Latest post of the previous page:
It doesn't get any better, does it? Donald Trump Wants to Unite the Country By Making Sure We All Live “Under One God”INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
2016 US election
Re: 2016 US election
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: 2016 US election
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: 2016 US election
The first debate featured an unprepared man repeatedly shouting over a highly prepared woman
The first presidential debate featured a man who didn’t know what he was talking about repeatedly shouting over a woman who was extraordinarily prepared.
The debate was a collision between Donald Trump’s politics of dominance and Hillary Clinton’s politics of preparation.
Clinton’s politics of preparation won.
Trump did his best to be fair. He interrupted Clinton 25 times in the debate’s first 26 minutes. He talked over both her and moderator Lester Holt with ease. But the show of dominance quickly ran into a problem: Trump would shout over his interlocutors only to prove he had nothing to say.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: 2016 US election
I watched the debate and agree that Hillary won, was much more organized and was clearly more "presidential". Trump was his brash and interrupting self, although I thought a bit tamer than his usual demeanor. His thoughts appeared to become more disorganized and reactionary as the debate progressed.
Listening to the analysts afterwards, they agreed that Hillary was the "winner" but that Trump supporters actually like him to be the way he was, speaking unprepared and making wild accusations. They concluded that Trump probably didn't lose any of his support.
I'll be interested to see the post-debate polls.
Listening to the analysts afterwards, they agreed that Hillary was the "winner" but that Trump supporters actually like him to be the way he was, speaking unprepared and making wild accusations. They concluded that Trump probably didn't lose any of his support.
I'll be interested to see the post-debate polls.
This is one of the great social functions of science - to free people of superstition. - Steven Weinberg
-
Tetenterre
- Posts: 3244
- Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am
Re: 2016 US election
I too watched it (stinking man-flu, couldn't sleep). I went into it agreeing with Niall Ferguson's ever-so-sophisticated notion that Trump v Clinton = FUBAR v SNAFU and came away realising what an utterly despicable man Trump is. What really turned it for me (in addition to his constant interruption) was when Clinton pointed out that he had paid no tax in a number of years that she specified. His response was, "That's because I'm clever." Then Clinton pointed out that this equated to Trump not paying taxes for schools, health-care, defence, etc. He went very quiet for a while.
Also, the hypocritical sod had the gall to go after Clinton for using the law to her advantage re the email scandal, but gloat about using the law to his advantage in order to shaft people he'd contracted to do jobs for him in various parts of the world.
Probably still FUBAR v SNAFU, though.
Also, the hypocritical sod had the gall to go after Clinton for using the law to her advantage re the email scandal, but gloat about using the law to his advantage in order to shaft people he'd contracted to do jobs for him in various parts of the world.
Probably still FUBAR v SNAFU, though.
Steve
Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.
Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.
Re: 2016 US election
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: 2016 US election
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: 2016 US election
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: 2016 US election
Last night's debate:
Hillary definitely scored highest on the Hair-O-Meter. Her lovely locks clearly outshone Trumps thinning comb-over.
On the Truth-O-Meter, Trump was more often judged "Mostly False", while Hillary was "Mostly True".
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... residenti/
Hillary definitely scored highest on the Hair-O-Meter. Her lovely locks clearly outshone Trumps thinning comb-over.
On the Truth-O-Meter, Trump was more often judged "Mostly False", while Hillary was "Mostly True".
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... residenti/
This is one of the great social functions of science - to free people of superstition. - Steven Weinberg
Re: 2016 US election
But maybe you make the mistake in thinking that truth plays any part in this fiasco?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: 2016 US election
Nah, that's why I put the Hair-O-Meter first. A far better indicator of personality and suitability for office.Alan H wrote:But maybe you make the mistake in thinking that truth plays any part in this fiasco?
This is one of the great social functions of science - to free people of superstition. - Steven Weinberg
Re: 2016 US election
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: 2016 US election
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: 2016 US election
It must be grossly embarrassing to be a citizen of the USA to see the world looking at what they might get as president and the gross effect he will have on the world.
Re: 2016 US election
On a lighter note...
- Bill&Hillary.jpg (68.85 KiB) Viewed 7397 times
This is one of the great social functions of science - to free people of superstition. - Steven Weinberg
Re: 2016 US election
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: 2016 US election
but to be fair to Trumpie, would you know if Hill's hair was real or not? Even in these days of gender equality, men can't really get away with smartening themselves in the way that ladies can!Ken H wrote:Last night's debate:
Hillary definitely scored highest on the Hair-O-Meter. Her lovely locks clearly outshone Trumps thinning comb-over.
Re: 2016 US election
Why be fair to Trump? He isn't fair to anyone else.animist wrote:but to be fair to Trumpie, would you know if Hill's hair was real or not? Even in these days of gender equality, men can't really get away with smartening themselves in the way that ladies can!Ken H wrote:Last night's debate:
Hillary definitely scored highest on the Hair-O-Meter. Her lovely locks clearly outshone Trumps thinning comb-over.
Anyway, Trump would be better off with a toupee than that monster hair style. Better yet if he could keep from scowling! Imagine him with Hillary's hair and a smile. He'd get a lot more votes. Not mine though!
This is one of the great social functions of science - to free people of superstition. - Steven Weinberg
Re: 2016 US election
I can't believe the constant barrage of political TV ads, junk mail, door hangers and door knockers (one was an anti-abortion Christian group for Trump). These ads are almost all hateful rantings against the other party's candidates and have been the worst I have ever seen. Thank goodness when I re-registered (as an independent) I did not give our new telephone number and we have yet to get a political call.
I'm sure that when Trump loses, and he has promised to go away quietly if he does (if you can believe him), his followers will continue to cause problems. Their "Trumped up" hatred of Hillary and progressives is astounding. One can only hope that the Democrats will be able to elect enough reps to control the House and perhaps increase their number in the Senate. Otherwise we can expect nothing but stalemates and ugly compromises.
I'm sure that when Trump loses, and he has promised to go away quietly if he does (if you can believe him), his followers will continue to cause problems. Their "Trumped up" hatred of Hillary and progressives is astounding. One can only hope that the Democrats will be able to elect enough reps to control the House and perhaps increase their number in the Senate. Otherwise we can expect nothing but stalemates and ugly compromises.
This is one of the great social functions of science - to free people of superstition. - Steven Weinberg
Re: 2016 US election
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: 2016 US election
Particularly for Ken, with a warning that it can't be unseen:
Spoiler: