Qassändra

Truly the worst person to run for the presidency since George Wallace.

Not really true currently though, in the sense that housebuilding has gone up over the last eighteen months, and where they have been building houses they will have made a pretty solid profit on them.

My original post said "you support a white supremacist who boasts about sexually assaulting women". That he boasts about sexually assaulting women isn't in question - yes, all you have to do is watch the news. That he's a white supremacist isn't really a particularly controversial point either. He has said "laziness is a trait in blacks". He claimed a judge with a Latino background would not be able to judge him impartially because of his policies on Mexico - a claim he would never dream of making about a white judge. He believes all Muslims should have their rights to come to America curtailed because a small proportion of Muslims commit terrorist acts - an oppression he would never enforce upon all whites. He believes other races should be oppressed, treated more strictly, or not trusted, for reasons of caution on the basis of the behaviour of other people of their race. He would never force such treatment on white people. That is white supremacism - it contains at its core the assumption that white people are superior morally, have superior agency and should not be judged by the actions of fellow people of their race, and should therefore enjoy superior rights. Are you a bit slow?

...no, because boasting about sexually assaulting women is not a crime? Neither is holding white supremacist opinions? Both, again, a matter of public record. Not really sure what you're trying to prove here other than the equivalent of screaming 'THE SKY IS RED!'. All you have to do is watch the news. And if you're on about the sexual assault allegations themselves - how many trials have you ever known to begin and come to a conclusion in the space of two weeks?

You're being either disingenuous or a complete moron if you dismiss things about Trump that are a matter of public record, but hold up as gospel accusations against Clinton that require about five different chains of circumstantial evidence.

You support a white supremacist who boasts about sexually assaulting women.

Well, both.

But extra Northern working class appeal.

Paul Nuttall would be dangerous.

I do wonder if the saxophonist really was the reason I anixi failed though. You'd think the juries would've taken it into account.

Mario Draghi rather famously said something about that.

I mean, there are some pretty well verified stories of Hillary being a total cow to her security detail at times, but I find it difficult to believe most people under supervision 24/7 wouldn't lash out on occasion. (My favourite one is a 15 year old Chelsea Clinton ending a call to her friend with "gotta go, the pigs are here", before a mortified Secret Service officer asks why she'd refer to someone there to be the last defence between her and an incoming bullet in that way. "What's the problem, that's what mom and dad call you all the time?")

I have to say, my respect for Mormons as a whole has gone up a lot this election. The evangelicals still backing Trump? Beneath contempt.

Oh no Michelle Obama isn't very nice to her bodyguards guess I'll vote for the rapist!!!!

These were only really true when he was fighting to win a selectorate composed of among 20% of the worst people in the United States though. And how many Jill Stein voters were realistically going to go Trump?

The video doesn't really apply to your distrust of polls though - almost always without fail, the voting intention question comes first in polling, precisely so it *doesn't* lead to the outcome of priming. Ironically, priming actually gave a better indication for the end result in the general election - people said they'd vote Labour, but in the later questions on preferred PM and best party on the economy consistently said they preferred David Cameron as Prime Minister and the Tories on the economy. (Also the polls didn't call the EU referendum wrong - most had the final result within their margin of error. Most predictions that Remain would win were predicated on the assumption that undecideds would break for the status quo of the EU.)

And do you think they'd have been doing totally fine had they not been in the EU?

...no.

I mean, that isn't really the definition of having a vote that 'doesn't count', particularly given the Tories don't have the most stable of majorities.

And why not?

I mean, it's not as if leaving the EU doesn't represent an absolutely gargantuan re-envisioning of what it means economically to be part of the United Kingdom. Anyway, best of luck to her.

January is going to hit you like a truck.

So, that whole food prices thing is happening a lot sooner than I thought it would. Albeit, in a roundabout way to begin with, but give it time. Oh god, I can't believe we're about to go through all of this just to stop Polish people coming over here to work in sectors that already have massive skills and recruitment shortfalls.

This isn't the Tories showing their "true colours" at all, this is something we haven't seen in generations. At least, presuming you take the view that the Tories "true colours" involve putting business first and to hell with the rest.

I wonder if she'll be the one who gets the blame for that though. I actually do think it's going to be fascinating seeing the various stages of acceptance and who gets the blame when the various consequences of the leave vote start to bleed through. My current money is on a mix of "this was always going to happen, so we may as well weather it out", blaming the international community for trying to bully us out of Brexit, some variation on the utterly bizarre "this economic crash is Remain's fault for talking down Britain", and assorted bitching about things like fuel duty (which no doubt Mother Theresa will chop substantially).