US General Election 2016

I'm familiar with Bernie's story but I also understand what people mean when they point out that there's only so far you can coast on something done 50 years ago. While I don't think Bernie is saying much new here, he's giving it a greater prominence than he had been, and I think that's important and worth doing given the seriousness of the issues that the Black Lives Matter movement is trying to address. (NB as far as I am aware, Sanders' new press secretary was not involved with the disruptions, and BLM is more of a label than an organized group.)

I can understand people's annoyance with the disruptions if they had waited for hours for one of these events or especially if they had helped to organize them, but disruptive protests attract far more attention and can potentially be more effective than the alternative so I'm reluctant to dismiss them out of hand, even if the target of the protests is someone I like.

I don't know how it works everywhere, but I'm pretty sure our Seattle BLM group is no more connected to those in other parts of the country than our Occupy folks were. They have some guiding principles shared online, and take it from there. Remember Seattle gave us WTO in 1999, and the culture of direct action civil disobedience still thrives.

Personally I'd say Bernie handled the situation brilliantly, with poise and diplomacy. I'm thinking there are plenty of potential voters who might be interested in a candidate who can resolve a conflict situation without shouting, chest-pounding or name-calling.

From the press I'm seeing, I think both Bernie and BLM are coming out ahead on this one.

Never mind, it'll grow back................................. maybe

American 'sport' is just weird

WWE is more like a soap opera than a sport.

True.

As is our politics, apparently.

The Donald gets specific.

Iowa state fair.

https://twitter.com/kasie/status/632654113973506048/photo/1

Nice sunny day for it!

It seems it's Hillary's turn now to face tough questions from BLM activists but I thought she handled it pretty well, all things considered.

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/18/watch_black_lives_matter_activists_confront_hillary_clinton_you_dont_tell_black_people_what_we_need_to_know/

Video here: local news coverage

Public Policy Polling proving once again they're the best (and trolliest) pollsters in the game: full data set

Trump vs Heidi

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Follow-up to some of the earlier BLM discussion.  Particularly relevant in light of Hillary telling them they needed specific policy proposals and for the Dem and GOP candidate scorecards.

http://www.joincampaignzero.org/

What do the UShobbits make of Trumps immigration policy?
Because I have to say when Bill O'reilly is saying its probably illegal constitutionally, immoral if its not, and impractical to carry out anyway thats saying something!

I don't know. Something has to be done. We can't have people try to get in legally and have it take forever, and then just turn a blind eye to all the illegals in the country and not punish them somehow.  It doesn't seem fair. They broke the law, they should be punished. I know I sound like a jerk, but if you break the law there needs to be consequences.

https://i.imgur.com/kfrpYVc.gifv

I am very pro-immigration- its generally a good thing overall, socially and economically.
If you sent all the UK immigrants home overnight the NHS would also collapse over night, among many other things.

But is Trumps plan even realistic?
It seems to involve a lot of things I just don't see happening.
First, it might not be legal by the 14th Amendment of your constitution. Secondly you;d be transferring literally bus loads of people, women and children among them, from their homes- this s unlikely to be done willingly by those being thrown out.
So will America have immigrant families rounded up at gun point to be deported?
And thirdly does your legal process not grant the right of due process to each an every one of them- I can see liberal layers taking on cases all over, giving due process to potentially hundreds of thousands of people would take decades. Can it even be done? And if not what's the alternative- just round folk up and throw them out without due process? What does that make America?

if you lived in Bradford I doubt you would e so pro-immigration.

Given your version of Bradford I'd probably be Pakistani if I lied there, so yes, in favour of immigration!

But going on the actual facts tells a different story than your version.
According to the census information on Bradford- its 63.9% White British, 20.3% Pakistani (the largest percent in any district in England, but still only a third of the whites) and 45.9% identify as Christian, 24.7% Muslim and 20% of no religion.
So its majority white British and majority Christian.
It also has a high level of home ownership -

'There are 199, 296 households in the Bradford district. Most households own their own home (29.3% outright and 35.7% with a mortgage).'

So sounds like a family home oriented town to me. But it does have a higher than average level of unemployment, as 3.3% at the time of the last census (so probably worse now given the overall economic climate globally).

I'm not against immigration, I'm against illegal immigration.

But you have them there already- improving border controls ect has some merit to stop more illegals coming in- but just busing up and sending back those already there seems like unworkable pie in the sky, as well as being hugely morally dubious (you'd be talking potentially about folk under 21 but born n US who have never been or known anything different being shoved on a bus at gun point and deposited in Mexico somewhere- with the worlds press watching!)
Obama's plan to make as many of illegals as possible into legal tax-paying citizens seems at least plausible to me as well have beneficial effects for both sides.