Ah, but they were members of the British public who live in Washington (Tyne & Wear) and Hollywood (Worcestershire?) - sooooooooo relevant!

Fortunately I can fast forward through these tedious bits as I listen to LBC via Freeview on a digibox which holds the previous two hours so whenever I start listening, I rewind and can skip what I don't want to endure.

President Donald won't be interested in the minutiae of government so he'll swan around doing the meeting and greeting while the boring bits like running the country will be left to slightly more stable individuals. Most of the more extreme policies will be quietly sidelined or stymied by Congress, and the apoplectic rage of the liberal media here and in the US will at least be entertaining.

But with Hillary you get all the venality of Bill without the charisma. Think of it as the UK electing Cherie Blair Prime Minister. The act is all about looking after the little people but in reality the only thing Hillary seems interested in is money and power. There are a long trail of dodgy deals involving the Clintons, from Whitewater in the seventies through to the controversies around the Clinton Foundation that show how much she's prepared to cut corners and circumvent laws if it makes a few dollars.

When she was Secretary of State that meant selling access to the State Department or making sure certain business deals went through without any US intervention, but as President the influence of foreign money will shape US foreign policy. For a start Saudi Arabia will be expecting some reciprocity for all those millions they gave to her foundation, meaning the US will roll in behind the House of Saud and back them in their power struggle with the Shias and most notably Iran. So the choice is vote Donald and get a trade war with China, vote Hillary and get another shooting war in the Middle East.

Imagine having more pending court cases against you than you have years on the clock.
That's what 70 year old Trump has managed.
75 cases!
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...OAoYZj-s6nq63g

That's pretty much what I've been thinking. I believe Trump going for the Presidency is like people who climb mountains simply because they're there. It's a challenge and once they've overcome it they move on to the next mountain. I'm not sure what tops being a powerful world leader but I'm sure the Donald will think of something. Reagan was a very hands-off President; good at PR but left the tough stuff to his advisors.

Vincent McAviney ‏@VinnyITV 2h2 hours ago
After a great few years at @itvnews time for a new challenge. Delighted to say I'll shortly be joining the team at @LBC as Senior Reporter

Iain Dale is at his best this afternoon.

Seemingly moderate and sensible callers are in hyperbolic mood.

Very rare listener to Ian Dale and it's good to hear the sensible voice of the brexit side.

I don't understand the rationale that we cannot question our judiciary. No one seemed to have any problem with questioning the validity of [and the removal/resignations of] Butler-Sloss, Woolf or Goddard because of press and public concern

What is there in the judgement to question?
What do you think the judges got wrong?

I have said that I agree with their decision in this case. What I am saying is that we should be allowed to question what they say if we wish to.

Do you agree with the paedophilia judges being removed for conflict of interests due to public and press pressure, or should we have allowed them to carry on regardless of our concerns?

I've chopped your post LD but just wanted to say I used that exact analogy the other day whilst discussing Hilary ... awful prospect

Irrelevant questions. The free press has a right to criticize anybody or anyone. Just because some Remoaners somehow believe they have exacted some sort of "victory" over those trying to implement Brexit does not been that the British press doesn't have a license to criticize the judges for the decision that they made.

If "Farridge" had been named an "enemy of the people" by the Daily Mail, O'Brien would be ecstatic.

The press have a duty to act responsibly.
They have the right to be critical when there is something to criticise.
You have the nerve to talk about remoaners, well in this case it's the mad dogs of the RRW press and their wee lapdog that are doing all the moaning.
Leavers voted for the principle of British courts ruling on British matters yet the first time there is a result they don't like then all hell breaks loose.

You are going to ignore my question about the paedophilia enquiry judges?

Heard the handover from O'Brien to Fogarty today and O'Brien was saying something like God help us if Trump gets in.

Then Fogarty whimpered and said something like 'please God no'.

It was like hearing two 5 years crying that they might not get sweeties tomorrow.

Pathetic.

The disabled rights woman talking to Clive now sounds half cut.

Did you get your Ofcom complaint about James O'Brien in last Thursday Chief Wiggum?

Can we read how you worded your claim of 'hate speech'? Was what he said much different to how the judges were described by the Mail et al? 'Cos I don't see rhyming 'Farage' with 'Garage' as worse than singling out a man's sexuality whilst drubbing him?

You need to explain first the conflict of interests kin the Gina Miller case and how those affected the result.
I do know you always try to deflect, you tried it a few days ago but I'll tell you again, I don't play those games.

Oh for the days of the LBC thread; before it was hijacked by Brexit and the US election.

Brexit and the US Election are the two big shows in town at present.
Sure there's nowt stopping you posting about something else though.

There's no point though is there? It will get flooded out by links to the election or Brexit. There is still an LBC politics thread, why don't people use that instead of spamming the main LBC thread?

This is what puzzles me. It's easy to see how Trump might make a truly awful present. The American right have truly imploded on themsleves this election season. However, the American left is no great shape either. Far from it. But unlike the American right, their rudderlessness has yet to make itself known. So far it's simply bubbling beneath the surface. The Republican implosion has been 8 years in the making - perhaps even 10 years when the economy began to tank under Bush Jr. - its full ugliness finally manifesting in the rise of Trump. The problem I think the Democratics are going to try to avoid is a Hollande type of loss of faith among the people - where the weakness of the left is so publicly and globally unveiled and displayed under a Clinton presidency. As it is, with a Republican congress likely, she is already in danger of becoming a lame duck president from day one, and I have a feeling she might be one term president anyway (which is the norm - only 17 presidents have been elected to serve two terms, with 3 not completing them (4 if you count Obama till Jan 2017)).

So yeah, O'Brien and the like can wish Trump doesn't win the keys of the WH, but the alternative doesn't offers much of a more stable future either for its supporters.

So two people are not allowed to share their thoughts and fears without you calling them pathetic. Free speech??

In which case you were gone very early as he had both in his opening couple of sentences. He got them in before I could turn the radio over. I would imagine the 10 am LBC listener dump was very large today

Yep, I was out of there in a flash!