The French are renowned for their protests and the authorities seem to allow for a greater degree of freedom to disrupt (lorries blocking motorways etc) even than they allow here. The big issue for the French must surely be immigration through porous borders. I've had great sympathy for the residents of Calais who've had a difficult time during the existence of the Jungle. The handling of immigrants, whether genuine refugees or economic migrants, has been poor and Hollande may pay for it dearly. I guess it just depends how tolerant the French voters feel.
Giuliani, clear-headed, intellectual, really?? The man is a complete liar and fabricator of truth. He made his name on the back of the worst islamic terrorist attack in living memory and then denied it happened? A couple of weeks back he stated "there were no islamic terrorst attacks in America in the 8 years before Obama took office". Really, I seem to recall him being very visible as mayor of New York City on September 11, 2001. He has also said Hilary Clinton didn't care about September 11th (he remembered it then) and doesn't remember her ever visiting, despite a very famous picture of him walking down a New York street, face mask on, next to the women on September 12th. If him and Newt Gingrich are his secret weapons then America is much worse off than I thought.
Haven't heard him deny 9/11. As you say, he made his name then, and also for a zero tolerance to crime in NY which was chronic at that time and was hugely improved.
I was assuming (or at least hoping) that Goldie was posting tongue in cheek. Anyway, everyone knows Howard Stern is the man behind Trump.
Well not saying he actually denies it but he certainly has selective memory, he claimed there were no terrorist attacks on America during George W Bush's presidency, bit odd? With regards to his claim that he was solely responsible for the drop in crime in NY is also pretty fantastical. No doubt zero tolerance and more policing had an effect but crime across the US came down at the same time, even in cities without "zero tolerance". In fact, there's a very strong argument that "Roe v Wade" (legalising abortion) nearly 20 years before crime rates began to drop had the biggest influence on those figures. He seems to be in the right place and the right time though, to be fair!!
Think I may become a pollster, that or a weather person. Not accountable for anything despite being constantly wrong.
But cheerleading as a rout to power - no policies (apart from the wall!) and yes, divisive even thuggish behaviours. Yes. My point about sovereignty is exactly that - it's multi faceted and means different things to different people. It's difficult to dispute that for some it's about immigration and jobs but for others it's about the rule of law. The point is when these things are just accepted at face value and not challenged or examined then one catchall phrase appeals to a much broader group. Brexit is a case in point - lots of slogans, little detail and we are still none the wiser months after the event. It really is a very new and, to my kind at least, a quite scary politics. You don't really know what the final landscape will look like, how it will be achieved or the actual ramifications until it's too late.
Great piece from the NY Times. The interdependencies win/win stuff is spot on. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/o...prod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
You may laugh but Canadian immigration offices have had to close through excessive demand from US citizens.
I don't get why anybody's so surprised! I don't understand that. When Reagan became president in 1980, that became the defining decade of the 80's that helped the world come out of the dark, dank and dirty 70s. Nobody really expected an actor to win it then. When Obama took office, nobody in the whole world believed that a Black person could ever take the White House. And look where it has got us. And now a businessman wins and people are stupefied. I don't get it. I think it's a totally normal thing in America from our perspective, outside looking in? It's business as usual, if we can say that.
What is amazing is that the new President did not win the popular vote. He instead won enough States to vote for him in the Electoral College, which is the ratification of the popular vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States) Higher populated States get more Electoral College votes than States with smaller populations. Republican Donald Trump sewed up the 2016 presidential election by claiming 289 electoral votes to Democrat Hillary Clinton’s 218, according to the most recent reported tally. As of early Wednesday morning, Clinton had 58,909,774 total votes compared to Trump’s 58,864,233, according to CBS News and CNN. The tallies will continue to change but Clinton holds a 47.6 percent lead compared to Trump’s 47.5 percent. The last time it happened was 2000 when Bush took more electoral college votes than Gore. Bush got put over the top by the ballots cast in Florida, where his brother was the Governor at the time.
all the promises made 9 years ago by obama (guantanamo etc) how many have been fulfilled business as usual for the next four years which is all trump will get if he dosent start building a wall and stop muslims travelling
that is just a tongue in cheek. No body in their right sense will move to middle of nowhere, one city Country.
With Trump's election, I think the Mexicans will be the ones building the wall. Might pop over and give them a hand.
Obama was hamstrung by Congress and or Senate being Republican, they essentially blocked his proposals..... Now there's a Republican President and both houses are Republican controlled who knows what will get through......
He's not really a Republican though, certainly not part of the party machine and didn't get much support from them. Doesn't owe many of the usual suspects any favours, could be interesting. Pulling out of all the Climate Change stuff high on the agenda.
