The Politics Thread

[Hoboh]

I would join up with other like minded people

Ah. It's at this point that the flaw in your plan becomes apparent, Hoboh.

I think you will find that Euro lovers are dwindling by the day and the number of migrant lovers would fit in a telephone box, well apart from that is the super rich lovies and the 'brand' types, they'd fit in the posh coffee shop!

[Bijou Bob]

Money where your gob is then Hoboh, I'm happy to wager 20 quid on there being a 'Yes' vote to staying in the EU.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Jeremy Corbyn?
I'll have to look up what that's all about, but too knackered at the moment to bother filtering hundreds of tinternet pages just to discern the basics.
That and whatever it is that's going on about emails between Cherie Blair and Hilary Clinton - what's that about. Just rhetorical, I'll research tomorrow...

[KeyserSoze]

Michael Crick continues Channel 4's attempt to become the most vain reporting network of all time by 'exposing' a tory 'mole' at a public corbyn rally



As if a) this never happens anywhere else and b) this is actual news.

[KeyserSoze]

Interview with Donald Trump by The Economist, 40-odd minutes of it.

http://www.economist.com/diatrumpinterview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

interesting listen (said with the thought that he isn't getting anywhere near the White House)

[Beefheart]

Interview with Donald Trump by The Economist, 40-odd minutes of it.

http://www.economist.com/diatrumpinterview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

interesting listen (said with the thought that he isn't getting anywhere near the White House)

Every time I listen to him he just sounds like some chancer who's saying the first thing that comes to his head. He's like a 5 year old let loose with billions of dollars. He mentions in that interview that he wants apple to manufacture products in the USA, but from a conversation I had with an economist one of the main reasons that they base their production in China, aside from the obviously lower cost, is down to the sheer number of people employed (in excess of 1 million), if not directly by apple, by a firm that manufactures components on Apple's behalf. There aren't even enough cities in America with populations high enough for Apple to base their manufacturing their. Now, whilst Donald Trump is clearly not interested in doing any research, why is a journalist working for a newspaper called 'The Economist' not challenging him on it?

[KeyserSoze]

Interview with Donald Trump by The Economist, 40-odd minutes of it.

http://www.economist.com/diatrumpinterview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

interesting listen (said with the thought that he isn't getting anywhere near the White House)

Every time I listen to him he just sounds like some chancer who's saying the first thing that comes to his head. He's like a 5 year old let loose with billions of dollars. He mentions in that interview that he wants apple to manufacture products in the USA, but from a conversation I had with an economist one of the main reasons that they base their production in China, aside from the obviously lower cost, is down to the sheer number of people employed (in excess of 1 million), if not directly by apple, by a firm that manufactures components on Apple's behalf. There aren't even enough cities in America with populations high enough for Apple to base their manufacturing their. Now, whilst Donald Trump is clearly not interested in doing any research, why is a journalist working for a newspaper called 'The Economist' not challenging him on it?

Aye that's an interesting point, and one a few were debating. Some said that the journo was going way too easy on him, while others were saying that trying to rebuke him would basically render the interview pointless. I think he used the rope given to him to hang himself, personally.

You'll be happy to note that the Economist has crucified him in their write-up though.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Interview with Donald Trump by The Economist, 40-odd minutes of it.

http://www.economist.com/diatrumpinterview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

interesting listen (said with the thought that he isn't getting anywhere near the White House)

Every time I listen to him he just sounds like some chancer who's saying the first thing that comes to his head. He's like a 5 year old let loose with billions of dollars. He mentions in that interview that he wants apple to manufacture products in the USA, but from a conversation I had with an economist one of the main reasons that they base their production in China, aside from the obviously lower cost, is down to the sheer number of people employed (in excess of 1 million), if not directly by apple, by a firm that manufactures components on Apple's behalf. There aren't even enough cities in America with populations high enough for Apple to base their manufacturing their. Now, whilst Donald Trump is clearly not interested in doing any research, why is a journalist working for a newspaper called 'The Economist' not challenging him on it?

Aye that's an interesting point, and one a few were debating. Some said that the journo was going way too easy on him, while others were saying that trying to rebuke him would basically render the interview pointless. I think he used the rope given to him to hang himself, personally.

You'll be happy to note that the Economist has crucified him in their write-up though.

Trouble is he doesn't seem to be hanging himself. I thought he would provide some freak entertainment but far too many seem to be taking him far too seriously.

[BWFC_Insane]

If Bush can "win" two terms in America I see little reason why Trump cannot.

[Prufrock]

This is a fab piece of writing: http://thequietus.com/articles/18714-je ... y-policies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It's fecking long mind. Favourite section,


"I think we all know what the problems are. For instance, I'm not what you'd call a hawk, but please: out there in grainy, hard-bollocked reality, Corbyn's foreign policy would not just leave Britain naked in the conference chamber, but fastened into a gimp mask with a horse-tail dangling out of its arse. Whether we like it or not, there is at least one confrontation coming; you can be sure of that. There are some nasty people in the world, you know. Some of them – get this! – are even nastier than Tony Blair. And even if you leave them all alone, they will not stop. Not for all the tea in Islington North.


What's more, there are certain... issues with Corbyn and the company he keeps. He doesn't just have skeletons in his closet, he hangs up his shirts in an ossuary. This is not a trivial matter. Those who underestimate the problems this will cause are fooling themselves (and in some cases, losing sight of their own moral compass)."

[Prufrock]

Also, there's no way this man can ever be PM. Look at his shoes:

[bobo the clown]

Have I missed it or has Comrade Jeremy kept his head down while the Migrant/Refugee thing has kicked off in the past couple of weeks in particular ?

[KeyserSoze]

Interview with Donald Trump by The Economist, 40-odd minutes of it.

http://www.economist.com/diatrumpinterview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

interesting listen (said with the thought that he isn't getting anywhere near the White House)

Every time I listen to him he just sounds like some chancer who's saying the first thing that comes to his head. He's like a 5 year old let loose with billions of dollars. He mentions in that interview that he wants apple to manufacture products in the USA, but from a conversation I had with an economist one of the main reasons that they base their production in China, aside from the obviously lower cost, is down to the sheer number of people employed (in excess of 1 million), if not directly by apple, by a firm that manufactures components on Apple's behalf. There aren't even enough cities in America with populations high enough for Apple to base their manufacturing their. Now, whilst Donald Trump is clearly not interested in doing any research, why is a journalist working for a newspaper called 'The Economist' not challenging him on it?

Aye that's an interesting point, and one a few were debating. Some said that the journo was going way too easy on him, while others were saying that trying to rebuke him would basically render the interview pointless. I think he used the rope given to him to hang himself, personally.

You'll be happy to note that the Economist has crucified him in their write-up though.

Trouble is he doesn't seem to be hanging himself. I thought he would provide some freak entertainment but far too many seem to be taking him far too seriously.

He said he'd build a wall between Mexico and the United States and said a reporter's tough questioning was down to 'blood coming out of her whatever'.

He's up in the polls, but that lead will diminish as candidates pull out. He might, might, get close in the Republican primary, but on a national level I just cannot see him flying at all.

[Gary the Enfield]

Also, there's no way this man can ever be PM. Look at his shoes:

Nevermind that. What's the name of the lass with the legs?

[Hoboh]

Liz Kendall conceded that her campaign had failed and that Jeremy Corbyn – the man expected to be declared the winner on Saturday – had energised a party crying out for change.

Her speech marks the first of what is expected to be many frank self-assessments on the Blairite wing of the party. “Everyone must – and I believe will – accept the result and mandate of the new leader. They will have won the right to pursue their agenda and must be given the space and scope to do so.

“If Jeremy Corbyn wins, it would be a huge mistake not to accept that result as legitimate. The voters will have made their decision and the rest of us must accept it as such.”

Acknowledging the leftwing MP’s likely victory, she said Corybn’s campaign had “mobilised and enthused vast numbers of people in a way we haven’t seen for decades. The debate that’s exploded during this contest has been simmering for many years.”

Kendall said Labour had not had a proper debate about its values for too long, and conceded that her wing of the party had spent too long avoiding the subject. “The last time we really debated the purpose of our party and what we stand for, throughout the Labour movement, was the reform of clause IV – 20 years ago,” she added.

Please, please JC, I never really meant all those nasty things I said about you, your policies, nor the left wing of the party.

Can I be in your shadow cabinet?

[Hoboh]

This is a fab piece of writing: http://thequietus.com/articles/18714-je ... y-policies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It's fecking long mind. Favourite section,


"I think we all know what the problems are. For instance, I'm not what you'd call a hawk, but please: out there in grainy, hard-bollocked reality, Corbyn's foreign policy would not just leave Britain naked in the conference chamber, but fastened into a gimp mask with a horse-tail dangling out of its arse. Whether we like it or not, there is at least one confrontation coming; you can be sure of that. There are some nasty people in the world, you know. Some of them – get this! – are even nastier than Tony Blair. And even if you leave them all alone, they will not stop. Not for all the tea in Islington North.


What's more, there are certain... issues with Corbyn and the company he keeps. He doesn't just have skeletons in his closet, he hangs up his shirts in an ossuary. This is not a trivial matter. Those who underestimate the problems this will cause are fooling themselves (and in some cases, losing sight of their own moral compass)."

But I post similar things and you get on my case but this is errr 'fab'?
#trendytwits.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Liz Kendall conceded that her campaign had failed and that Jeremy Corbyn – the man expected to be declared the winner on Saturday – had energised a party crying out for change.

Her speech marks the first of what is expected to be many frank self-assessments on the Blairite wing of the party. “Everyone must – and I believe will – accept the result and mandate of the new leader. They will have won the right to pursue their agenda and must be given the space and scope to do so.

“If Jeremy Corbyn wins, it would be a huge mistake not to accept that result as legitimate. The voters will have made their decision and the rest of us must accept it as such.”

Acknowledging the leftwing MP’s likely victory, she said Corybn’s campaign had “mobilised and enthused vast numbers of people in a way we haven’t seen for decades. The debate that’s exploded during this contest has been simmering for many years.”

Kendall said Labour had not had a proper debate about its values for too long, and conceded that her wing of the party had spent too long avoiding the subject. “The last time we really debated the purpose of our party and what we stand for, throughout the Labour movement, was the reform of clause IV – 20 years ago,” she added.

Please, please JC, I never really meant all those nasty things I said about you, your policies, nor the left wing of the party.

Can I be in your shadow cabinet?

In the same interview she specifically says she wont serve in his cabinet

[Prufrock]

This is a fab piece of writing: http://thequietus.com/articles/18714-je ... y-policies" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It's fecking long mind. Favourite section,


"I think we all know what the problems are. For instance, I'm not what you'd call a hawk, but please: out there in grainy, hard-bollocked reality, Corbyn's foreign policy would not just leave Britain naked in the conference chamber, but fastened into a gimp mask with a horse-tail dangling out of its arse. Whether we like it or not, there is at least one confrontation coming; you can be sure of that. There are some nasty people in the world, you know. Some of them – get this! – are even nastier than Tony Blair. And even if you leave them all alone, they will not stop. Not for all the tea in Islington North.


What's more, there are certain... issues with Corbyn and the company he keeps. He doesn't just have skeletons in his closet, he hangs up his shirts in an ossuary. This is not a trivial matter. Those who underestimate the problems this will cause are fooling themselves (and in some cases, losing sight of their own moral compass)."

But I post similar things and you get on my case but this is errr 'fab'?
#trendytwits.

Yeah...no you don't.

[Prufrock]

Liz Kendall conceded that her campaign had failed and that Jeremy Corbyn – the man expected to be declared the winner on Saturday – had energised a party crying out for change.

Her speech marks the first of what is expected to be many frank self-assessments on the Blairite wing of the party. “Everyone must – and I believe will – accept the result and mandate of the new leader. They will have won the right to pursue their agenda and must be given the space and scope to do so.

“If Jeremy Corbyn wins, it would be a huge mistake not to accept that result as legitimate. The voters will have made their decision and the rest of us must accept it as such.”

Acknowledging the leftwing MP’s likely victory, she said Corybn’s campaign had “mobilised and enthused vast numbers of people in a way we haven’t seen for decades. The debate that’s exploded during this contest has been simmering for many years.”

Kendall said Labour had not had a proper debate about its values for too long, and conceded that her wing of the party had spent too long avoiding the subject. “The last time we really debated the purpose of our party and what we stand for, throughout the Labour movement, was the reform of clause IV – 20 years ago,” she added.

Please, please JC, I never really meant all those nasty things I said about you, your policies, nor the left wing of the party.

Can I be in your shadow cabinet?

In the same interview she specifically says she wont serve in his cabinet

[thebish]

Have I missed it or has Comrade Jeremy kept his head down while the Migrant/Refugee thing has kicked off in the past couple of weeks in particular ?

yeah - you missed it - which is odd for one of his supporters...