Boris Johnson is not going to be the next PM.

ITYS

Janet UK

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:42:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>
>
> Boris Johnson is not going to be the next PM.
>
> ITYS
>
Yes, I saw that on the news - but I trust him as much as I trust Trump
to follow through.

--

sf

In article >,
says...
>
> Boris Johnson is not going to be the next PM.
>
> ITYS

I Think You're Stupid?

"sf" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:42:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Boris Johnson is not going to be the next PM.
>>
>> ITYS
>>
> Yes, I saw that on the news - but I trust him as much as I trust Trump
> to follow through.

Boris can't. He is right out!


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:42:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Boris Johnson is not going to be the next PM.
>>>
>>> ITYS
>>>
>> Yes, I saw that on the news - but I trust him as much as I trust Trump
>> to follow through.
>
> Boris can't. He is right out!

Perhaps I ought to clarify. He is not finished as an Member of Parliament
only as a contender to be Prime Minister.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

In article >,
says...
>
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:42:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Boris Johnson is not going to be the next PM.
> >
> > ITYS
> >
> Yes, I saw that on the news - but I trust him as much as I trust Trump
> to follow through.

He's got no choice; he's out of the running, entries closed yesterday.
There are five, Theresa May, Michael Gove, Stephen Crabb, Andrea Leadsom
and Liam Fox.

The Conservative MP's will choose two of them to be put to a party
vote. Conservative party members will elect one as their new leader/PM.
Probably Theresa May.


Janet UK

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:00:45 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:42:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Boris Johnson is not going to be the next PM.
>> >
>> > ITYS
>> >
>> Yes, I saw that on the news - but I trust him as much as I trust Trump
>> to follow through.
>
> He's got no choice; he's out of the running, entries closed yesterday.
>There are five, Theresa May, Michael Gove, Stephen Crabb, Andrea Leadsom
>and Liam Fox.
>
> The Conservative MP's will choose two of them to be put to a party
>vote. Conservative party members will elect one as their new leader/PM.
>Probably Theresa May.
>
>
> Janet UK
>
>
I want to know what he has on Boris that made Boris so
uncharacteristically shut his gob !

On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:00:45 +0100, Janet > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:42:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Boris Johnson is not going to be the next PM.
> > >
> > > ITYS
> > >
> > Yes, I saw that on the news - but I trust him as much as I trust Trump
> > to follow through.
>
> He's got no choice; he's out of the running, entries closed yesterday.
> There are five, Theresa May, Michael Gove, Stephen Crabb, Andrea Leadsom
> and Liam Fox.
>
> The Conservative MP's will choose two of them to be put to a party
> vote. Conservative party members will elect one as their new leader/PM.
> Probably Theresa May.
>
>
I like how quickly it's done over there. I'm sick of the electoral
process and we haven't even formally nominated our party choices yet.

--

sf

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:00:45 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> says...
>> >
>> > On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:42:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Boris Johnson is not going to be the next PM.
>> > >
>> > > ITYS
>> > >
>> > Yes, I saw that on the news - but I trust him as much as I trust Trump
>> > to follow through.
>>
>> He's got no choice; he's out of the running, entries closed yesterday.
>> There are five, Theresa May, Michael Gove, Stephen Crabb, Andrea Leadsom
>> and Liam Fox.
>>
>> The Conservative MP's will choose two of them to be put to a party
>> vote. Conservative party members will elect one as their new leader/PM.
>> Probably Theresa May.
>>
>>
> I like how quickly it's done over there. I'm sick of the electoral
> process and we haven't even formally nominated our party choices yet.
>

Yep. I am getting quite sick of all the drama.

On 2016-07-01 15:28:12 +0000, sf said:

> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:00:45 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>
>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:42:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Boris Johnson is not going to be the next PM.
>>>>
>>>> ITYS
>>>>
>>> Yes, I saw that on the news - but I trust him as much as I trust Trump
>>> to follow through.
>>
>> He's got no choice; he's out of the running, entries closed yesterday.
>> There are five, Theresa May, Michael Gove, Stephen Crabb, Andrea Leadsom
>> and Liam Fox.
>>
>> The Conservative MP's will choose two of them to be put to a party
>> vote. Conservative party members will elect one as their new leader/PM.
>> Probably Theresa May.
>>
>>
> I like how quickly it's done over there. I'm sick of the electoral
> process and we haven't even formally nominated our party choices yet.

You can certainly cut down on the time and drama by removing the "voice
of the people" at the beginning and putting it all in the hands of a
small group of "elites" (and of course the deep-pockets that they
represent).

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 18:09:36 -0700, gtr > wrote:

>On 2016-07-01 15:28:12 +0000, sf said:
>
>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:00:45 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:42:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Boris Johnson is not going to be the next PM.
>>>>>
>>>>> ITYS
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, I saw that on the news - but I trust him as much as I trust Trump
>>>> to follow through.
>>>
>>> He's got no choice; he's out of the running, entries closed yesterday.
>>> There are five, Theresa May, Michael Gove, Stephen Crabb, Andrea Leadsom
>>> and Liam Fox.
>>>
>>> The Conservative MP's will choose two of them to be put to a party
>>> vote. Conservative party members will elect one as their new leader/PM.
>>> Probably Theresa May.
>>>
>>>
>> I like how quickly it's done over there. I'm sick of the electoral
>> process and we haven't even formally nominated our party choices yet.
>
>You can certainly cut down on the time and drama by removing the "voice
>of the people" at the beginning and putting it all in the hands of a
>small group of "elites" (and of course the deep-pockets that they
>represent).
It would be easier to have one Primary day with all the candidates on
the ticket to determine the Democratic and Republican choice. and
later have a voting day to determine whether the Republican candidate
or the Democratic candidate was the one to be in the White House. That
way every citizen would actually have the opportunity to vote.
Silly me.
Janet US

On 7/2/2016 9:31 PM, Janet B wrote:

> It would be easier to have one Primary day with all the candidates on
> the ticket to determine the Democratic and Republican choice. and
> later have a voting day to determine whether the Republican candidate
> or the Democratic candidate was the one to be in the White House. That
> way every citizen would actually have the opportunity to vote.
> Silly me.
> Janet US
>

Why are you limiting voters to two choices? What about the
Libertarians, Green Party, Independents, etc.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 21:53:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 7/2/2016 9:31 PM, Janet B wrote:
>
>> It would be easier to have one Primary day with all the candidates on
>> the ticket to determine the Democratic and Republican choice. and
>> later have a voting day to determine whether the Republican candidate
>> or the Democratic candidate was the one to be in the White House. That
>> way every citizen would actually have the opportunity to vote.
>> Silly me.
>> Janet US
>>
>
>Why are you limiting voters to two choices? What about the
>Libertarians, Green Party, Independents, etc.

I'm being realistic. I figure all of those parties will be eliminated
in the first round -- unless something were to change. It isn't
practical to have 3 party front runners.
Janet US

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 19:31:06 -0600, Janet B >
wrote:

> It would be easier to have one Primary day with all the candidates on
> the ticket to determine the Democratic and Republican choice. and
> later have a voting day to determine whether the Republican candidate
> or the Democratic candidate was the one to be in the White House. That
> way every citizen would actually have the opportunity to vote.
> Silly me.

I like your idea.

--

sf

On 7/2/2016 10:47 PM, Janet B wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 21:53:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/2016 9:31 PM, Janet B wrote:
>>
>>> It would be easier to have one Primary day with all the candidates on
>>> the ticket to determine the Democratic and Republican choice. and
>>> later have a voting day to determine whether the Republican candidate
>>> or the Democratic candidate was the one to be in the White House. That
>>> way every citizen would actually have the opportunity to vote.
>>> Silly me.
>>> Janet US
>>>
>>
>> Why are you limiting voters to two choices? What about the
>> Libertarians, Green Party, Independents, etc.
>
> I'm being realistic. I figure all of those parties will be eliminated
> in the first round -- unless something were to change. It isn't
> practical to have 3 party front runners.
> Janet US
>

If we had a good third party maybe the other two would improve. I keep
hoping.

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 23:49:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 7/2/2016 10:47 PM, Janet B wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 21:53:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/2/2016 9:31 PM, Janet B wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would be easier to have one Primary day with all the candidates on
>>>> the ticket to determine the Democratic and Republican choice. and
>>>> later have a voting day to determine whether the Republican candidate
>>>> or the Democratic candidate was the one to be in the White House. That
>>>> way every citizen would actually have the opportunity to vote.
>>>> Silly me.
>>>> Janet US
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you limiting voters to two choices? What about the
>>> Libertarians, Green Party, Independents, etc.
>>
>> I'm being realistic. I figure all of those parties will be eliminated
>> in the first round -- unless something were to change. It isn't
>> practical to have 3 party front runners.
>> Janet US
>>
>
>If we had a good third party maybe the other two would improve. I keep
>hoping.

I said the other day that I was hoping that the Republicans that left
the party because of Trump would form a new party without all the
radical nonsense.
Janet US

On 7/3/2016 12:25 AM, Janet B wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 23:49:48 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/2016 10:47 PM, Janet B wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 21:53:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/2/2016 9:31 PM, Janet B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It would be easier to have one Primary day with all the candidates on
>>>>> the ticket to determine the Democratic and Republican choice. and
>>>>> later have a voting day to determine whether the Republican candidate
>>>>> or the Democratic candidate was the one to be in the White House. That
>>>>> way every citizen would actually have the opportunity to vote.
>>>>> Silly me.
>>>>> Janet US
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why are you limiting voters to two choices? What about the
>>>> Libertarians, Green Party, Independents, etc.
>>>
>>> I'm being realistic. I figure all of those parties will be eliminated
>>> in the first round -- unless something were to change. It isn't
>>> practical to have 3 party front runners.
>>> Janet US
>>>
>>
>> If we had a good third party maybe the other two would improve. I keep
>> hoping.
>
> I said the other day that I was hoping that the Republicans that left
> the party because of Trump would form a new party without all the
> radical nonsense.
> Janet US
>
That would be a good start. i could go Libertarian but they often have
a nutcase running too.

On 7/2/2016 11:49 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 7/2/2016 10:47 PM, Janet B wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 21:53:06 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/2/2016 9:31 PM, Janet B wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would be easier to have one Primary day with all the candidates on
>>>> the ticket to determine the Democratic and Republican choice. and
>>>> later have a voting day to determine whether the Republican candidate
>>>> or the Democratic candidate was the one to be in the White House. That
>>>> way every citizen would actually have the opportunity to vote.
>>>> Silly me.
>>>> Janet US
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you limiting voters to two choices? What about the
>>> Libertarians, Green Party, Independents, etc.
>>
>> I'm being realistic. I figure all of those parties will be eliminated
>> in the first round -- unless something were to change. It isn't
>> practical to have 3 party front runners.
>> Janet US
>>
>
> If we had a good third party maybe the other two would improve. I keep
> hoping.

We definitely are due for a change.

--
ღ.¸¸.œ«*¨`*œ¶
Cheryl

On 2016-07-02 11:49 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 7/2/2016 10:47 PM, Janet B wrote:
>>
> If we had a good third party maybe the other two would improve. I keep
> hoping.



We like to hope. As it stands now, American politics seems to be stuck
with the problem of having only two real parties. I know there are a lot
of others that run, but for all intents and purposes, there are only the
Democrats and the Republicans. All the issues seem to end up polarized.

The other problem is having the president running separately rather than
as the leader of the winning party. In our parliamentary system the
Prime Minister is the leader of the party that wins the most seats. If
the leader of the party does not win in his own riding they either have
to find a new leader from the elected members, or else one of them
resigns and the parachute the leader into that sure riding for a
by-election.

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 9:09:45 PM UTC-4, gtr wrote:
> On 2016-07-01 15:28:12 +0000, sf said:
>
> > On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 15:00:45 +0100, Janet > wrote:
> >
> >> In article >,
> >> says...
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 00:42:52 +0100, Janet > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Boris Johnson is not going to be the next PM.
> >>>>
> >>>> ITYS
> >>>>
> >>> Yes, I saw that on the news - but I trust him as much as I trust Trump
> >>> to follow through.
> >>
> >> He's got no choice; he's out of the running, entries closed yesterday.
> >> There are five, Theresa May, Michael Gove, Stephen Crabb, Andrea Leadsom
> >> and Liam Fox.
> >>
> >> The Conservative MP's will choose two of them to be put to a party
> >> vote. Conservative party members will elect one as their new leader/PM.
> >> Probably Theresa May.
> >>
> >>
> > I like how quickly it's done over there. I'm sick of the electoral
> > process and we haven't even formally nominated our party choices yet.
>
> You can certainly cut down on the time and drama by removing the "voice
> of the people" at the beginning and putting it all in the hands of a
> small group of "elites" (and of course the deep-pockets that they
> represent).

Actually, the candidates they came up with when it was
pretty much party caucuses picking the candidates, were
(by and large) more moderate and less embarrassing.
Electability used to matter.

Now we drudge through the primary season letting the most
extreme elements choose the candidates, and wonder why
the choices in November are so unappealing.

Cindy Hamilton