http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/europe/uk-london-mayoral-race/index.html ,
(CNN)Londoners will find out Friday if they have elected the first Muslim mayor of any major Western city, after an unusually bitter campaign in which race and religion have proven ugly flashpoints.
The race between Labour's Sadiq Khan, son of a bus driver, and Conservative candidate Zac Goldsmith, son of a billionaire, has seen the latter accused of peddling "vile race politics" in his campaign against his rival.
Khan, a 45-year-old lawyer and member of Parliament, is the London-born son of Pakistani immigrants, and a practicing Muslim in a city where his co-religionists comprise about 12% of the population.
Elections were held across the United Kingdom on Thursday, for mayoral positions, local council seats, and parliamentary and assembly seats in Scotland and Wales.
The results of the elections are not expected until Friday.
The campaign took a particularly vicious turn when Goldsmith, trailing his rival in polls, penned a controversial column in Britain's Mail on Sunday newspaper on May 1.
They are just trying to copy us having a muslim President.
Good one!
Maybe they can officially change the city's name to
Londonistan.
Apparently, Goldsmith's loss had more to do with him being an asshole to his own prospective voter-base and not so much with the popularity of his opponent.
As such, it's probable that Khan will not have consecutive terms.
That being said, despite being a 9/11 apologist, that motherfucker still got elected.
Fuck London and everyone in it.
That's the perfect logical outgrowth, G-man. For Islamic radicals, just as it is for liberals, "tolerance" is a one-way street, where their beliefs are tolerated, but they have absolute intolerance for anyone who disagrees with them.
Anyone of their own race who disagrees is an "Uncle Tom".
By the way (as detailed in
The Roots of Obama's Rage by Dinesh D'Souza), Barack Obama
regards his own deceased grandfather in Kenya as an Uncle Tom.
Considering you are both Trump supporters, isn't it hypocritical to make to much of anything somebody says? Khan's support of things like marriage equality makes him more moderate than Trump who doesn't know what to say when the KKK endorses him.
Speaking of Trump, Khan is one of the good ones so says Trump who would make an exception for Khan, lol
theguardian.com Looking kind of like he doesn't need you guys so much anymore and his views are evolving every hour or so.
Looking kind of like he doesn't need you guys so much anymore and his views are evolving every hour or so.
Looking like I was right when I wrote this, then, isn't it?
I also suspect (were he to be elected) you'll end up liking him as president more than I will. I say that because I tend to believe he's really a Bloomberg style liberal to moderate who's telling the populists what they want to hear right now.
Apology accepted, MEM.
No need to try to take something that was neither given or owed G-man. You're the one supporting somebody that I think you have to know would be truly awful for the country. Bush and now Trump. Really you're the one who needs to be saying sorry G-man.
Trump is the one who would be "truly awful for this country"?!?
The country has been on the decline since at least 1999 in terms of wages, declining economy and national debt, not to mention declining military, rising foreign threats, and Islamic jihad worldwide. What Hillary Clinton offers is to continue the policy that isn't working.
*THAT* is the policy that would be "truly awful for this country". At least with Trump, there would be an attempt to change course, and possibly save the nation. (And with it, save the world.)
Trump would explode the debt WB and his lack of temperament and character is already making allies nervous. He's different in all the wrong ways and would really hurt this country if elected.
You keep repeating "Trump would hurt the economy", and yet never make a case for that, beyond mouthing the phrase.
You can read his "proposals" and it's easy to see it explodes spending while reducing revenue. Read what economists say about his ideas. They actually make sense WB.
Just pointing out, that last response of yours still cited no facts.
FACT: Bernie Sanders' social spending proposals would explode the debt another $18 trillion.
FACT: What Hillary Clinton promises (basically a Berni Sanders LITE brew) also proposes free education and other federal-paid freebies, that would further explode the debt by trillions. Plus, probably, a federal bailout for Obamacare to save it from inevitable collapse (a federally controlled single payer system, that the deceitful cultural Marxist Democrats planned all along).
FACT: Trump proposes cuts to spending, and reigning in the national debt, not allowing it to reach the $23 trillion point he sees as the melt-down point. Trump also (like Pat Buchanan) proposes reviewing our foreign policy and defense-alliance treaties, requiring our allies to partially pay for the military defense we provide that benefits them economically.
All I hear from you regarding Trump "being bad" for the economy is empty bumper-sticker catch phrases.
What next? Are you and other Democrat slanderers going to say Trump wants to bring back the confederate South and slavery?