Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Trump down in the WH2024 betting after the Mar-a Lago raid – politicalbetting.com

12467

Comments

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,062

    "Tory" is from the Irish word toraidhe meaning "Outlaw" or "Bandit". Never was a name more appropriate for the fools in question as they soak the rest of us to bribe their selectorate.

    I've always loved how perjorative labels can be coopted by the group it targets.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    TSV did not call for the death of Muslims.
    Who said it did?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,119

    A good story these days is hard to find
    I've heard there's a leaking pipe under Eaton Park, which has resulted in a distinctive round of green among the parched brown.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    FWIW, I can see why West Germany had it originally but now it's become totally outdated. The chances of a new Adolf Hitler are gratefully close to zero.

    I do think it's important to work with opponents when it's right. I also think it's important to recognise sometimes we are wrong and / or someone else might be right.

    I think Germany is probably a special case because of their history of people in that group killing millions, but even there I'm not sure. But as an MP I defended the right of the BNP to hold a meeting in my constituency (and I worked with a BNP member on a campaign to protect a historic building - a better use of his time than ranting, I felt).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,062
    edited August 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    I am not responsible for the axeman being mad either

    This is much less difficult than you are finding it
    I'm not finding the issue difficult at all, it is commendably clear cut - murderers (or prospective murderers in this case) are responsible for their own actions, their purported justifications are nonsense, and we should not lend weight to their irrational justificaitons.

    You are the one insisting a novelist is 'responsible' for deaths undertaken by crazy people on the spurious grounds that it was clear people would be offended. That is what I find baffling. People get offended all the time but don't become murderous (including most muslims on this very issue), so why you think that makes the offender responsible I cannot understand, and from rereading the posts you don't seem to have explained it either. Just that it would have been prudent not to do it, ergo he is responsible for an irrational response.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,919
    ydoethur said:
    No no
    No no no no
    No no no no
    No no there’s no limits
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,686
    Must read piece on Truss:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/12/liz-truss-boris-johnson-tory-leadership-frontrunner-workaholic

    "Even those sympathetic to Truss expect a U-turn on those handouts, in a climate where focus group participants talk about moving their elderly parents in with them for the winter because it’s the only way everyone can afford to keep warm."
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578


    A few things.

    1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.

    2. The Russian angle is bollocks. Not only that, it also doesn't make sense. Russia intervened decisively enough in 2016 to swing it to Trump but, in 2020, and having got the President they elected, they then decided not to do anything and / or couldn't? How crap is that line of argument. Just accept Trump won in 2016 and he won without the conspiracy theory nonsense about Russians swinging the result.

    Trump won the Electoral College with some States being won by tiny majorities, he also lost the popular vote, that's not controversial.
    So it was close.
    It's well known that Russia was helping Trump whether he colluded with them or not. To quote Trump
    “And now Russia has disappeared because I had nothing to do with Russia helping me to get elected.”
    It's hard to tell whether Russia's help was decisive or not but it was a factor. It's not a problem for HRC to state her opinion and it's not comparable to getting your supporters to attack congress in an attempt to steal an election.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,919
    The writer speaks about the new Joan of Arc play which seems to have annoyed a few people.

    https://twitter.com/talktv/status/1558042637067853835?s=21&t=kNXepj_4c9kvJtyudD4pjw
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kle4 said:

    I'm not finding the issue difficult at all, it is commendably clear cut - murderers are responsible for their own actions, their purported justifications are nonsense, and we should not lend weight to their irrational justificaitons.

    You are the one insisting a novelist is 'responsible' for deaths undertaken by crazy people on the spurious grounds that it was clear people would be offended. That is what I find baffling. People get offended all the time but don't become murderous (including most muslims on this very issue), so why you think that makes the offender responsible I cannot understand, and from rereading the posts you don't seem to have explained it either. Just that it would have been prudent not to do it, ergo he is responsible for an irrational response.
    People get irritated with their wives all the time without taking an axe to them. If you know that a specific husband is likely to go down the axe route you have a higher than usual duty to think what you tell him about his wife's location.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    What do you mean the "Muslim world"? Rushdie himself is a Muslim.
    So what?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    kle4 said:

    How do you figure that?! My point was immigration controls do not prevent homegrown radicalisation, so what you proposed was not a solution at all because, gasp, there are people already here. Thus we deal with what is here firmly, and prevent it from spreading and growing, in part by not doing what they want and punishing those take action. Why would would not catering to extremist voices and punishing those who take extremist action lead to a surge of of extremist muslims?
    As you would still be allowing open door immigration, as per my earlier post, not the tighter controls needed
  • MrEd said:



    A few things.

    1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.

    It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    kle4 said:

    I've always loved how perjorative labels can be coopted by the group it targets.
    Proud Jocks agree.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,244
    MrEd said:


    The problem becomes is that doesn't tackle the problem at its root, only when it's expressed itself - and likely after others have been harmed.

    It should be pretty an open and shut case - if you believe in women's rights, you should not be tolerating a culture that sees women as inferior and / or imposes practices on women that mark them as second class citizens. You wouldn't accept it if a bunch of right wing gammons did it.

    Agreed.
    That is, of course, also the problem with the current incarnation of the GOP.


  • IshmaelZ said:

    So what?
    You're treating Muslims as if they all think alike.
  • Taz said:

    The writer speaks about the new Joan of Arc play which seems to have annoyed a few people.

    https://twitter.com/talktv/status/1558042637067853835?s=21&t=kNXepj_4c9kvJtyudD4pjw

    Mentioned upthread (or previous thread?).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    edited August 2022

    It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
    Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,062
    HYUFD said:

    As you would still be allowing open door immigration, as per my earlier post, not the tighter controls needed
    I did not comment on having open door immigration.

    Your words were an option that 'you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists'.

    My point was that tightening immigration will not capture all extremists since even if we had zero immigration there are extremists already here, who can be influenced, so even zero immigration would not solve the problem as you suggest it would.

    Whether you tighten immigration or loosen it my point was the same, being free and liberal and also react to the extremists that are present, however many there are. You may feel tighter immigration will help with that, others may not agree, but that is a separate matter. Feel free to read my point in the context of also having tighter immigration controls.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,062

    It's a gerrymander - small, Republican states get way more electors per head of population. That's why he "won" in 2016, despite losing the nationwide vote, to HRC of all people!
    It is the system they've chosen, however, MrEd is right about that. He lost the nationwide vote by even more in 2020 but it was perilously close in some states!
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    You're treating Muslims as if they all think alike.
    No I am not

    You are wrong anyway. Rushdie was born into a Muslim family, had informally apostasised at the relevant time and ostentatiously and ineffectively re embraced the faith after the fatwa was published. By the same token I am a Christian but seem to manage to offend many believers by stating the sufficiently obvious point that Christ was an active homosexual.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,686
    Taz said:

    The writer speaks about the new Joan of Arc play which seems to have annoyed a few people.

    https://twitter.com/talktv/status/1558042637067853835?s=21&t=kNXepj_4c9kvJtyudD4pjw

    One of the things we all need to do in the so-called Culture War is to retain at least a modicum of proportionality imho.

    Some battles are important, others not.

    So what if a theatre company puts on a play which twists history in a new and made-up, creative way? Shakespeare had no problem with this. There's a reason they are called 'plays'.

    How many people will see this? A few thousand at most.

    It is not the end of western civilization as we know it.

    Whereas the article @Leon posted which seems to say medicine should be totally reinvented because it is racist to its very core is more of an issue.

  • TresTres Posts: 2,755
    MrEd said:



    A few things.

    1. The American system is what it is. Regardless of whether Trump didn't win the popular vote and how close it was in swing states, he won according to the system. So stop putting a caveat on it to imply in some way his victory is less legitimate.

    2. The Russian angle is bollocks. Not only that, it also doesn't make sense. Russia intervened decisively enough in 2016 to swing it to Trump but, in 2020, and having got the President they elected, they then decided not to do anything and / or couldn't? How crap is that line of argument. Just accept Trump won in 2016 and he won without the conspiracy theory nonsense about Russians swinging the result.

    Have you forgotten Trump's first impeachment and his withholding aid to Ukraine?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,062
    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,919

    One of the things we all need to do in the so-called Culture War is to retain at least a modicum of proportionality imho.

    Some battles are important, others not.

    So what if a theatre company puts on a play which twists history in a new and made-up, creative way? Shakespeare had no problem with this. There's a reason they are called 'plays'.

    How many people will see this? A few thousand at most.

    It is not the end of western civilization as we know it.

    Whereas the article @Leon posted which seems to say medicine should be totally reinvented because it is racist to its very core is more of an issue.

    I agree. I said in the prior thread it’s a drama not a documentary. Like the BAME woman playing Ann Boleyn I just cannot find it in me to be annoyed by it.

    Don’t like it, don’t watch it.

    I’d rather they pushed boundaries than delivered uniformity.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    edited August 2022
    IshmaelZ said:

    No I am not

    You are wrong anyway. Rushdie was born into a Muslim family, had informally apostasised at the relevant time and ostentatiously and ineffectively re embraced the faith after the fatwa was published. By the same token I am a Christian but seem to manage to offend many believers by stating the sufficiently obvious point that Christ was an active homosexual.
    You certainly offend many with that, when Christ was most likely not sexual, he was focused on his preaching and message. However fortunately for you yes Justin Welby and Pope Francis are not going to impose a Fatwa on your head calling for you to be killed even if you offend them with such views!
  • HYUFD said:

    You certainly offend many with that, when Christ was most likely not sexual, he was focused on his preaching and message. However fortunately for you yes Justin Welby and Pope Francis are not going to impose a Fatwa on your head calling for you to be killed even if you offend them with such views!
    How about a Thinwa?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,821
    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Getting a little chilly here now. Had a sea haar most of the day. And a little mizzle.
    Am thinking about digging out a jumper.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,244
    Tres said:


    Have you forgotten Trump's first impeachment and his withholding aid to Ukraine?
    That, though, isn’t really relevant to the outcome if the election.
    Even if Trump had been successfully impeached, all it would have meant was Mike Pence becoming President.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 10,061

    One of the things we all need to do in the so-called Culture War is to retain at least a modicum of proportionality imho.

    Some battles are important, others not.

    So what if a theatre company puts on a play which twists history in a new and made-up, creative way? Shakespeare had no problem with this. There's a reason they are called 'plays'.

    How many people will see this? A few thousand at most.

    It is not the end of western civilization as we know it.

    Whereas the article @Leon posted which seems to say medicine should be totally reinvented because it is racist to its very core is more of an issue.

    Quite. The Arts have been up its own arse searching for cutting edge social commentary forever, its not new, nor that edgy.
    As a great man once said, Luvvies? C***s innit.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,244
    HYUFD said:

    Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
    Why would you exclude California ?
  • HYUFD said:

    You certainly offend many with that, when Christ was most likely not sexual, he was focused on his preaching and message. However fortunately for you yes Justin Welby and Pope Francis are not going to impose a Fatwa on your head calling for you to be killed even if you offend them with such views!
    The Ban Hammer on the other hand....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    kle4 said:

    I did not comment on having open door immigration.

    Your words were an option that 'you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists'.

    My point was that tightening immigration will not capture all extremists since even if we had zero immigration there are extremists already here, who can be influenced, so even zero immigration would not solve the problem as you suggest it would.

    Whether you tighten immigration or loosen it my point was the same, being free and liberal and also react to the extremists that are present, however many there are. You may feel tighter immigration will help with that, others may not agree, but that is a separate matter. Feel free to read my point in the context of also having tighter immigration controls.
    Yes we have some already, more than we should because of the near open door immigration of the Blair years in particular
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Anne Heche officially dead.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,244
    The right’s best efforts to change the narrative.

    https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist/status/1558073160716746755
    I wish I could say this was a "new" low for @FoxNews Truly incredible. They photo-shopped a government exhibit (photo of Maxwell & Epstein on a plane) with an obviously fake photo of Reinhart. Here's the REAL photo.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Anne Heche officially dead.

    Saw that. Very sad and a horrible way for ones life to end.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    edited August 2022
    Nigelb said:

    Why would you exclude California ?
    In part as it is the state most likely to leave the United States and is rich enough and big enough to be the most viable as an independent nation and also as the West coast is far more liberal than the rest of the USA, certainly outside of New York, New England, DC and Illinois
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Nigelb said:

    Why would you exclude California ?
    Maybe HYUFD was on the opposite end of my post election "Clinton to win the poplular vote" bets that salvaged most of my 2016 damage?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    CURSE YOU JILL STEIN/OREGON!

    Sorry, flashing back to 2016 again.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,244
    HYUFD said:

    In part as it is the state most likely to leave the United States and is rich enough and big enough to be the most viable as an independent nation and also as the West coast is far more liberal than the rest of the USA, certainly outside of New York, New England, DC and Illinois
    So no reason whatsoever.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    Nigelb said:

    So no reason whatsoever.
    No a huge reason. If California left the US would be far more likely to regularly elect Trump like Presidents. As I said most of the rest of the US is significantly less liberal than California is
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292

    Saw that. Very sad and a horrible way for ones life to end.
    Sad yes and also for the homeowner whose house she drove into at 90 mph
  • HYUFD said:

    No a huge reason. If California left the US would be far more likely to regularly elect Trump like Presidents. As I said most of the rest of the US is significantly less liberal than California is
    When exactly are the Californians seceding? Any polling on the subject?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292

    When exactly are the Californians seceding? Any polling on the subject?
    32% of Californians wanted independence and to secede from the USA in 2017, significantly higher than the 22% average for other states

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-california-secession-idUSKBN1572KB
  • TresTres Posts: 2,755
    Trump under investigation per search warrant for:
    18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation
    18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information
    18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Tres said:

    Trump under investigation per search warrant for:
    18 USC 2071 — Concealment, removal or mutilation
    18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information
    18 USC 1519 — Destruction, alteration or falsification of records in Federal investigations

    For max excitement this is under the Espionage Act.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,585
    HYUFD said:

    Actually until the California results came in in 2016 Trump led the popular vote. Excluding California, Trump won the popular vote in 2016 as well as the EC
    You are a silly sausage. You have to count California because it is one of the 50 States of the Union. You are not Donald Trump, you cannot stop the count when it suits you.

    What if Jeremy Corbyn had insisted on stopping the count with only the London seats in during the 2017 GE. Popular vote wins and seat wins for Corbyn in London make him PM in your book.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,857
    Alistair said:

    For max excitement this is under the Espionage Act.
    I spy with my little eye, something beginning with - T.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,585
    ydoethur said:

    I spy with my little eye, something beginning with - T.
    What is your reason for that?

    Is it four letters and ends in WAT?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    I spy with my little eye, something beginning with - T.
    Trees on?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,821
    edited August 2022
    Alistair said:

    For max excitement this is under the Espionage Act.
    "The Espionage Act of 1917 prohibited obtaining information, recording pictures, or copying descriptions of any information relating to the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information may be used for the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation."

    That's a high bar.
    Knowing him the intent would be solely "to the advantage of Donald J Trump."
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,766

    Saw that. Very sad and a horrible way for ones life to end.
    Sounds like they kept her going to assist with organ donation. That's what I hope will happen to me if/when I fall off a mountain/my bike.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,821
    Nigelb said:
    Info about the President of France. Curious.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,692
    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,857

    What is your reason for that?

    Is it four letters and ends in WAT?
    IshmaelZ said:

    Trees on?
    Both. Plus tosser, turniphead, and thicky.

    And Trump, of course.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,686
    Shortly after 3 p.m. Eastern, the Justice Department notified the court that “counsel for former President Trump — M. Evan Corcoran, Esq., and James Trusty, Esq. — have informed the government that the former President does not object to the government motion to unseal” the search warrant and the inventory list.

    NY Times
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,857
    dixiedean said:

    Info about the President of France. Curious.
    He mac wrong selection, he meant the President of the US.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,244

    What is your reason for that?

    Is it four letters and ends in WAT?
    Treasonous Tw@t has more than four letters, surely ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292

    You are a silly sausage. You have to count California because it is one of the 50 States of the Union. You are not Donald Trump, you cannot stop the count when it suits you.

    What if Jeremy Corbyn had insisted on stopping the count with only the London seats in during the 2017 GE. Popular vote wins and seat wins for Corbyn in London make him PM in your book.
    No, the same principle applies in fact to some degree.

    Certainly England excluding London is strongly Tory.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,292
    GIN1138 said:

    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    You can still technically run for President even from prison
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Sean_F said:

    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,692
    edited August 2022
    Gosh. Salman Rushdie stabbed up to 15 times in the neck. Doesn't sound very good does it?

    https://news.sky.com/story/sir-salman-rushdie-satanic-verses-author-stabbed-in-the-neck-at-event-in-new-york-12671352
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,062
    Sean_F said:

    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    Put like that and the charge of responsibility looks positively fatuous.

    I wish I had your facility for concision.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,244
    HYUFD said:

    You can still technically run for President even from prison
    Depends why you’re sent there.
    Technically.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,692
    HYUFD said:

    You can still technically run for President even from prison
    Well that would be an interesting election lol...
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,298
    HYUFD said:


    No a huge reason. If California left the US would be far more likely to regularly elect Trump like Presidents. As I said most of the rest of the US is significantly less liberal than California is

    I'm sure you're right - I'd merely offer Trump got more votes in defeat in California (just over 6 million) than he got in winning either Florida or Texas.

    Means nothing of course under the US system any more than winning most votes does under our system.. In February 1974, the Conservatives under Heath won more votes than Wilson's Labour but in terms of seats was behind 301-297 and lost the election.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,821
    edited August 2022

    Be rather convenient for the whole planet to be honest.
    Not really. The GOP will select someone with more extreme views who is highly likely to be more competent.
    Rather as we are going to get a less centrist Boris who'll actually put the necessary hours in.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 30,585
    HYUFD said:

    No, the same principle applies in fact to some degree.

    Certainly England excluding London is strongly Tory.

    On that basis your team can never lose.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,821
    HYUFD said:

    You can still technically run for President even from prison
    Slightly saner crowd at his rallies, mind.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Mortimer said:


    I can only see one poster losing the argument here. It isn't Sunil, or Sean F
    How bold and resolute of you to snipe from the sidelines rather than embarrassing yourself as badly as they have done. Respect.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 72,857
    IshmaelZ said:

    How bold and resolute of you to snipe from the sidelines rather than embarrassing yourself as badly as they have done. Respect.
    Is this a bit of dark blue on blue action?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,613
    Eabhal said:

    I take great pride in our current population, which is more than capable of coming up with extreme, offensive ideas all on it's lonesome. See pineapple on pizza, or Edinburgh's turd hotel.

    I had to check which architect designed that, and it's a UK firm. Which makes your point.
  • dixiedean said:

    Info about the President of France. Curious.
    "France is a country in Europe. They have hot ladies. The French President is the one who married his schoolteacher."

    That should cover it, Mr President.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    Is this a bit of dark blue on blue action?
    You saying he is a Cambridge man?
  • GIN1138 said:

    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,686

    "France is a country in Europe. They have hot ladies. The French President is the one who married his schoolteacher."

    That should cover it, Mr President.
    It also rains in France so you may have skip one of their tedious Normandy landings events because your hair will get wet.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,692

    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Mad country!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,252
    IshmaelZ said:

    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
    So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.

    Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.

    How very seventh century.
  • ydoethur said:

    I spy with my little eye, something beginning with - T.
    (Trump) tossing the salad?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,613
    edited August 2022

    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Oh, so Mr Johnson would have to live there for 14 years? Didn't realise. Definitely better plan to see Ms Truss than Mr Trump out.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,252
    Mortimer said:


    I can only see one poster losing the argument here. It isn't Sunil, or Sean F
    Very plainly.
  • Donald Trump = Stepmom.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,298
    HYUFD said:


    No, the same principle applies in fact to some degree.

    Certainly England excluding London is strongly Tory.

    I really think you're stretching it a bit with that comment - rural and suburban England is generally Conservative as is much of the north and east but urban England especially the larger towns and cities is overwhelmingly Labour.

    Cities like Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool have elected Conservative MPs in the past - do they any longer?
This discussion has been closed.