she had been a decent candidate, she probably would have got the most ever.

    The Obama coalition enthused young people. Why on earth would Hillary ever have enthused the young. For Dems to win in presidential elections now they need high turnouts with exciting candidates, they have lost the mainly conservative white rural vote in the Midwest and perhaps new England for a very very long time. I think Black turnout can still be high without a black candidate but they need a reason FOR you not just "I'm not him".
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,242

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:



    Sorry - yes, the other important factor.

    Talking of betting, buy Tesla and SpaceX (if you can). Yes, Trump seems the anti-Elon. But consider...

    Elon has consistently, for decades:

    1) In sourced. Built factories in the US. Not merely screwdriver plants, but as he has developed his businesses, moved stuff from the supply chain on shore. The Gigafactory for batteries is the latest example. Taking jobs from South East Asia and bringing them to the US.

    2) Energy independence - no Aaaaayraaaab Oil required to power a Tesla Model 3

    3) American Exceptionalism - it's all about belief in America - not just jobs. The latest plan for SpaceX is to build the largest rocket in human history. And conquer Mars...

    Interesting synergies there....

    Tesla, made in California in factories devoid of workers without PhDs, is stuffing the citizens of Detroit far more than the Mexicans ever could.

    I can't make investment advice, given my job!
    I don't hold any Tesla stock, but if I did I'd probably hold it to be perfectly honest - doesn't particularly look like a buy or sell to me right now.

    Hold :D
    Trump's election might just have stymied Tesla's buy-out of Solar City. If so, one part of Musk's empire might be in trouble.
    I was under the impression all of musks empire was highly dependent on the us government subsidies.
    No - not really. Unless you count contracts to do actual stuff as subsidies. The genuine subsidy is the ZEV subsidy, which is due to end soon anyway.
    Ahem:
    http://watchdog.org/230562/telsa-cap-and-trade/

    There are many ways that Musk has been sucking at the taxpayers' teats. Most seem perfectly reasonable: e.g. enticements to open a factory in this state versus that state. Others appear more questionable.

    I find it hard to get a handle on Musk. I really, really want to like him, and I admire him in many ways. But sometimes he's just a ... git. I wouldn't want to work for him (even if I was good enough, which I'm not).
    That's how it works in the US -

    1) High theoretical tax rates make business difficult.
    2) Business cuts a deal with the politicians - tax rate reduced to nothing.
    3) Business donates to politician as payback.
    4) Politician uses payback to advertise that he rejected a corporate tax cut in his battle for the everyman, and kept the theoretical rate high.

    It's a beautiful system, really.
  • Options

    Americans are so ignorant about anything that goes on beyond their own country, that they probably do believe Nigel Farage is Leader of the Opposition. That photo just shows what a party of alpha males UKIP are and I don't think Suzanne Evans stands a chance.

    Full marks to NF for being the first to meet Trump but in the grand scheme of things he is playing a very dangerous game and should stop rubbishing the PM. If David Cameron and Osborne were still in government, then some very serious grovelling would now be going on behind the scenes.

    *claps*
  • Options
    Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,291
    edited November 2016
    It's a bit embarrassing that Farage has made it in America as the latest in a long line of joke Englishmen - Benny Hill probably being the closest comparison. It makes Americans think we're all like that. How long before Nigel is a appearing on Fox News sipping tea from a china cup and wearing a bowler hat?
  • Options
    edited November 2016
    Polls consistently said that US voters thought their country was going in the wrong direction. Given that, I bet on Trump and made a modest amount.

    Obama has received an artificial bounce from not being Clinton or Trump, but he can hardly be said to be popular if, at the same time, his electorate felt the country was going to hell in a hand cart.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,918

    That's how it works in the US -

    1) High theoretical tax rates make business difficult.
    2) Business cuts a deal with the politicians - tax rate reduced to nothing.
    3) Business donates to politician as payback.
    4) Politician uses payback to advertise that he rejected a corporate tax cut in his battle for the everyman, and kept the theoretical rate high.

    It's a beautiful system, really.

    Indeed. (*) Another way in which the money in politics is killing the US.

    As an aside, I wonder where Gigafactory 2's going to go in Europe? We're almost certainly out of the running now, sadly ...

    (*) Sorry!
  • Options
    Corbyn backs reduction of Nato presence along Russia's borders

    Labour leader criticises Putin but favours demilitarisation of European borders with Russia to prevent new cold war

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/13/jeremy-corbyn-hints-at-reducing-nato-presence-russia-putin
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,918

    Corbyn backs reduction of Nato presence along Russia's borders

    Labour leader criticises Putin but favours demilitarisation of European borders with Russia to prevent new cold war

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/13/jeremy-corbyn-hints-at-reducing-nato-presence-russia-putin

    And he will watch as the borders roll ever westwards ...
  • Options

    Corbyn backs reduction of Nato presence along Russia's borders

    Labour leader criticises Putin but favours demilitarisation of European borders with Russia to prevent new cold war

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/13/jeremy-corbyn-hints-at-reducing-nato-presence-russia-putin

    And he will watch as the borders roll ever westwards ...
    The man is a dangerous idiot.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,242

    That's how it works in the US -

    1) High theoretical tax rates make business difficult.
    2) Business cuts a deal with the politicians - tax rate reduced to nothing.
    3) Business donates to politician as payback.
    4) Politician uses payback to advertise that he rejected a corporate tax cut in his battle for the everyman, and kept the theoretical rate high.

    It's a beautiful system, really.

    Indeed. (*) Another way in which the money in politics is killing the US.

    As an aside, I wonder where Gigafactory 2's going to go in Europe? We're almost certainly out of the running now, sadly ...

    (*) Sorry!
    No, you are wrong. It isn't *another way* money in politics is a problem.

    It *is* the problem.

    The solution is simple. Forget campaign finance reform - too many issues with free speech. Ban the bribery. If a Congress Criter backs a lobbyists play, and receives money, or the backing of a laughably "independent" group as a result - send them both to jail.

    Let them donate a trillion dollars to guy running for rat catcher. But if they try and get anything in return....
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,918

    Corbyn backs reduction of Nato presence along Russia's borders

    Labour leader criticises Putin but favours demilitarisation of European borders with Russia to prevent new cold war

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/13/jeremy-corbyn-hints-at-reducing-nato-presence-russia-putin

    And he will watch as the borders roll ever westwards ...
    The man is a dangerous idiot.
    Thanks.

    Oh, you mean Corbyn. :)
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Ironically, Trump's best bet for reelection may be to lose Congress in 2018
  • Options

    Corbyn backs reduction of Nato presence along Russia's borders

    Labour leader criticises Putin but favours demilitarisation of European borders with Russia to prevent new cold war

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/13/jeremy-corbyn-hints-at-reducing-nato-presence-russia-putin

    Nice for him to pick Remembrance Sunday to advocate appeasement.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,903

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
  • Options
    F1: bit miffed that the weather makes me bets less likely to occur. However, rain should make the race more interesting.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,692
    An unintended consequence of Trump's election is that his America First policy will almost certainly accelerate the United States' relative decline as a global power and leave the way clearer for China's rise. TPP for instance was the cornerstone of Obama's pivot to Asia, by bringing in other Asian and Pacific countries into the American fold in competition with Chinese overtures to those countries. With Trump's rejection of TPP and internationalisation generally, those countries will see their interests lying more closely with China.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,549

    Corbyn backs reduction of Nato presence along Russia's borders

    That's not really surprising. Corbyn does not support NATO, and more or less believes that we should disarm, so of course he backs a reduction in NATO forces along the border.

    With all the press sneering at Americans voting for Trump they should perhaps take a closer look at what's going on at home, a lot of people think Corbyn should be running the show.
  • Options
    TCPoliticalBettingTCPoliticalBetting Posts: 10,819
    edited November 2016
    Sean_F said:

    It looks like being the case that only Obama will have received more votes than Hillary Clinton in a presidential election. If she had been a decent candidate, she probably would have got the most ever.

    I find it extraordinary that she thought it unnecessary to campaign in Wisconsin or Michigan, both of which have Republican governors, legislatures, and senators.
    She did fewer venues than Trump and spent more dollars. Maybe her health was not up to doing more?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    edited November 2016
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    If he loses Congress. Obama, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, IKE were all re-elected with at least one chamber of Congress being held by the opposing party, only Bush Snr and Ford lost (their parties had already won 2 presidential elections before though). Of the presidents who held both chambers of Congress during their re-election campaign the picture is more mixed, LBJ won, Carter lost and George W Bush won but with the narrowest re-election margin of any incumbent president since Truman
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,924
    FF43 said:

    An unintended consequence of Trump's election is that his America First policy will almost certainly accelerate the United States' relative decline as a global power and leave the way clearer for China's rise. TPP for instance was the cornerstone of Obama's pivot to Asia, by bringing in other Asian and Pacific countries into the American fold in competition with Chinese overtures to those countries. With Trump's rejection of TPP and internationalisation generally, those countries will see their interests lying more closely with China.

    Of course.

    Just as the renunciation of NATO increases the chance that the US will need to intervene in Europe against an expansionary Russia.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,918
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    I was fairly convinced that Hilary would only be a one-term president. Now she'll be a permanent non-president ... :)

    Now, how about Trump? Well, he's a wheeler-dealer, not a politician. The two share some similar skillsets, but also different ones. If he just wants to be a president, he'll be fine. If he wants to actually *do* things, then he might find that the political system will prevent him in ways the commerce system did not.

    I can imagine him getting bored and frustrated very quickly. Just like Obama would have, if Obama had not enjoyed politics so much.

    Looking at the positives: he is a wheeler-dealer. He's a salesman: up to now, he's been selling himself and his brand. It's perfectly possible for him to *sell* good policies that would better America and the world.

    Possible, but sadly unlikely IMO.
  • Options
    CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    Americans are so ignorant about anything that goes on beyond their own country, that they probably do believe Nigel Farage is Leader of the Opposition. That photo just shows what a party of alpha males UKIP are and I don't think Suzanne Evans stands a chance.

    Full marks to NF for being the first to meet Trump but in the grand scheme of things he is playing a very dangerous game and should stop rubbishing the PM. If David Cameron and Osborne were still in government, then some very serious grovelling would now be going on behind the scenes.

    I reckon it's the reverse: that the Presodent-Elect's team and HMG don't take Farage remotely seriously.

    As an individual clearly he was helpful and Trump wanted to recognise that personally. But if he was seen as a serious contender then protocol would have kicked in: you are the government before the opposition; the President talks to the PM while Boris calls the VP etc etc
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,027
    Charles said:

    Americans are so ignorant about anything that goes on beyond their own country, that they probably do believe Nigel Farage is Leader of the Opposition. That photo just shows what a party of alpha males UKIP are and I don't think Suzanne Evans stands a chance.

    Full marks to NF for being the first to meet Trump but in the grand scheme of things he is playing a very dangerous game and should stop rubbishing the PM. If David Cameron and Osborne were still in government, then some very serious grovelling would now be going on behind the scenes.

    I reckon it's the reverse: that the Presodent-Elect's team and HMG don't take Farage remotely seriously.

    As an individual clearly he was helpful and Trump wanted to recognise that personally. But if he was seen as a serious contender then protocol would have kicked in: you are the government before the opposition; the President talks to the PM while Boris calls the VP etc etc
    That's my view too.

    Incidentally on the misplaced 'leader of the opposition' caption, we make the same mistake with respect to Alexey Navalny in Russia.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    An unintended consequence of Trump's election is that his America First policy will almost certainly accelerate the United States' relative decline as a global power and leave the way clearer for China's rise. TPP for instance was the cornerstone of Obama's pivot to Asia, by bringing in other Asian and Pacific countries into the American fold in competition with Chinese overtures to those countries. With Trump's rejection of TPP and internationalisation generally, those countries will see their interests lying more closely with China.

    Of course.

    Just as the renunciation of NATO increases the chance that the US will need to intervene in Europe against an expansionary Russia.
    Though an expansionary Russia will not necessarily be welcomed by China. In economic terms China is the main challenge to the US but in foreign policy terms China primarily focuses on its own sphere of South East Asia, Putin is prepared to intervene in the Middle East and expand influence in Europe too
  • Options

    Corbyn backs reduction of Nato presence along Russia's borders

    Labour leader criticises Putin but favours demilitarisation of European borders with Russia to prevent new cold war

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/13/jeremy-corbyn-hints-at-reducing-nato-presence-russia-putin

    Nice for him to pick Remembrance Sunday to advocate appeasement.

    Corbyn wants what Trump and Putin want shock. The left and the right are closer to each other than the centre.

  • Options
    YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    edited November 2016
    FF43 said:

    An unintended consequence of Trump's election is that his America First policy will almost certainly accelerate the United States' relative decline as a global power and leave the way clearer for China's rise. TPP for instance was the cornerstone of Obama's pivot to Asia, by bringing in other Asian and Pacific countries into the American fold in competition with Chinese overtures to those countries. With Trump's rejection of TPP and internationalisation generally, those countries will see their interests lying more closely with China.

    That's the nub of it brilliantly summarised. Exoterically Trump is America Redux, Esoterically Trump is about the decline of the West. Clearly others will take the reverse view but it is epochal. One of those moments long term gradual trends incarnate.
  • Options
    FF43 said:

    An unintended consequence of Trump's election is that his America First policy will almost certainly accelerate the United States' relative decline as a global power and leave the way clearer for China's rise. TPP for instance was the cornerstone of Obama's pivot to Asia, by bringing in other Asian and Pacific countries into the American fold in competition with Chinese overtures to those countries. With Trump's rejection of TPP and internationalisation generally, those countries will see their interests lying more closely with China.

    And Brexit Britain will have to choose a side. Trump wants less free trade, not more; but any kind of deal with the Americans would be dependent on us not having a deal with the Chinese.

  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,027
    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    An unintended consequence of Trump's election is that his America First policy will almost certainly accelerate the United States' relative decline as a global power and leave the way clearer for China's rise. TPP for instance was the cornerstone of Obama's pivot to Asia, by bringing in other Asian and Pacific countries into the American fold in competition with Chinese overtures to those countries. With Trump's rejection of TPP and internationalisation generally, those countries will see their interests lying more closely with China.

    Of course.

    Just as the renunciation of NATO increases the chance that the US will need to intervene in Europe against an expansionary Russia.
    Any renunciation of NATO would need to be combined with a new settlement to reintegrate Russia into the world order. European powers will need to step up to the plate with proposals for a much more open economic relationship based on mutual benefit.
  • Options
    NeilVWNeilVW Posts: 703
    edited November 2016
    NeilVW said:


    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    weejonnie said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Political wire notes that republicans are only one state legislature away from being able to modify the constitution. Tough to pull off... But can imagine them trying changing 14th amendment to say those born in us are citizens...

    Wouldn't it have to be ratified by three quarters of the states (38)?
    My understanding is that the ratification process can be ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures.
    Currently Republicans control 37.
    It also requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress. That would be 290 Representatives and 67 Senators. They'd need 43 more Representatives and 13 more Senators.
    I don't think that's correct? I think those wishing to amend the constitution can either try for those supermajorities you mention OR go via state legislatures...

    https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
    Interesting that all 27 amendments to the constitution have come via the Congress route rather than via a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. Presumably the latter is harder to achieve, but as discussed the GOP are tantalisingly close to it right now.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,903

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    I was fairly convinced that Hilary would only be a one-term president. Now she'll be a permanent non-president ... :)

    Now, how about Trump? Well, he's a wheeler-dealer, not a politician. The two share some similar skillsets, but also different ones. If he just wants to be a president, he'll be fine. If he wants to actually *do* things, then he might find that the political system will prevent him in ways the commerce system did not.

    I can imagine him getting bored and frustrated very quickly. Just like Obama would have, if Obama had not enjoyed politics so much.

    Looking at the positives: he is a wheeler-dealer. He's a salesman: up to now, he's been selling himself and his brand. It's perfectly possible for him to *sell* good policies that would better America and the world.

    Possible, but sadly unlikely IMO.
    The strength of the generic republican in the polls (Check Rubio's performance in Florida) suggests to me that he gets back in personally.

    Also expectations for him are practically zero so far as I can work out from every vox pop I've heard.

    Meanwhile I think the DNC run Warren, and lose.

  • Options
    EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,956
    edited November 2016
    PoliticalBetting, meet 'JC 4 PM 4 ME'

    What's less likely, this getting to No. 1 or Corbyn getting to No. 10?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QaFxp9uUKg
  • Options
    Anyway, I've got to go now. Post-race ramble will be tomorrow morning.

  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    Don's not really a man for precedents tho'..
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    edited November 2016

    FF43 said:

    An unintended consequence of Trump's election is that his America First policy will almost certainly accelerate the United States' relative decline as a global power and leave the way clearer for China's rise. TPP for instance was the cornerstone of Obama's pivot to Asia, by bringing in other Asian and Pacific countries into the American fold in competition with Chinese overtures to those countries. With Trump's rejection of TPP and internationalisation generally, those countries will see their interests lying more closely with China.

    And Brexit Britain will have to choose a side. Trump wants less free trade, not more; but any kind of deal with the Americans would be dependent on us not having a deal with the Chinese.

    The UK exports more to the US than any other nation so if any deal is on offer there it should be taken but the UK government is likely to try and keep a reasonable relationship with both China and the US post Brexit given it has enough on its hands with the EU
  • Options

    Charles said:

    Americans are so ignorant about anything that goes on beyond their own country, that they probably do believe Nigel Farage is Leader of the Opposition. That photo just shows what a party of alpha males UKIP are and I don't think Suzanne Evans stands a chance.

    Full marks to NF for being the first to meet Trump but in the grand scheme of things he is playing a very dangerous game and should stop rubbishing the PM. If David Cameron and Osborne were still in government, then some very serious grovelling would now be going on behind the scenes.

    I reckon it's the reverse: that the Presodent-Elect's team and HMG don't take Farage remotely seriously.

    As an individual clearly he was helpful and Trump wanted to recognise that personally. But if he was seen as a serious contender then protocol would have kicked in: you are the government before the opposition; the President talks to the PM while Boris calls the VP etc etc
    That's my view too.

    Incidentally on the misplaced 'leader of the opposition' caption, we make the same mistake with respect to Alexey Navalny in Russia.
    Yeah, I'm always seeing that in the UK media.
  • Options
    What an extraordinary Rembrance Sunday. Farage in a Golden Lift, the leader of the FN a heavyweight and relevant interviewee on the BBC's flagship political show and the LotO appeasing the European dictator de jour. Be in no doubt this is late decadence. We're giving up.

    I didn't understand it fully until now but this is the first year since I started Infants School aged 5 I've not worn a Poppy. I'd never wear a Poppy unless I'd donated to the RBL. Donating to the RBL is a symbolic upholding on the social contract I inherited as a Briton. But that social contract was torn , not torn up , but torn on 23rd of June. The symbolism seemed inadequate this year. So I donated to the German Red Cross' Syria relief work instead.

    This didn't make me feel any better. It felt like a stage of grief. But then came Farage and the Golden Lift, Le Pen and venial Corbyn's appeasement. Why should I feel an ounce of regret ? All this ripping down of established social order by right wing populists is as much a form of liberal individualism as legal pot or turbo consumerism. Social conservatives currently cheering the mob on should be very careful what they wish for.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited November 2016

    Sean_F said:

    It looks like being the case that only Obama will have received more votes than Hillary Clinton in a presidential election. If she had been a decent candidate, she probably would have got the most ever.

    I find it extraordinary that she thought it unnecessary to campaign in Wisconsin or Michigan, both of which have Republican governors, legislatures, and senators.
    She did fewer venues than Trump and spent more dollars. Maybe her health was not up to doing more?
    I don't think so, more that rallies are not her thing. She is a person happy with debating policy in a fairly erudite way, but working a crowd is not her thing. Bill was good at that, with her being the power behind the throne. It doesn't work the other way around.
    Charles said:

    Americans are so ignorant about anything that goes on beyond their own country, that they probably do believe Nigel Farage is Leader of the Opposition. That photo just shows what a party of alpha males UKIP are and I don't think Suzanne Evans stands a chance.

    Full marks to NF for being the first to meet Trump but in the grand scheme of things he is playing a very dangerous game and should stop rubbishing the PM. If David Cameron and Osborne were still in government, then some very serious grovelling would now be going on behind the scenes.

    I reckon it's the reverse: that the Presodent-Elect's team and HMG don't take Farage remotely seriously.

    As an individual clearly he was helpful and Trump wanted to recognise that personally. But if he was seen as a serious contender then protocol would have kicked in: you are the government before the opposition; the President talks to the PM while Boris calls the VP etc etc
    I don't think that the Trumpster is one for protocol! Indeed he might like to snub Boris for his remarks. Don't expect a snake to behave (as Trump himself said).
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    I was fairly convinced that Hilary would only be a one-term president. Now she'll be a permanent non-president ... :)

    Now, how about Trump? Well, he's a wheeler-dealer, not a politician. The two share some similar skillsets, but also different ones. If he just wants to be a president, he'll be fine. If he wants to actually *do* things, then he might find that the political system will prevent him in ways the commerce system did not.

    I can imagine him getting bored and frustrated very quickly. Just like Obama would have, if Obama had not enjoyed politics so much.

    Looking at the positives: he is a wheeler-dealer. He's a salesman: up to now, he's been selling himself and his brand. It's perfectly possible for him to *sell* good policies that would better America and the world.

    Possible, but sadly unlikely IMO.
    The strength of the generic republican in the polls (Check Rubio's performance in Florida) suggests to me that he gets back in personally.

    Also expectations for him are practically zero so far as I can work out from every vox pop I've heard.

    Meanwhile I think the DNC run Warren, and lose.

    I doubt it? I think it's going to be some time before the Dems run a liberal from Massachusetts for pres. The parallels with Kerry in 2004 would be too much and with the thrashing in 1988, third time wouldn't be the charm.
  • Options

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    Don's not really a man for precedents tho'..
    One term Presidents:

    George HW Bush (41), Jimmy Carter (39), Gerald Ford (38), 31, 27, 23, 22.

    The point about Trump is that he doesn't try to build consensus. One term will be enough for him to alienate everybody, including the electorate. He surrounds himself with 'Yes' men and family, it's not a good sign.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    What an extraordinary Rembrance Sunday. Farage in a Golden Lift, the leader of the FN a heavyweight and relevant interviewee on the BBC's flagship political show and the LotO appeasing the European dictator de jour. Be in no doubt this is late decadence. We're giving up.

    I didn't understand it fully until now but this is the first year since I started Infants School aged 5 I've not worn a Poppy. I'd never wear a Poppy unless I'd donated to the RBL. Donating to the RBL is a symbolic upholding on the social contract I inherited as a Briton. But that social contract was torn , not torn up , but torn on 23rd of June. The symbolism seemed inadequate this year. So I donated to the German Red Cross' Syria relief work instead.

    This didn't make me feel any better. It felt like a stage of grief. But then came Farage and the Golden Lift, Le Pen and venial Corbyn's appeasement. Why should I feel an ounce of regret ? All this ripping down of established social order by right wing populists is as much a form of liberal individualism as legal pot or turbo consumerism. Social conservatives currently cheering the mob on should be very careful what they wish for.

    I didn't go so far, and was at my local war memorial this morning wearing a poppy for the wreath laying.

    I have however got sick of the poppy police enforcing compliance. The football row for a start, but also the absurdity of the cookiemonster poppy row. Virture signalling at its very worst.
  • Options
    Well, I'm certainly depressed, and not just about the shellacking I took on bets on Tuesday night.
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    I was fairly convinced that Hilary would only be a one-term president. Now she'll be a permanent non-president ... :)

    Now, how about Trump? Well, he's a wheeler-dealer, not a politician. The two share some similar skillsets, but also different ones. If he just wants to be a president, he'll be fine. If he wants to actually *do* things, then he might find that the political system will prevent him in ways the commerce system did not.

    I can imagine him getting bored and frustrated very quickly. Just like Obama would have, if Obama had not enjoyed politics so much.

    Looking at the positives: he is a wheeler-dealer. He's a salesman: up to now, he's been selling himself and his brand. It's perfectly possible for him to *sell* good policies that would better America and the world.

    Possible, but sadly unlikely IMO.
    The strength of the generic republican in the polls (Check Rubio's performance in Florida) suggests to me that he gets back in personally.

    Also expectations for him are practically zero so far as I can work out from every vox pop I've heard.

    Meanwhile I think the DNC run Warren, and lose.

    The problem the Amercians may have is getting him out of the White House. As his role model is Putin, I expect action on the 22nd Amendment at the beginning of the 2nd term.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,903

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    Don's not really a man for precedents tho'..
    One term Presidents:

    George HW Bush (41), Jimmy Carter (39), Gerald Ford (38), 31, 27, 23, 22.

    The point about Trump is that he doesn't try to build consensus. One term will be enough for him to alienate everybody, including the electorate. He surrounds himself with 'Yes' men and family, it's not a good sign.
    Most one term presidents 'follow their own party'.

    Jimmy Carter is the odd one out here, the exception that proves the rule if you like.

    I'm not saying it is impossible for the Democrats, but they'll need an exceptionally strong candidate to do it with.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,903

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    I was fairly convinced that Hilary would only be a one-term president. Now she'll be a permanent non-president ... :)

    Now, how about Trump? Well, he's a wheeler-dealer, not a politician. The two share some similar skillsets, but also different ones. If he just wants to be a president, he'll be fine. If he wants to actually *do* things, then he might find that the political system will prevent him in ways the commerce system did not.

    I can imagine him getting bored and frustrated very quickly. Just like Obama would have, if Obama had not enjoyed politics so much.

    Looking at the positives: he is a wheeler-dealer. He's a salesman: up to now, he's been selling himself and his brand. It's perfectly possible for him to *sell* good policies that would better America and the world.

    Possible, but sadly unlikely IMO.
    The strength of the generic republican in the polls (Check Rubio's performance in Florida) suggests to me that he gets back in personally.

    Also expectations for him are practically zero so far as I can work out from every vox pop I've heard.

    Meanwhile I think the DNC run Warren, and lose.

    The problem the Amercians may have is getting him out of the White House. As his role model is Putin, I expect action on the 22nd Amendment at the beginning of the 2nd term.
    Bookies will be very happy to take your money on Trump being a three term president.

    Not going to happen.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,924
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    I was fairly convinced that Hilary would only be a one-term president. Now she'll be a permanent non-president ... :)

    Now, how about Trump? Well, he's a wheeler-dealer, not a politician. The two share some similar skillsets, but also different ones. If he just wants to be a president, he'll be fine. If he wants to actually *do* things, then he might find that the political system will prevent him in ways the commerce system did not.

    I can imagine him getting bored and frustrated very quickly. Just like Obama would have, if Obama had not enjoyed politics so much.

    Looking at the positives: he is a wheeler-dealer. He's a salesman: up to now, he's been selling himself and his brand. It's perfectly possible for him to *sell* good policies that would better America and the world.

    Possible, but sadly unlikely IMO.
    The strength of the generic republican in the polls (Check Rubio's performance in Florida) suggests to me that he gets back in personally.

    Also expectations for him are practically zero so far as I can work out from every vox pop I've heard.

    Meanwhile I think the DNC run Warren, and lose.

    I think the DNC run someone in their early 40s, who most of us have never heard of, and who appears vigorous and healthy against a Donald in his mid 70s.
  • Options

    What an extraordinary Rembrance Sunday. Farage in a Golden Lift, the leader of the FN a heavyweight and relevant interviewee on the BBC's flagship political show and the LotO appeasing the European dictator de jour. Be in no doubt this is late decadence. We're giving up.

    I didn't understand it fully until now but this is the first year since I started Infants School aged 5 I've not worn a Poppy. I'd never wear a Poppy unless I'd donated to the RBL. Donating to the RBL is a symbolic upholding on the social contract I inherited as a Briton. But that social contract was torn , not torn up , but torn on 23rd of June. The symbolism seemed inadequate this year. So I donated to the German Red Cross' Syria relief work instead.

    This didn't make me feel any better. It felt like a stage of grief. But then came Farage and the Golden Lift, Le Pen and venial Corbyn's appeasement. Why should I feel an ounce of regret ? All this ripping down of established social order by right wing populists is as much a form of liberal individualism as legal pot or turbo consumerism. Social conservatives currently cheering the mob on should be very careful what they wish for.

    I didn't go so far, and was at my local war memorial this morning wearing a poppy for the wreath laying.

    I have however got sick of the poppy police enforcing compliance. The football row for a start, but also the absurdity of the cookiemonster poppy row. Virture signalling at its very worst.
    First time ever been tempted to buy a white poppy as it seems to get the bigots much more enraged than none at all, but then I thought that might be against the pacific intentions of said poppy.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,811
    FPT


    Charles said:

    » show previous quotes
    Careful fiscal stewardship that was needed to repay the debts from the last time Scotland went bankrupt?

    You halfwit , they used Scotland's cash for the deal to pay England's debts at that time. Good amount of it will be in your family no doubt.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,811

    FPT

    Sean_F said:

    malcolmg said:

    IanB2 said:

    Scott_P said:
    Leader of the UK's biggest group of MEPs at the European parliament.
    He IS a UK opposition leader. He is just not THE UK opposition leader.

    But the idea of "the opposition" is a peculiarly British concept, anyway, and doesn't make great sense here at home, except for the privileges they get by being recognised as such in Parliament. But a Corbyn as leader of "the opposition" clearly doesn't speak for or lead the SNP, LibDems, UKIP, Greens et al (leaving aside whether or not he is leading his own party). You can't blame foreign media for not knowing or not being bothered.
    It is great to see the Tories squirming , humiliated by Nigel as he nips off to discuss with "The Donald" how crap May and the Tories are. Will be magic when Trump insists he will deal with UK via Nigel.
    Is Nigel Farage the first foreign statesman to meet the President-elect?
    I think "Statesman" may be pushing it a bit.....
    First TORY for sure
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,924
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    Don's not really a man for precedents tho'..
    One term Presidents:

    George HW Bush (41), Jimmy Carter (39), Gerald Ford (38), 31, 27, 23, 22.

    The point about Trump is that he doesn't try to build consensus. One term will be enough for him to alienate everybody, including the electorate. He surrounds himself with 'Yes' men and family, it's not a good sign.
    Most one term presidents 'follow their own party'.

    Jimmy Carter is the odd one out here, the exception that proves the rule if you like.

    I'm not saying it is impossible for the Democrats, but they'll need an exceptionally strong candidate to do it with.
    Alternatively, most one term Presidents only had small initial mandates, and Trump fits the bill exactly there.
  • Options
    FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited November 2016

    What an extraordinary Rembrance Sunday. Farage in a Golden Lift, the leader of the FN a heavyweight and relevant interviewee on the BBC's flagship political show and the LotO appeasing the European dictator de jour. Be in no doubt this is late decadence. We're giving up.

    I didn't understand it fully until now but this is the first year since I started Infants School aged 5 I've not worn a Poppy. I'd never wear a Poppy unless I'd donated to the RBL. Donating to the RBL is a symbolic upholding on the social contract I inherited as a Briton. But that social contract was torn , not torn up , but torn on 23rd of June. The symbolism seemed inadequate this year. So I donated to the German Red Cross' Syria relief work instead.

    This didn't make me feel any better. It felt like a stage of grief. But then came Farage and the Golden Lift, Le Pen and venial Corbyn's appeasement. Why should I feel an ounce of regret ? All this ripping down of established social order by right wing populists is as much a form of liberal individualism as legal pot or turbo consumerism. Social conservatives currently cheering the mob on should be very careful what they wish for.

    I didn't go so far, and was at my local war memorial this morning wearing a poppy for the wreath laying.

    I have however got sick of the poppy police enforcing compliance. The football row for a start, but also the absurdity of the cookiemonster poppy row. Virture signalling at its very worst.
    Was there actually really a row about cookie monster? Until I saw it on HIGNFY, I hadn't heard anything about it. It seems now a few people tw@tter about something equates some mega public dust up.

    Pissing toberlone on the other hand!
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,811

    It's a bit embarrassing that Farage has made it in America as the latest in a long line of joke Englishmen - Benny Hill probably being the closest comparison. It makes Americans think we're all like that. How long before Nigel is a appearing on Fox News sipping tea from a china cup and wearing a bowler hat?
    US Ambassador to the remainder of the UK more like.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,924
    As an aside, if anyone wants to see what the UK exports, and to whom, look here:

    http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,924
    HYUFD: where would you like the hundred quid sent?
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,903
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    Don's not really a man for precedents tho'..
    One term Presidents:

    George HW Bush (41), Jimmy Carter (39), Gerald Ford (38), 31, 27, 23, 22.

    The point about Trump is that he doesn't try to build consensus. One term will be enough for him to alienate everybody, including the electorate. He surrounds himself with 'Yes' men and family, it's not a good sign.
    Most one term presidents 'follow their own party'.

    Jimmy Carter is the odd one out here, the exception that proves the rule if you like.

    I'm not saying it is impossible for the Democrats, but they'll need an exceptionally strong candidate to do it with.
    Alternatively, most one term Presidents only had small initial mandates, and Trump fits the bill exactly there.
    Which way is the swing normally after a "new party" POTUS first term ?
  • Options
    The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979
    edited November 2016
    OMG
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD: where would you like the hundred quid sent?

    RCS As stated earlier if you want to send the donation to the Royal British Legion given it is Remembrance Sunday, there donations page is below. Thanks
    http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/get-involved/ways-to-give/make-a-donation
  • Options
  • Options
    @foxinsoxuk I went to our short service on the 11th at 11am. We have a Normandy Veterans plaque in our Church Gardens. There is a good turn out but it's simpler and less Shintoist than our local Sunday full thing. I might still go to Evensong which is held in our Memorial Chapel. I remember my Grandfather still had a WW2 kitbag when I was a child with memorabilia and keep sakes he would show us. He was a Carpenter by trade and ' fought ' in North Africa. He didn't see much combat and seemed to do support work. He never talked about it unless pressed.

    By my teens I noticed his telling of the story had him going across North Africa the wrong way. That and other memory problems we never talked about as there was a Taboo. The first mention of Alzheimer's was his death certificate.

    When I see Trump mocking a disabled person in front of a large rally or hear people comparing the EU to the Third Reich I want to throw up.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    Don's not really a man for precedents tho'..
    One term Presidents:

    George HW Bush (41), Jimmy Carter (39), Gerald Ford (38), 31, 27, 23, 22.

    The point about Trump is that he doesn't try to build consensus. One term will be enough for him to alienate everybody, including the electorate. He surrounds himself with 'Yes' men and family, it's not a good sign.
    Most one term presidents 'follow their own party'.

    Jimmy Carter is the odd one out here, the exception that proves the rule if you like.

    I'm not saying it is impossible for the Democrats, but they'll need an exceptionally strong candidate to do it with.
    Carter's party had control of both houses of Congress in 1980, which is why a mid-terms loss may not be a disaster for Trump
  • Options
    nunununu Posts: 6,024
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    In 2020 we may get the clash of insurgencies we missed in 2016 with Elizabeth Warren building on Sanders' insurrection to win the Democratic nomination to take on President Trump

    I'm assuming that Trump will be a one term President.
    Why ?

    Historical precedent suggests two terms.
    I was fairly convinced that Hilary would only be a one-term president. Now she'll be a permanent non-president ... :)

    Now, how about Trump? Well, he's a wheeler-dealer, not a politician. The two share some similar skillsets, but also different ones. If he just wants to be a president, he'll be fine. If he wants to actually *do* things, then he might find that the political system will prevent him in ways the commerce system did not.

    I can imagine him getting bored and frustrated very quickly. Just like Obama would have, if Obama had not enjoyed politics so much.

    Looking at the positives: he is a wheeler-dealer. He's a salesman: up to now, he's been selling himself and his brand. It's perfectly possible for him to *sell* good policies that would better America and the world.

    Possible, but sadly unlikely IMO.
    The strength of the generic republican in the polls (Check Rubio's performance in Florida) suggests to me that he gets back in personally.

    Also expectations for him are practically zero so far as I can work out from every vox pop I've heard.

    Meanwhile I think the DNC run Warren, and lose.

    The problem the Amercians may have is getting him out of the White House. As his role model is Putin, I expect action on the 22nd Amendment at the beginning of the 2nd term.
    Bookies will be very happy to take your money on Trump being a three term president.

    Not going to happen.
    "Not going to happen". How many times have we heard that....
    ...Trump has so many skeletons in his closets that I can easily see him either trying to become a third term President or making former presidents exempt from prosecution.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,799
    FF43 said:

    An unintended consequence of Trump's election is that his America First policy will almost certainly accelerate the United States' relative decline as a global power and leave the way clearer for China's rise. TPP for instance was the cornerstone of Obama's pivot to Asia, by bringing in other Asian and Pacific countries into the American fold in competition with Chinese overtures to those countries. With Trump's rejection of TPP and internationalisation generally, those countries will see their interests lying more closely with China.

    I'm glad TPP has gone. It was very much an unequal treaty.
This discussion has been closed.