Verbal

Translation: you have no answers, not even from your gullible and blind acceptance of the 'let's all stay schtum' mantra from the three killer clowns. Here's one of many canaries in the coal mine - a small (250 employees) Lincolnshire costuming company called Smiffys, with the lion's share of its business in the EU single market, is upping sticks. Their reasons are damning, and will apply to an awful lot of companies in the UK with trading interests in the EU. Mr Peckett said: “Smiffys have no choice but to protect our business by moving our headquarters to the EU. This will allow us to continue growing our trade to the EU, from within the single market." Prior to joining the single market, Smiffys exported only a tiny fraction of their current sales to the EU. “Both Smiffys and its European customers were then faced with bureaucratic and administrative barriers, not to mention the costly import duties that our products attracted, making us uncompetitive,” Mr Peckett explained. “Going back to these times would feel like a step back in time and a lost opportunity to freely access a trading bloc of over 500 million people,” he added. The company also employs a number of EU nationals, whose futures in the UK are now wrapped up in the shenanigans of the Brexiteers. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-smiffys-business-moves-leaves-uk-europe-hq-exodus-a7371956.html Other companies and banks have warned that they'll start making relocation decisions in early 2017 - years before any 'deal' is actually struck, if it ever will be. So goes the piece-by-piece dismantling of the British economy.

Your schnozzle gets longer with each post. Britain can't do more than have the most cursory of discussions about trade with non-EU countries because it hasn't decided (as if that were unilateral!) whether to go for soft Brexit (membership of internal market) or hard Brexit (economic collapse). If the former were actually the outcome, practically all discussions with non-EU countries would have to start from scratch because Britain is not allowed to offer a trading backdoor to the EU market for non-EU countries. Even with the latter, the version of hard Brexit would have to be extreme - no exceptions whatsoever for, say, the car industry and the financial services industry - for Britain to follow through on any trade talks with non-EU countries. Any news, from your superannuated corner of locked in, inflation-proofed benefits, what you'd say to people on non-pension benefits, whose breadline income is already being cut by the hard Brexit-induced run on the pound and the consequent spike in inflation?

Another hoax, which has been doing the rounds for about a year. The absurd 'article' most certainly did not appear in the New Yorker. What the hell is wrong with you? And if you have something to say, say it yourself and stop spamming this thread with completely made up conspiro-cretin garbage. Also, the occasional link wouldn't go amiss.

You're right. It's a hoax. And it's from a notorious liar and cartoon conspiro-creep who only gets away with this kind of stuff because the world is not short, sadly, of freakishly stupid people ready to post his videos. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/10/06/james-okeefe-brings-his-dishonest-doctored-vide/201026

You go ahead and give blind support to the American Jimmy Savile if you like. But just so you know, it's not a good look.

Hardly surprisingly, you don't address the point. While you sit cosily on your superannuated pension, inoculated from the effects of Brexit, what do you say to those on benefits who will experience losses on breadline income as a result of inflation following the (ongoing) nosedive of the pound? As I say, prove that you actually give a ****.

I wonder what the Brexiteers will say to those on benefits, which (unlike your pension) are frozen until 2019/20 while inflation is set to rise to 3.5% pa. As you want to have your cake and eat it, I imagine 'let them eat cake' will fit pretty well. Aren't you luck you don't have to give a ****?

We're gonna get a huge deal. You've never seen a deal this huge. Really. It's such a beautiful deal. And we're gonna make Germany pay for it.

Correct.

According to fact checkers, 91% of Trump's pronouncements are lies. http://www.thebrofessional.net/91-percent-donald-trump-says-lie/ Your friend is deluded.

Your first sentence is actually correct. The EU negotiators were the speedsters. It was the Canadians who dragged their feet, largely because of regional issues (think Scotland and N Ireland with our negotiations, whenever we get round to, you know, actually having a plan). CETA tells us a great deal about how thing will go. As will the Swiss climbdown.

Brexiter violence part 52...and some human stories behind the appalling statistics. In just one edition of the Evening Standard yesterday, two examples of people being threatened and physically assaulted: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-london-businesswoman-leading-legal-challenge-against-theresa-may-sent-death-threats-and-a3368756.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/i-never-thought-it-would-happen-to-me-man-kicked-by-thugs-five-days-after-brexit-a3368461.html With the Home Office, Metropolitan police and other police forces all reporting an upsurge in this kind of violence after the vote, Brexiters who are honest with themselves will have to consider the company they keep. The dishonest ones will just resort to the usual abuse and violent (significantly) language.

Nope. More Brexiter violence evidence - again clearly linked to the vote. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/sep/28/hate-crime-horrible-spike-brexit-vote-metropolitan-police

More official evidence on the rise of Brexiter violence: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/13/hate-crimes-eu-referendum-home-office-figures-confirm

Yet more kabooms from locker rooms. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/12/donald-trump-women-new-sexual-harassment-stories

The bits of the candidates' debate that were left out... http://www.luckytv.nl/time-of-my-life/

Your apoplexy is amusing. And in any case, you've made your bed - you lie in it. https://twitter.com/YupThatExist/status/785933299504078849

Strange indeed. I doubt that golden rule of winning in your state, Ohio, to win the Presidency even applies, because Trump has alienated so many of the key demographics to stand even a faintly realistic chance. Thankfully. I do think though that the weirdness of this election is specific to the campaign - and in the remote prospect of Trump winning, almost all of the stuff he talks about will simply be impossible. For example, in an echo of many Brexiteers he blames trade and immigration for destroying American jobs, when in reality it's new technology. So becoming protectionist and (in effect) white supremacist (again, like some Brexiteers, favouring white 'Commonwealth') simply won't happen without crashing the economy...and destroying jobs. President Trump (*shudder*) will also discover other realities to do with race. His campaign equivalence of the 'hell' of 'inner cities' with black people is a nonsense that can't be translated into policy. For a start, the majority of black Americans don't live in the (often gentrified) inner cities. And while blacks continue to do worse than whites on measures of health, education, wealth and jobs, they do considerably better proportionately than they used to. So when Trump talks about 'making America great again' his rosy view of the past is of a time when blacks were considerably worse off. All that aside though, a Trump presidency would see the fastest route from inauguration to impeachment in American history.

I wouldn't worry too much about Trump winning. Given his history, his psychology and his ignorance, he'd be impeached in no time flat. He actually gave solid grounds for impeachment yesterday with his promise to Clinton that if he won he'd appoint a special prosecutor 'to put you in jail.' This is pretty much one of the articles (2.5 to be exact) of impeachment of Richard Nixon: http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment

You'd be better off using Fortran.

Two minor difficulties. One is that depriving anyone accused of a criminal offence of a trial lawyer would be against the American Constitution (it's the 6th Amendment if you want to look it up). And the other is that, because of this constitutional right, the judge in the case instructed Hillary Clinton to take the case. She had no choice but to accept. But the fact we or anyone else are even discussing this shows how Trump has dragged a Presidential into the quagmire. I think the kindest thing to say is he went low. It will easily go down as the worst presidential debate of all time. Rather than bother with impressions, maybe it's just better to go straight to the fact checkers. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/09/presidential-debate-fact-check-donald-trump-hillary-clinton

I do apologise if posting a link from the Jewish Chronicle offends you, Condomboy. I can see how that invades your safe space.

Donald Trump vs Robert De Niro. Travis Bickle wins. https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2016/oct/08/robert-de-niro-id-like-to-punch-donald-trump-in-the-face-video We'll see how this plays out. Trump supporters will no doubt hear about this bragging on the bus and think 'Go Donald!'. But he can't be elected by his supporters alone. Others will hear a man now going for the highest office in the US sneering about how he can routinely use his fame to attack women. There's a whiff of Donald Savile about his language. However long ago he said or did it - as with Savile - won't diminish the offence in the eyes of many, including those he counts on among Republicans. Looking at the reaction overnight, Trump is in the quicksand.

Well if this doesn't blow Trump out the water I suppose nothing will. The Washington Post has gone nuclear: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html (The stories people tell when they forget that have radio mics on...)

Again, for me the biggest issue with Chakrabarti isn't her personal hypocrisy but the fact of the whitewash itself and her unconcern about the reality or the appearance of that. Remember, this was someone who wasn't even a Labour party member until a few weeks ago - and then in quick succession accepted an offer to chair the Jew-baiting inquiry, joined the Labour party, produced a sanitised report, accepted a seat in the House of Lords, and is made a senior party spokesperson. It must be the fastest rise to power in political history! Meanwhile the real damage of her whitewash continues unabated. There are many particular instance of the whitewash but here's one damming example: http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/161658/claims-antisemitism-labour-whitewashed-chakrabarti-inquiry To ignore first-hand reports of mutterings about a "Jewish conspiracy" at the very heart of the leadership team is astonishing. Meanwhile, the Jew-hating continues. Here's an innocent looking tweet by a Labour councillor, thanking some named supporters: https://twitter.com/joshbrandwood/status/779689717302452225 Those 'supporters' include a Trotskyist from TUSC who repeats anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, a supporter ejected from the Labour party for racism, and a promoter of neo-Nazi website called Veterans Today. It's everywhere. Before it's deletion, and in the BTL of a Guardian article by one of its Jewish writers, I caught this: Paul Crow 1m ago Can you be a journalist at the Guardian and have a foreskin? If you check out the author you'll see he's a particularly aggressive Corbynista. With Chabrakarti's whitewash, the Jew haters in the party evidently feel emboldened. Beyond depressing.