Icewolf

His campaign manager has some questions to answer however.

The thing is that when it gets to this stage, where frantic trump staffers issue a constant stream of denials often which can be seen immediately as false, (the it's sarcasm line) people simply stop listening to the denials. Do I believe Trump didn't mean it? No. He is playing a game he plays a lot. Say something that appeals to a hardcore minority. (Hack her emails at benghqzi truths, she's the devil to the small group who thought Obama and now Hillary is the anti-Christ, shoot those that threaten your guns for the mentally unhinged gun owners ). Then deny having said it, and relying on the target group to say to each other "well obviously he has to deny it to keep the illuminati happy." If you look at a lot of wacky things he says it follows this pattern. He is trying to get these people into his tent. In that pattern "you should shoot people" is a pretty clear interpretation of what he said.

So from the outside looking in, 2 comments; 1) If you are in the Trump camp, would it concern you that a convention bounce and run of bad news for Clinton draws you just about level before rapidly falling behind? 2) What is the electoral strategy in remind everyone what a twat you are by insulting the mothers of dead soldiers?

So one of my friends just had a baby. It is very cute and adorable. She is a the descendant of Iraqi Refugees living in Sweden, who took them in after the first gulf war and the bloodbath that followed. She is a lovely woman, with a lovely husband (also a refugee), and will be a wonderful mother. Reading the comments on facebook, there are some in Arabic, some in Swedish, some in English. A coming together of peoples, races and religions to celebrate a beautiful little baby boy. Which is what this is about and why we are not, must never be, and hopefully never will be at war with Islam. This is a beautiful child, born innocent, to be celebrated by everybody. As soon as we have a notion that we are at war with Islam, at war with those descended from Islam, we are at war with ourselves, our principles, our tolerance and we will create something evil for that child. If we continue with what we have stood for, for tolerance, equality, compassion, for love and for brotherhood, we will create something beautiful for that child. I was raised a Catholic, although I no longer follow that path, the basic principle of Love thy neighbor stays with me. The thing is, most victims of ISIS are Muslims. If you are a Muslim you have a far greater chance of death at the hands of ISIS than a Western European Christian. That is why the refugees have come to Europe, because ISIS was killing them. And that is why if you want to defeat ISIS you must stand with the overwhelmingly decent, honest, hospitable people that fill the Middle East in their struggle with the evil group that is poisoning their land, killing their people, bombing their cities, destroying their heritage and culture. We stand a much better chance if we remember that we are mostly on the same side, than if we stare down a blinkered view, insisting that we are different and declaring a war on an entire religion/people.

Presumably in accordance with the script

All three in Germany are mentally ill people. The 2nd was obsessed with mass shootings and chose the brevity white supremacy terror attack anniversary as his date. Let me ask this. If these attackers gad been in the USA, white, and posesed confederate flags would any of them have made it through even one news cycle?

Aunt Mary is very particular about her age. A nosy nephew asks her how old she is. She replies, 35, not counting Saturdays and Sundays. What is her real age?

We just had a recession. Why in Gods name do we need another one? I remember at the start of 2009 people saying a recession would be good...well it wasn't. And Gold is exactly as valuable as paper money. In fact it would be a lot better for our economy if people stopped believing in Gold as then we would have more of it available to put to productive uses in electronics. It has value as long as people believe it has value, which is the same for any currency or medium of exchange. And pegging an economy to Gold has been so heavily debunked by economic study and experience I am frankly shocked that the idea is still popular.

Correct.

Seeing as the above is answered, I will pose a new one. You are driving along the M25 in England. This is a circular road running around London. It has 4 lanes on either side, and the distance between the two outermost lanes is approximately 100m. Given that we drive on the left in Britain, and given a driver who always drives in the outermost lane, how much further would he travel driving the entire length of the road clockwise as opposed to anti-clockwise? (Hint, all information needed to answer is in the above text).

So today we had the first real post brexit vote data. Summary: Fuck Extended summary: fuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuckfuck. I never believed an electorate would vote for recession.

So May has made the Brexit clowns responsible for Brexit. On the plus side means watching them squirm as they spend interview after interview being reminded of their lies. On the other hand White House spokesman unable to avoid laughing when told who the new uk foreign secretary is does not bode well for this countries reputation. And news from the UK Trade and Investment conference on Wednesday consisted of a round table on how little post vote investment there has been into the UK according to people I know who attended. Not exactly the bright future that Vote Leave promised.

You are not aiming for total elimination. You are aiming for a reduction. Every reduction in gun ownership would save lives. Even if you ignore use of guns for crime, huge numbers of suicides in America are carried out using guns. Given suicidal urges are often short lived and there is plenty of evidence that reducing the means of suicide available reduces he number of suicides, the amount of guns available is directly causing deaths.

Do guns not exist in England? Bad things happen because bad people exist. Attempting to remove guns would only take guns away from those who follow the laws. Why is this still even a discussion? People who are pro guns will be until they decide themselves that they shouldn't be around, what we should be saying is that this is horrible, not blaming a tool that was used immorally.Guns are very heavily restricted. No handguns, authorisation from a doctor plus valid reason to own it for a rifle, somewhat less restrictive for shotguns but still licenced. Nowe it doesn't eliminate guns but since 1990 there have been only two mass shootings in the UK. Firearm prevelance is so low that routine patrol officers do not carry guns.

Football really needs some kind of referee review system after seeing that handball decision. Or more honest players.

For another comparison, the Troubles in Northern Ireland, a 30 year long insurgency, saw the security services kill less than 1,000 people in total. In total 3,000 people lost their lives, however that is an average rate of 100 a year. Ok, so the US population is 150 times that of Northern Ireland, but still leads to the current levels of gun violence in the US are equivalent to an armed insurgency determined to overthrow of the state.

What would happen is the citizen brings his complaint, and the Police would have to prove that their actions were within the law. The victim would also have to show evidence as to how what was done to him is against the law, etc, however, the onus is on the Police to prove they were, in fact, within the law. Well there are a few problems with that; 1. If you have to bring a complaint, the onus is on you to prove the police acted outside of the law. So, yes, the attitude of total subservience to a police officer (even if they are acting unlawfully) and then court action later gives a massive protection to the police officers as you have to demonstrate (often in a word vs word situation) that they acted outside the law. 2. By not challenging an officer you can in fact make illegal actions legal. For example, if you are stopped without reason and the officer asks you to get into the car to answer some questions, and you comply with that, he hasn't arrested you. Therefore its not an unlawful arrest or an unlawful stop and search. By forcing the officer to declare you are under arrest or have been detained for stop and search, his action then becomes unlawful. 3. By not challenging an officer and having a culture of "do whatever the police tell you" it will create a culture in the police that the norm should be total obedience. Given the US police already are trigger happy maniacs in a lot of cases, that is not something to be encouraged. Now of course starting fights is stupid and there is a difference between assertiveness and rudeness. You do not have to be rude when asking an officer if they are arresting you, why they have stopped you, and if necessary, what legal grounds they have for their action. And if you think that legal action after the fact is effective, compare the difference between these two statistics. US police shoot dead about 1,000 people a year. Federal Agencies do not even know the precise number. UK police must report all shootings by officers to an Independent Commission that will investigate all cases. Total shot dead by police in 2016. 2. Total in 2015. 3. Total in 2104. 1. Want to really tell me that the ability to bring legal proceedings after the fact is working?

Do you believe the unemployment figures being produced? I think the inflation rate given by ONS is highly manipulated, given that I don't trust the inflation data I have very little faith in the unemployment/employment figures. I will admit that I have viewed the inflation figures and viewed them as rubbish, thus I haven't looked at the official unemployment figures believing it to be a waste of my time. Do you think that financial stimulus is a good thing? If so why? I cant get my head around why people view stimulus as a good thing and would like an alternate perspective, assuming of course you support central bank stimulus. Is this a Lib Dem flashback? To point 1, under the correct circumstances Financial Stimulus can be good for an economy, as can monetary stimulus. There is a lot of academic debate behind that, but on current evidence it appears to be the correct view. One thing we know for certain is that the two central tenants of neo-classical economics (Government deficits hamper growth and the gold standard would be a good thing) have been fundamentally destroyed as having any credibility over the last 8 years. Since the great depression, the harder countries have engaged in austerity, the weaker their growth has been, and the faster their national debt as a share of GDP has risen. Those countries like the USA and UK with lower levels of austerity have actually had a far better performance in reducing share of national debt to GDP. We have also had the case study of Greece as a country on the equivalent of the Gold Standard by being tied to the Euro, essentially a country having a fixed currency tied to market factors seperate to its own economy. This has hampered its economic recovery massively. The biggest failure of the Euro is not the fact it was an international currency, but the fact it was implemented on neoclassical economics principles. We also have the nice little historical fact that the date a country recovered from the Great Depression in the 30s is very closely linked to the date it dropped the Gold Standard. The earlier a country left the gold standard, the faster its economy recovered. The US was last, and it took the massive fiscal stimulus of WWII to recover. For point 2, I think the Liberal Democrats were politically naive but are somewhat unfairly labelled. They went into a coalition so could not deliver all their manifesto pledges. They chose raising personal income tax allowance over tuition fees. Unfortunately for them, George Osbourne was then able to take ownership of that policy and present it as his own, and it was done very quickly and without controversy. However tuition fees dragged on and on and on and on and really as the dumber choice with hindsight to have dropped. They also in terms of Cabinet positions took Business (nobody really knows what that department does outside whitehall), Energy (no one really cares what that department does), Chief Secretary to the Treasury (ie, Osbourne's Bitch) and the constitutional reform...which epicaly failed. Compared to Vote Leave who rather than entering a negotiation and losing some commitments as a result, one the referendum outright and then abandoned every single pledge without having to enter a single negotiation, that is entirely a different league of dishonesty. That is the traditional view, but it is also incorrect. We have had record levels of money creation in western economies in recent times, whilst inflation and interest rates are at record lows. You can also have inflation without an increase in money-supply, when you have a risk driven capital flight of investors from an economy (see the UK over the next 2-3 months). This is because it sharply increases the costs of imported goods. On another note, at 2am on Friday morning some cunt through a petrol bomb through a Romanian owned super market in my city. Various groups of people went to show solidarity by cleaning up the mess and helping them put it back together. As they were doing so another cunt came and yelled racist abuse at the people helping clear it up. Does someone really want to tell me that giving validation to these cunts by voting out has made my country better? Really?

So essentially in your opinion the citizen should be responsible for proving cops wrong rather than cops having to demonstrate that they adhered to the law? That is definitely backwards.

Of course not, he probably used several proxies A straight re-run of the referendum is out of the question. But in terms of democracy we have the following situation; 1. The winning campaign told lie after lie after lie 2. They have admitted telling lie after lie after lie 3. All their leaders have since legged it 4. At no point in the campaign was an exit vision painted, so although there has been a vote on what is not wanted, there is no direction for what is wanted 5. We are seeing heavy swings towards people not wanting to leave now the reality of what that means is being noticed. So my question was simply, at what point does a result lose legitimacy? If the day after a general election the leader of the winning party resigned, his cabinet declared they were not going to deliver a single manifesto commitment then also resigned leaving their case presented by a moron who keeps babblng about baby brains, would this be considered a legitimately formed government? It is very noticeable that remain is more energised than ever, and leave have legged it. Surely the opposite should have happened? It hasn't, and it is for a very simple reason. Remain struggled to get a good narrative to defend the status quo. But there is sure a good bloody narrative to attack the new status quo, and there is no one left defending that status quo.

Well a few things on that; 1. The FTSE 250 has taken a pounding whilst the FTSE 100 has not. If Brexit was good for Britain but weakened other countries trading position, you would expect the globally dominated 100 to fall relative to the Britain dominated 250. Other way round says the markets bet is that this is bad for Britain and good for the world. 2. The concept that a falling currency boosts the economy has several important caveats. Firstly, it almost always caused a J curve effect-in the short term it drives up import costs without boosting orders as the stickiness in the economy takes a while to adapt. Contracts will be carried out before suppliers are changed etc. This means inflation, reduced economic growth/recession, and pain before gain. Secondly, it is traditionally used (as with all stimulus) to restore the economy to full employment. The idea being that it reduces relative wages, makes the workers more competitive globally, increases exports and drives up employment. This in part includes driving up import costs reducing propensity to import. For the UK, we cannot stop importing oil and food, so this will cause inflation and suppression of real wages. But more importantly, our economy was already at full employment. There is no employment growth to come. (apart from restoring the loses of the J curve). So additional exports can only come from increased productivity. Which brings to the third point. Decreasing currency value is considered a good thing as a policy when it is done by increasing money supply, which increases investment alongside increasing demand. The increased investment alongside the increased demand allows the economy to grow into the demand. This is especially important when there is a productivity issue (as the UK has) as productivity increase is the only way to meet demand. For the UK, the fall in currency is driven by a capital flight so great that it alone has returned us to 1985. People are not investing, especially in the manufacturing sector where our largest manufacturers rely on cross EU supply chains. The amount of investment leaving is staggering. So there simply is not the ability to boost productivity to meet demand, meaning we will not reap the type of rewards typical headline economics would suggest. Put simply, there is a reason that there are no economics cheering right now, there is a reason that all Brexit leaders have run away, its because this is not good news. Side note, although my main degree is law, I spent about six months pissing about with economics.

And also what will prove interesting and increasingly seems likely, what is the impact on a politician if in September when the Brexit planning actually starts, they have a backdrop of economic uncertainty and a public that actually supports remaining a member of the EU? (Following polls showing relatively heavy swings to remain)

Corbyn needs to be retired. The guy is... actually not worth loosing words over. I'm glad to see that the Liar'r'us club has sunk so brilliantly fast. Pity there is no credible alternative though. The trouble is though that even if they all run away the results still stands. We just had a referendum where one side ran a bucket of lies and promised everything under the sun, and now there is no way to hold them to account. Meanwhile we are stuck with a retarded decision as things fall apart and the country goes to the dogs. Oh, I agree. But democracy is what it is. Though in view of the supremacy of parliament doctrine in UK, the parliament could legitimately decide to set aside the resutt of the referendum. They can do. The question coming now is this. How much economic pain does it take for politicians to decide that toughing it out whilst claiming to respect democracy is worth doing? Because the forecasts before the referendum appear to have been way off the mark on the basis of data so far. It is starting to look like the most negative forecast before the referendum should actually have been the most positive.

Corbyn needs to be retired. The guy is... actually not worth loosing words over. I'm glad to see that the Liar'r'us club has sunk so brilliantly fast. Pity there is no credible alternative though. The trouble is though that even if they all run away the results still stands. We just had a referendum where one side ran a bucket of lies and promised everything under the sun, and now there is no way to hold them to account. Meanwhile we are stuck with a retarded decision as things fall apart and the country goes to the dogs.

I think it is highly unlikely that the Tories will lose the next election whilst Corbyn remains in charge. Not because Corbyn is unelectable, but because he can't construct a team around him that people would trust in government. That said, if you said to me last August that Cameron, Farage, Gove, Osbourne and Johnson would all have cratered their political careers I wouldn't have believed you either.