US presidential elections

First topic message reminder :

Morning all,

So after the win in Iowa for Ted Cruz last night where do we see this going?

I'm thinking Clinton v Rubio. Lots of twists and turns still to come though.

Evidently not.

dyrewolfe wrote:

Rowley wrote:The judges job is to enforce the law, which they have done correctly in this instance. We have a system of parliamentary sovereignty. The referendum doesn't, can't and never did supersede that. Fundamental change to our constitutional laws, which leaving the EU undoubtedly represents have to be debated and discussed in parliament, that is long established. This determination, irrespective of who decided it or brought it about, simply re-affirms that point.

I am with Shah, the attacks on the judiciary and judges are shameful and completely unjustified. Also they have not ruled against the will of the people they have merely pointed out the correct way the will of the people will be enacted, the distinction is huge.

I'll hold you (and Shah) to that.

I'll be ready with a big "I told you so" if we are still waiting for Article 50 to be invoked in 2 years' time, or if we end up with a "soft" Brexit with no substantial changes 5 years down the line...or however long it takes...

Say what you like, it was a calculated move by Remainers to delay, or even stop Brexit...even if it was done following due process. If the Remainers hadn't issued the challenge in the first place, no-one would even be talking about it.

I think your anger is misplaced. The system of parliamentary sovereignty has been in place since around the Civil War. Those running the leave campaign perhaps mis-sold to you the ease and process by which the exit from the EU would be achieved. Not to worry though, can add it to the list along with the money for the NHS.

profitius wrote:Wonderful.  


It's a great day. Brexit a few months back now this. The people are waking up.

God help us.

profitius wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
How could the experts, the commentators, the pundits get this so wrong?

They were intentionally oversampling the democratic vote to make Clinton look good. The whole establishment was against Trump.

Tin foil again. I suspect that, as no doubt with Brexit, people voting Trump simply didn't admit to that intention if asked by pollsters. Not everything is a conspiracy against Brexit/Trump .

Rowley wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

Rowley wrote:The judges job is to enforce the law, which they have done correctly in this instance. We have a system of parliamentary sovereignty. The referendum doesn't, can't and never did supersede that. Fundamental change to our constitutional laws, which leaving the EU undoubtedly represents have to be debated and discussed in parliament, that is long established. This determination, irrespective of who decided it or brought it about, simply re-affirms that point.

I am with Shah, the attacks on the judiciary and judges are shameful and completely unjustified. Also they have not ruled against the will of the people they have merely pointed out the correct way the will of the people will be enacted, the distinction is huge.

I'll hold you (and Shah) to that.

I'll be ready with a big "I told you so" if we are still waiting for Article 50 to be invoked in 2 years' time, or if we end up with a "soft" Brexit with no substantial changes 5 years down the line...or however long it takes...

Say what you like, it was a calculated move by Remainers to delay, or even stop Brexit...even if it was done following due process. If the Remainers hadn't issued the challenge in the first place, no-one would even be talking about it.

I think your anger is misplaced. The system of parliamentary sovereignty has been in place since around the Civil War. Those running the leave campaign perhaps mis-sold to you the ease and process by which the exit from the EU would be achieved. Not to worry though, can add it to the list along with the money for the NHS.

Didn't Farage himself have to backtrack on live tv at the weekend when told the Brexit vote was only advisory to take?

dyrewolfe wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:More concerned with the sh*t the judiciary is taking at the moment navy. Bad times ahead if the press can attack them unimpeded by anything resembling decency or honesty.  

My 2 cents' worth is that they deserve it, for effectively ruling against the wishes of the people and throwing a major spanner in the works for Brexit...possibly stopping it dead.

You do realise the challenge was brought to court by Remainers in the first place and at least one of the judges was a Remainer too?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728460/Article-50-three-judges-blocked-Brexit

And there was me thinking judges are supposed to be impartial...

Christ on a crutch!! The judges aren't there to implement "the wishes of the people". And so what if a Judge was a remainer? The means the other two weren't and yet they still upheld the submission. Are you seriously suggesting they are actively biased? We HAVE to trust that they make their decisions impartially or we're all f*cked.

dyrewolfe wrote:

Rowley wrote:The judges job is to enforce the law, which they have done correctly in this instance. We have a system of parliamentary sovereignty. The referendum doesn't, can't and never did supersede that. Fundamental change to our constitutional laws, which leaving the EU undoubtedly represents have to be debated and discussed in parliament, that is long established. This determination, irrespective of who decided it or brought it about, simply re-affirms that point.

I am with Shah, the attacks on the judiciary and judges are shameful and completely unjustified. Also they have not ruled against the will of the people they have merely pointed out the correct way the will of the people will be enacted, the distinction is huge.

I'll hold you (and Shah) to that.

I'll be ready with a big "I told you so" if we are still waiting for Article 50 to be invoked in 2 years' time, or if we end up with a "soft" Brexit with no substantial changes 5 years down the line...or however long it takes...

Say what you like, it was a calculated move by Remainers to delay, or even stop Brexit...even if it was done following due process. If the Remainers hadn't issued the challenge in the first place, no-one would even be talking about it.

But, were that to happen, it won't be the fault of any judges. They'll do what they're required to do. If it goes belly up, blame the clueless such as Boris et al. Or even Cameron for the wording surrounding the referendum.

dyrewolfe wrote:...With this challenge the Remainers have effectively prevented the Leavers from getting what they voted for.

Which, guess what?, isn't the fault of the judiciary. Grieve was worryingly close to the mark when he likened the knee-jerk 'enemies of the people' comments and the lack of support from Liz Truss to Zimbabwe under Mugabe.

navyblueshorts wrote:

dyrewolfe wrote:

ShahenshahG wrote:More concerned with the sh*t the judiciary is taking at the moment navy. Bad times ahead if the press can attack them unimpeded by anything resembling decency or honesty.  

My 2 cents' worth is that they deserve it, for effectively ruling against the wishes of the people and throwing a major spanner in the works for Brexit...possibly stopping it dead.

You do realise the challenge was brought to court by Remainers in the first place and at least one of the judges was a Remainer too?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/728460/Article-50-three-judges-blocked-Brexit

And there was me thinking judges are supposed to be impartial...

Christ on a crutch!! The judges aren't there to implement "the wishes of the people". And so what if a Judge was a remainer? The means the other two weren't and yet they still upheld the submission. Are you seriously suggesting they are actively biased? We HAVE to trust that they make their decisions impartially or we're all f*cked.

Well, all I'm saying is I don't trust them.

And like I said before, we are now in a situation where the government has to get majority consent from Parliament before they can trigger Article 50.

Labour have already said they won't support Brexit unless it contains continued access to the single market and freedom of movement, among other things.

So in effect, Leavers are being denied the Brexit they voted for...all because a minority of Remainers who didn't accept the referendum results found a loophole to challenge the government and get their way after all.

In my eyes that is no more democratic than allowing the government to use royal prerogative.

Are you suggesting that an unrefined decree, should steamroll through any kind of refinement process which includes a sovereign judiciary and a publically and democratically elected body?

It's a bit inconvenient though Rick, innit?

Can I just point out when we talk about judges, this has not gone in front of Judge Rinder during a break in filming Strictly. This has been heard by some of the most senior judges in this country. Becoming a judge is a difficult process, becoming a senior judge is hugely so. The idea that they would make a decision on this case because they were sulking over the result of the referendum is an insult to both them and our intelligence. What happens is both sides present their arguments and the judges consider these arguments and make a decision which is correct or how the law should be properly applied in regards to those arguments, which is what they have done.

I do wonder how many people have actually read the determination, not the edited highlights or summary in the press, but the actual full determination. It is out in the public domain so is available for anybody to do so. For anybody who hasn’t I’d suggest they do so, it is well written, coherently argued and thoughtfully considered.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2016/2768.html

Holyrood getting a veto would steam my peas though

Back on track, wonder how quickly "Lock her Up" will be buried.

superflyweight wrote:It's a bit inconvenient though Rick, innit?

Ah, fair enough, feck it then, few hours down the pub should have this sorted.

dyrewolfe wrote:...So in effect, Leavers are being denied the Brexit they voted for...all because a minority of Remainers who didn't accept the referendum results found a loophole to challenge the government and get their way after all...

Except that's not the case is it? The remain people aren't getting their way, although I'm sure a few would like to scupper it. May's caused some of her own issues now having declared Article 50 will be invoked next March. And, again, it's not the judiciary here that's to blame for anything. It's Cameron, Boris, Fox etc etc. Someone competent (God knows, they seem to be lacking) should have explained all of these possibilities very early on. It's pretty clear that the entire thing is a complete clusterf*ck.
For me, I wanted to remain in the EU, but we should now leave as that was the result of the referendum. We made our bed, we should lie in it. For better or worse.

GSC wrote:Back on track, wonder how quickly "Lock her Up" will be buried.

He'll make a deal with the Clintons on inauguration day:  "Look, here's the deal.  I quit talkin' about "Lock her up" if you get those set-up gals off my back with that lawyer chick that seemed to come up with a hatful of them just as I was on the home run.  You quit providing the funds to try lockin' me up and I'll quit sayin' you should be locked up? --- A deal?  ---- Good.  You're invited to the after-party in the White House.  Glad to have you.  You can even play that Sax of yours, Bill, if you want to. That Bon Jovi guy is refusing to come and Bruce won't pick up the phone".

Can I point something else out around this whole referendum thing. All this talk of we’ll now get a watered down Brexit, or we won’t now get a hard Brexit etc. So what? The referendum did not have any conditions or guarantees attached to it, when we all voted, the ballot paper did not say leave the EU with the curtailment of free movement, nor did it say leave the EU with the guarantee we will absolutely keep free trade in place.

There were I believe 17 million people voted to leave the EU, the idea each and every one of these had exactly the same motivation for doing so or that each one has an identical wish list for what we get from the terms of our exit is laughable. What is really frustrating is countless people beforehand were pointing out realities such as the fact you probably would not get free trade without free movement staying in place, all of these were shouted down under the banner of “Project Fear”. What this determination means is when we inevitably do not get the moon on a stick deal from Europe we would ideally like, but were never going to get, this will now be blamed on the SNP, the labour opposition and those who brought about this determination rather than those who ran the Leave campaign who suggested a wholly unrealistic set of objectives could be negotiated and achieved with the EU.

GSC wrote:Back on track, wonder how quickly "Lock her Up" will be buried.

He has already buried it, although the media will keep repeating it.  On his acceptance speech he said Clinton was a tough competitor, he said everyone should recognise and thank her for 30 years of public service, that she is a great American etc etc.  He said he wants to work with both republicans and democrats, will do his best for all Americans, whatever their ethnicity, religion, colour etc etc.  He also said something along the lines that America is a good friend to all other countries that wants to be friends with it etc etc.  He said that campaign politics is very tough and exhausting but that it was just politics, and now the hard work begins, wants to make all Americans proud, do a good job for them etc etc.

Nore Staat wrote:

GSC wrote:Back on track, wonder how quickly "Lock her Up" will be buried.

He has already buried it, although the media will keep repeating it.  On his acceptance speech he said Clinton was a tough competitor, he said everyone should recognise and thank her for 30 years of public service, that she is a great American etc etc.  He said he wants to work with both republicans and democrats, will do his best for all Americans, whatever their ethnicity, religion, colour etc etc.  He also said something along the lines that America is a good friend to all other countries that wants to be friends with it etc etc.  He said that campaign politics is very tough and exhausting but that it was just politics, and now the hard work begins, wants to make all Americans proud, do a good job for them etc etc.

Code - "I lied, I know that I lied, you know that I lied or are too stupid to know that I lied."  

superflyweight wrote:

Code - "I lied, I know that I lied, you know that I lied or are too stupid to know that I lied."  

Yeah, lying is a big part of politics. He's telling the truth there too. Or would we prefer a liar politician who says politics isn't about lying?

Wasn't it Clinton herself who gave a speech to a group of businessmen where she highlighted the necessity of not always saying what you mean and vice versa in public?

Or was she just lying when she said that's how it goes?

SecretFly wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

Code - "I lied, I know that I lied, you know that I lied or are too stupid to know that I lied."  

Yeah, lying is a big part of politics.  He's telling the truth there too.  Or would we prefer a liar politician who says politics isn't about lying?

Wasn't it Clinton herself who gave a speech to a group of businessmen where she highlighted the necessity of not always saying what you mean and vice versa in public?

Or was she just lying when she said that's how it goes?

Classic 'whataboutery' and essentially sums up everything that's wrong with modern political discussion.

It's what she said. Why highlight the inside angle on what Trump is saying and ignore what his opponent said openly, without camouflage?

It's what she said but you only want to hang one of the thieves for stealing integrity and p-issing all over it.

Probably because the other thief has already lost.

superflyweight wrote: Code - "I lied, I know that I lied, you know that I lied or are too stupid to know that I lied."  

You sound like someone ready to join Katie Perry's clarion call for revolution in America. I am sure the BBC will publicise your activity as you martyr yourself in your attempt to rid the world of the American peoples democratic choice for next president.

SecretFly wrote:It's what she said.  Why highlight the inside angle on what Trump is saying and ignore what his opponent said openly, without camouflage?

It's what she said but you only want to hang one of the thieves for stealing integrity and p-issing all over it.  

I was commenting specifically about something he said. Every time I criticise someone I don't have to provide a counterbalance by also pointing out all of his opponent's flaws.

For someone who seemed to receive votes because he was going to "drain the swamp" of corruption and because he was "saying it as it is", I think it's particularly relevant to point out that his campaign was full of blatant lies.

In any event, what does it matter? He won. Hope he's not a disaster.

Nore Staat wrote:

superflyweight wrote: Code - "I lied, I know that I lied, you know that I lied or are too stupid to know that I lied."  

You sound like someone ready to join Katie Perry's clarion call for revolution in America.  I am sure the BBC will publicise your activity as you martyr yourself in your attempt to rid the world of the American peoples democratic choice for next president.  

Are you mentally ill or just a retarded f*ck knuckle?

This is all a cluster F*ck

Folk on here saying the BBC are left wing yet during the Scottish Independence referendum the nationalists were banging on about how the BBC was right winged.

Just goes to show you that at the end of the day it's all just someones opinion!

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It's what she said.  Why highlight the inside angle on what Trump is saying and ignore what his opponent said openly, without camouflage?

It's what she said but you only want to hang one of the thieves for stealing integrity and p-issing all over it.  

I was commenting specifically about something he said.  Every time I criticise someone I don't have to provide a counterbalance by also pointing out all of his opponent's flaws.  

In any event, what does it matter?  He won.  Hope he's not a disaster.      

Yes, in any event, he won.  But yes too, you do have to counterbalance a criticism of one candidate if the other one fails on the same topic.  
A President isn't a Saint and isn't elected to be one.  History proves this as I keep saying - at least a few of them were slave owners despite the great language of the Declaration.
A President is elected to do a CEO role on a State.  The talk and speeches aren't what they are elected for.  Like you, I hope he proves a good President behind the scenes for America first and then the rest of us might feed a little off that.  But America needs to feel confident again in itself. Right now it doesn't and hasn't for quite a number of years.

SecretFly wrote:

superflyweight wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It's what she said.  Why highlight the inside angle on what Trump is saying and ignore what his opponent said openly, without camouflage?

It's what she said but you only want to hang one of the thieves for stealing integrity and p-issing all over it.  

I was commenting specifically about something he said.  Every time I criticise someone I don't have to provide a counterbalance by also pointing out all of his opponent's flaws.  

In any event, what does it matter?  He won.  Hope he's not a disaster.      

Yes, in any event, he won.  But yes too, you do have to counterbalance a criticism of one candidate if the other one fails on the same topic.  
A President isn't a Saint and isn't elected to be one.  History proves this as I keep saying - at least a few of them were slave owners despite the great language of the Declaration.
A President is elected to do a CEO role on a State.  The talk and speeches aren't what they are elected for.  Like you, I hope he proves a good President behind the scenes for America first and then the rest of us might feed a little off that.  But America needs to feel confident again in itself.  Right now it doesn't and hasn't for quite a number of years.

I don't have to do a thing.

No...I fulfil that role. 'You' is a rhetorical device. I throw up the counterbalance.

You're the ying to my yang.

Now you got it, super

And to wing his Wang?

ShahenshahG wrote:And to wing his Wang?

That's a lie. Trump never did that and if you repeat that, he'll sue.

Hollande nervous, EU President nervous..... I'm delighted to see those boys squirm.
Actually, Trump in has given a boost to May's negotiation strategy.  Trump could turn out to be just the Trump card he UK needs.  Some of you doubters could be sending love notes to him in a year or two.

Nice to see Paul Ryan again turning around and finding that he doesn't quite dislike Trump's ways as much as he thought he did when he believed Trump wouldn't get elected. Now, thinking of his own future ambitions, he lauds Trump as the man who won not just the Presidential race but who pushed Republicans to victory across the board.

Reality is he and Trump need each other. Republicans have a lockout right now, if they spend this term infighting they'll suffer losses across the board

It should be a bit of fun when Donald and the Philippine President meet for a first time.  Will they need interpreters or will they each know that the other is speaking a lot of French?

Will Duterte call Trump a SOB to his face?  And will Trump wink at one of his secret service guys and abruptly end the meeting with Mr Foreign guy with the disrespectful mouth? Two taps. Another sticky International Relationships issue handled quickly and cleanly.

Clinton has won the popular vote apparently.

I'm sure they'll be holding a party

Explanation please?

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=64798