Indeed. The likes of Cruz and Rubio would smash him if tried his one dimensional schtick in the Gen.
2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
- Status
Indeed. The likes of Cruz and Rubio would smash him if tried his one dimensional schtick in the Gen.
Hah... and how many hours did these dudes stand in line and jockey for position so that they could share that moment on telly?
This is funny
Goldman has bought me dinner a few times, so I gotta side with them. Bernie just wants me to pay three median household incomes worth of taxes, instead of the current one and a half. He'll also smile and say its actually for my benefit when he does.
Hopefully the vampires will feel the Bern. And then some long overdue Islandic style justice to sweeten it up.
Trump isn't trying to appeal to the rational segment of the electorate. His base is the irrational. Those of you who are making predictions based on common sense are going to be sorely disappointed. Trump is unstoppable at this point, imo. Clinton doesn't have a chance against his playground insults.
Also, every single condemnation by the likes of Mitt Romney is just grist to Trump's mill. The latter's platform is one that's built on the fact he isn't a part of the establishment. For those who are attracted by that idea, any criticism by the GOP old-guard is a sign he's 'fighting for the people'.
NARAL/Planned Parenthood's endorsed candidate repeats she wouldn't mind a constitutional amendment to ban late-term abortions.
This isn't necessarily supported by the facts though, given that after Romney's speech Cruz won surprise victories in Maine and Kansas (the margin there being the surprise), and basically tied with Trump in Louisiana based on votes cast on polling day alone, where Trump had been expected to win easily. Trump undoubtedly has quite a high bottom level of hardcore support that love his attitude, but he's continually struggled to build on that and severely alienated about half of GOP primary voters in the process.
I think that's not filled in because Bloomberg hadn't polled it, seems they basically looked at every state with 10 EVs or above. Still clearly a massive vanity project though, no chance he'd get a plurality of EVs.
...except in cases where the mother's health is in danger. In other words, the standard position across the world.
Personally, I think the 20 weeks rule is a good one, anything past that should be done only to protect the mother.
Abortion is an extremely difficult and sensitive subject. I used to be extremely libertarian about the issue, but after an experience with a close member of the family I can appreciate the positions of those who want to place some restrictions on it, and that was like only 1-2 weeks old.
Abortion is an extremely difficult and sensitive subject. I used to be extremely libertarian about the issue, but after an experience with a close member of the family I can appreciate the positions of those who want to place some restrictions on it, and that was like only 1-2 weeks old.
I had thought the UK's limit of 24 weeks was about the standard, but looking at it we appear to be one of the most liberal in the world on it, even the Scandis have it earlier.
Nah. If the doctor is tough enough to do it and the mother wants to do it, it should be done whenever she wants. what changed in those extra weeks?
Joking aside, there's a reason why investment income is taxed lower, and it benefits the middle class too. The money they make working one year gets taxed 20-30%, if they intelligently choose to save some of that and invest it, do you want to tax the yield of that the 2nd go around at 20-30% again? Don't you think the tax rate on investment yield, which affects net return, influences their decision to save vs. spend? Most countries in the world have lower rates for investment income.
I'm not entirely against some level of inheritance tax though, just needs to have some thought put into it, since there are both economic and moral aspects. The answer for the tax system is not simply 'more from the 1%', the how matters greatly.
P.S. In a sense the US government was a 40% partner in everything GS or any other IB ever bought for me or their thousands of other clients on thousands of occasions, because its booked as a cost and comes out of their bottom line, therefore reduces their tax burden in $ terms. (Or maybe GS somehow runs a P&L loss, not bothered to check)
I'm with you that investment income should be taxed lower because it's already been taxed. But I think there should be brackets like income tax.
I used to think like that but I read a long thread on Andrew Sullivan's blog (sadly missed) that had stories from all kinds of women who had terrible stories about needing to abort after 20 weeks. There are lots of valid medical reasons for doing so hence why abortion should be the mothers choice alone. You can't set arbitrary rules with abortion.
indeed. These decisions are so traumatic for these women and their families. A matter we don't need the government involved.
And what debate we do have mostly centres around procedure. And on the occasion of an election, when pollsters are producing lists list of important issues, the topic of abortion is nowhere to be seen (not in your average Top 10 anyway). A good thing IMO.
I think there's a vote every now and then on whether to lower the number of weeks (there was one a year or two back if memory serves), but done as a free vote and the debate tends to surround medical evidence on viability. Which is a fair balance.
Joking aside, there's a reason why investment income is taxed lower, and it benefits the middle class too. The money they make working one year gets taxed 20-30%, if they intelligently choose to save some of that and invest it, do you want to tax the yield of that the 2nd go around at 20-30% again? Don't you think the tax rate on investment yield, which affects net return, influences their decision to save vs. spend? Most countries in the world have lower rates for investment income.
I'm not entirely against some level of inheritance tax though, just needs to have some thought put into it, since there are both economic and moral aspects. The answer for the tax system is not simply 'more from the 1%', the how matters greatly.
P.S. In a sense the US government was a 40% partner in everything GS or any other IB ever bought for me or their thousands of other clients on thousands of occasions, because its booked as a cost and comes out of their bottom line, therefore reduces their tax burden in $ terms. (Or maybe GS somehow runs a P&L loss, not bothered to check)
You are kinda missing the point with this. I hope you get the gist of what posters are trying to make about the Middle class and the growing wage gap in our country.
Anyone know if this source is trustworthy?
http://www.inquisitr.com/2858500/mitt-romney-recently-filed-papers/
http://www.inquisitr.com/2858500/mitt-romney-recently-filed-papers/
But a scaling back of rights granted to American women by a Supreme Court which had 8 Republican-appointed judges. And in contradiction to the positions of PP. And weaker than the position of her un-endorsed opponent.
Why go out of your way to compromise on an issue where the SC is on your side?
Gah, I wish Romney was running this year. I'm a staunch Democrat, but Mitt is a much better speaker and has a lot more presence than any of the other Republican candidates except Trump.
I remember him making Obama look very poor in his first debate back in 2012. He'd have done a much more decent job of responding to Trump than the other candidates.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...rence_between_hillary_clinton_and_bernie.html
A very fair article.
A very fair article.
I can't believe what I witnessed last night, I was completely knackered, and couldn't sleep and drowsy from all the meds, and I tried to put Fox on to see the Hannity interview with Trump. I despise the pair of them equally and thought it would be an awful cringe inducing arse licking fest of the highest proportions, however, I missed it. Instead I was treated to a special report by Bret Baier. It was a live one hour show from somewhere in Detroit and featured a 30 minute Q&A sessions with Bernie and 30 mins with Hillary. I instantly thought well this will be a massive set up with unfair and biased questions, the crowd will obviously be all Republicans and it will be a hatchet job. But.......
I couldn't have been more wrong. It was a very fair crowd, and the interviews were actually fair and balanced (lol) nice questions, polite tone, great audience reactions and all round a pretty decent watch. It shocked me really because it's the first time I have ever seen anything like that on Fox in over 15 years of watching the channel. What surprised me more was The Kelly File was on straight afterwards and even Megyn Kelly was polite about the whole thing and both candidates. Obviously she had a dig here and there and also disagreed with a few things, but on a whole, not too much. I still am in shock really. While CNN and MSNBC are clearly moving further to the right all the time, could Fox actually be moving to the left? Surely not. I can't imagine it will last long.
I couldn't have been more wrong. It was a very fair crowd, and the interviews were actually fair and balanced (lol) nice questions, polite tone, great audience reactions and all round a pretty decent watch. It shocked me really because it's the first time I have ever seen anything like that on Fox in over 15 years of watching the channel. What surprised me more was The Kelly File was on straight afterwards and even Megyn Kelly was polite about the whole thing and both candidates. Obviously she had a dig here and there and also disagreed with a few things, but on a whole, not too much. I still am in shock really. While CNN and MSNBC are clearly moving further to the right all the time, could Fox actually be moving to the left? Surely not. I can't imagine it will last long.
The argument is viability starts after 20 weeks. By 24 weeks survival rates outside the womb are above 50%.
Noticed I hadn't read anything from Mark Bowden recently, one of my favorite journalists, and a quick search found that he also chipped in about The Donald a few months ago: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/12/donald-trump-mark-bowden-playboy-profile
Not a surprising read, unfortunately.
I found this particularly accurate and also worrying:
"The ideas that pop into his head are the same ones that occur to any teenager angry about terror attacks. They appeal to anyone who can’t be bothered to think them through—can’t be bothered to ask not just the moral questions but the all-important practical one: Will doing this makes things better or worse? When you believe in your own genius, you don’t question your own flashes of inspiration."
The Dems have largely been boycotting Fox. I'm sure Ailes told the hosts to play nice in the hope that they'd get more access to Dem candidates in the future.
Yeah, it didn't last long back to business as usual, Ingram (bitch) and co have been ripping it apart today. A real shame.
Would've loved to see this, without the pressure or consequences of a general.
http://theweek.com/speedreads/611243/fox-news-tried-set-trumpsanders-debate--almost-succeeded
http://theweek.com/speedreads/611243/fox-news-tried-set-trumpsanders-debate--almost-succeeded
Let's dispense once and for all () this notion that Trump was ever going to pick up any of the Bush/Christie/Carson vote.
He's a con man, and he's run out of marks.
) this notion that Trump was ever going to pick up any of the Bush/Christie/Carson vote.
He's a con man, and he's run out of marks.
But he's attracting new people! Enthusiasm! Rust belt!Let's dispense once and for all (
He's a con man, and he's run out of marks.
To be fair that holds true with a section of right leaning independents (those who find the GOP too moderate) and Reagan Democrats. His ceiling of support amongst rank and file GOP members is consistently about a third, bar the spike after Paris attack. It also explains why to date, he's always fared better in primaries rather than caucuses.
By the way, this is a pretty interesting read regarding race relation with the two Dem candidates.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/why-black-voters-dont-feel-the-bern-213707
I don't know how I feel about this tbh. Good, I suppose - more chance of a brokered convention, so more chance for the Dem. But I'm still convinced he was always the weakest of the Rs in the general.
Woo just voted for Bernie
How's turnout?
I was number 313 and its 1 in the afternoon here. I didn't live here four years ago so I have nothing to compare it to.
Cheers.
"Everybody loves Bill"
- Status