Rayvin

Unexpected but good news...

Let's hope we can grab another for safety..

So Diame not helping his cause tonight then? Two up top away seems ambitious for Rafa, mind...

Thanks for that MF Safe to say I've no desire to try that.

I wonder if I could spin it somehow...

I haven't yet dared to click on the urban dictionary link...

Very excited about this! The first was superb.

Suppose it depends on how favourably it compares to elsewhere. Let's be honest though, the PL has always been shit at this with a couple of exceptions.

Thanks xx

Why, does that make them less susceptible to corruption? Or does it somehow imply capability. I know a lot of very rich morons, all self made.

I'm in my 30s and still livid there's hope for us all. Though I'll be 38 by then... I'd run for office myself but my TT posting history would be used against me i think.

Agree with Renton, this is a good point... Fuck. The right it is then.

His net worth is c.$500,000 as far as I can tell. But yes, I take the career politician bit. I'm not saying he was perfect but he ticked more boxes than Hillary. I have nothing really against them personally. I thought Bill was ok to be honest, I'm rather surprised by a number of the things that have come out about him in recent weeks. But then, I thought he was ok about the same time I thought Blair was doing a good job. And now, years on, when I'm looking at where it's left us... I'm no longer so sure. Take the point on them being self made though, that's fair enough and indeed is admirable. Not sure it makes them beyond being bought or in other people's pockets though.

Perhaps I've been too enthused by what's gripping Europe, maybe the US really is impenetrable to change. It feels like it'd be easier over here.

Well, I guess we'll see. Another 5 years of Neo-Liberal bullshit await, and it'll be interesting to see the lay of the land when it comes to the next election. ...yes? Is this where you zing me about the millions that were supporting his campaign? I meant more personal wealth and the connections it buys, but I've checked, and he raised $234m. Hillary has managed $740m, more than even Trump. I'm pleased to see he raised as much as he did.

Between Trump and Clinton, I agree. I'd prefer her by a long shot. Trump is fucking loopy. Between Clinton and someone who isn't a career politician with millions on the side - essentially the type you've just described - I'll take the alternative.

People voting for a change in a system that doesn't work for them should be encouraged. Although I can't imagine many of them would countenance voting for Trump now. I'd far rather the left overhauls the establishment personally, but sometimes you feel like either side would at least move things forward. Trump, however, is not the person to do that. You're probably right that Sanders wouldn't have gotten much of his legislation through - but the fact that he was voted in, and that he was trying, would have been a significant step. Opinions can only shift when the unthinkable becomes normal.

How can you be struggling with the specific, I've been posting about it all day... the bit about how she's a vote for the status quo and the kicking down the road of the metaphorical can? And how the longer the status quo clings on, the more Brexit style shit we'll get? This is a fair point, although compared to Sanders she's minted. His personal net worth is something like a $300k. Hers is about $31m. (With Bill it's $111m)

I've told you repeatedly why I dislike her. I've not trusted her since she claimed to land under sniper fire in Bosnia and was actually greeted by a small girl holding a flower or something like that. And more generally, it's the stuff about the centreground, prolonging the inevitable, the establishment and the ultimate downfall of Western civilisation

True. Both Trump and Clinton are arguably too old for this anyway. Although you could say the same about Sanders so there wasn't really much choice this time around.

That's awesome.

That's a shame actually, because her gender has been a sideshow to the whole thing and been an easy thing to use for deflecting criticism of her. Annoyingly though, the Democrats could have had Warren (I remain amazed that Hillary didn't choose her as VP). Warren would have been a much more supportable candidate.

I don't see her as the antichrist (who does?) I see her as a liar and standard bearer of the establishment. They may not be big issues to you, but they are to me. For the things you've mentioned, I've googled a bit to see if I can help you out with why other people take issue with her: Her bid to prevent her emails from causing her problems by pressuring the FBI certainly doesn't look good. The mass deletions of emails, coupled with the fact that the FBI found she and her associated had been deleting classified emails and claiming they were personal and therefore not of interest, is problematic. The FBI didn't charge her for that in the end, but called her extremely careless, and set out that no reasonable person could have been ignorant of what she was doing. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/hillary-clinton-accused-of-collusion-and-corruption-over-secret/ This article in the Economist on the Clinton Foundation is also worth a look - it sounds problematic at best: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/02/economist-explains-4 Put it this way, if she was David Cameron, and he had the kind of financial infrastructure and corporate lobbying bods around him, we'd be crying foul all over the place. Not sure why Hillary gets a free pass. There are of course plenty of crazy theories as well, but these two seem to have some credence. She's certainly a member of the super rich elite, and one of the most powerful families in the the US.

What would you consider to be 'worrying dirt', out of interest?

Hah, the cyborg future. Is it weird that I've thought about how convenient it would be to be able to pull back the top of my finger and plug it into a usb port