It is worth remembering that even at the current price, Bitcoin has a market cap of about $300bn.
Now, clearly to act as a float for transactions, and for there to be decent liquidity, a certain amount (value-wise) is needed. But it's very hard to work out why that should be more than $30bn or so... and maybe $100bn at a stretch.
Nate Silver on Twitter is pointing out on that it wasn't the polls predicting a red wave, it was political pundits. The polls were predicting about 50.7 GOP seats in the Senate, which will probably prove to be fairly accurate. (Regrettably Newsnight just repeated the idea that the polls were predicting it).
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?
In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.
If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.
You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.
24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.
Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
No.
Your position is that it’s the mother body until birth and that’s all that matters.
The fundamentalist religious position is that as soon as the sperm fertilised the egg, the blastocyst is a baby with the same rights as a baby. And that’s all that matters.
Both positions are absurd because lots of factors matter in any decision to abort a foetus.
Recognition of this reality was the genius behind the “legal, safe and rare” detente.
Now America, and unfortunately, I fear increasingly over here, we’re back to moral/religious absolutists vs liberal absolutists/women’s rights fundamentalists yelling themselves into opposing corners in a fight to impose their truth on society.
You’re cheering on this fight, which I think is a disaster. As you basically said, you’d rather completely lose the argument than live in the complicated, morally hazy reality, which is, I recon, the far more more mature position to take.
Let us have this never ending political and moral debate about the number of weeks, the viability of foetuses, the implications of various disabilities, the complexities of babies conceived through rape etc etc.
Your absolutist position is infantile.
Neither religion nor science assist the debate in any significant way.
It's logic plus values.
...plus reasoning plus analogy plus argument as to rights of all including the unborn (if any) and duties.
Science tells you nothing about what value and rights to place upon any individual from conception onwards, or its moral status. Religion cannot helpfully add to the general universal agreement that unjustified killing of humans is to be avoided, and dogmatic religious assertions don't advance argument.
I'm agreeing it isn't about all that. It's about - for me - American women losing something fundamental to their freedom and welfare which they'd had for 50 years. I'm actually not interested in the chinstroke. It's boring and off the point.
And what about the freedom of the unborn child? I agree some of the state restrictions go too far but restrictions of 12 weeks for example in Florida are no different to those in Ireland or Italy or Germany for instance.
Poland still bans abortion in most circumstances
Yes, a balance. The right to choose with constraints and protocols. Like here. Like it was in America.
Clark county registrar of voters is saying turnout is 596k. 144k election day turnout. 195k early vote turnout. 258k absentee turnout (whatever that is).
Typical for American elections to not know either how many votes were cast and how many were counted!
FPTP isn't hard.
Why is the home of democracy so shit at democracy?
The craziest thing to me is that they seem to rely on press organisations "calling" elections, without any equivalent of a returning officer (backed by a man wearing a bin on his head) making an official declaration.
It works in our system because the votes are all counted together with something like urgency, and once the task is done the full result can be announced.
In the US system with mail-in votes dribbling in days after the poll, and with a ‘relaxed’ approach to getting the job done in many counties, no-one would be interested in an official announcement days, weeks or in California months afterwards, when in most cases the result has been known for ages.
Calling the USA the home of democracy, is exactly the little Englander mentality to a t. The hatred of anywhere foreign or non-white or historical or with garlic in it.
Hilarious and remarkable. Just for the record the word and the idea come from moussaka country.
Brazil does a more efficient job of counting votes than the USA.
Going off at a tangent, I think it's interesting how our notion of "democracy" (one person one vote) differs so radically from the ancient version of democracy (those who fight are those who get to vote). Even under Greek monarchies, the army assembly was always hugely important, politically. They would see our democracies as disguised oligarchies. We would point out the fact that women, slaves, and resident foreigners (often people who'd lived in the place for decades) could not vote.
Hortensia made the remarkably advanced argument in Rome, that since she paid the same taxes as a man, she should have the same right to run for political office as a man. The Senate was so impressed by her arguments that they exempted her from taxation, so as not to concede her right to run for office.
Julia Davis @JuliaDavisNews Kremlin Cronies Sent Reeling on Live TV Over U.S. Midterm Elections.
Russia’s Tucker Carlson, top propagandist Vladimir Solovyov, said that the Kherson withdrawal was postponed to avoid inadvertently helping Joe Biden and the Democrats in the midterms.
Nate Silver on Twitter is pointing out on that it wasn't the polls predicting a red wave, it was political pundits. The polls were predicting about 50.7 GOP seats in the Senate, which will probably prove to be fairly accurate. (Regrettably Newsnight just repeated the idea that the polls were predicting a red wave).
He's broadly right.
But there were some big polling fails all the same.
The pollsters had just a two point lead for Hassan in New Hampshire. And it looks like she won by nine.
Pollsters thought Washington was a five point lead for the Dems... and they actually won by 14.
We don't know the final results for AZ and NV, but the polling averages made it look like some not at all close races were tight.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?
In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.
If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.
You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.
24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.
Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
No.
Your position is that it’s the mother body until birth and that’s all that matters.
The fundamentalist religious position is that as soon as the sperm fertilised the egg, the blastocyst is a baby with the same rights as a baby. And that’s all that matters.
Both positions are absurd because lots of factors matter in any decision to abort a foetus.
Recognition of this reality was the genius behind the “legal, safe and rare” detente.
Now America, and unfortunately, I fear increasingly over here, we’re back to moral/religious absolutists vs liberal absolutists/women’s rights fundamentalists yelling themselves into opposing corners in a fight to impose their truth on society.
You’re cheering on this fight, which I think is a disaster. As you basically said, you’d rather completely lose the argument than live in the complicated, morally hazy reality, which is, I recon, the far more more mature position to take.
Let us have this never ending political and moral debate about the number of weeks, the viability of foetuses, the implications of various disabilities, the complexities of babies conceived through rape etc etc.
Your absolutist position is infantile.
Neither religion nor science assist the debate in any significant way.
It's logic plus values.
...plus reasoning plus analogy plus argument as to rights of all including the unborn (if any) and duties.
Science tells you nothing about what value and rights to place upon any individual from conception onwards, or its moral status. Religion cannot helpfully add to the general universal agreement that unjustified killing of humans is to be avoided, and dogmatic religious assertions don't advance argument.
I'm agreeing it isn't about all that. It's about - for me - American women losing something fundamental to their freedom and welfare which they'd had for 50 years. I'm actually not interested in the chinstroke. It's boring and off the point.
And what about the freedom of the unborn child? I agree some of the state restrictions go too far but restrictions of 12 weeks for example in Florida are no different to those in Ireland or Italy or Germany for instance.
Poland still bans abortion in most circumstances
Yes, a balance. The right to choose with constraints and protocols. Like here. Like it was in America.
California has just effectively gone full Bart and legalised abortion to birth, enshrining a right to abortion with no mention of until viability restriction, giving one of the most liberal abortion laws in the Western world.
So it is a balance, just returning the decision on abortion law to the states. Not one size fits all from Alabama to California
Nate Silver on Twitter is pointing out on that it wasn't the polls predicting a red wave, it was political pundits. The polls were predicting about 50.7 GOP seats in the Senate, which will probably prove to be fairly accurate. (Regrettably Newsnight just repeated the idea that the polls were predicting it).
Nate Silver on Twitter is pointing out on that it wasn't the polls predicting a red wave, it was political pundits. The polls were predicting about 50.7 GOP seats in the Senate, which will probably prove to be fairly accurate. (Regrettably Newsnight just repeated the idea that the polls were predicting it).
Yep, I pointed this out early this morning. @MoonRabbit hit back at me for it, but overall, the polls were pretty accurate - and a better guide than most of the pundits. The betting markets were too GOP favourable, too.
Those betting on the polls made money, generally. There were a few exceptions, of course, but yeah, once again, the simple political betting strategy of punting on the polls was vindicated.
I regret not backing Fetterman @2.5, a couple of days ago. I watched his debate/campaign performances and listened to the pundits and talked myself out of it.
Lake continues to close in on Hobbs, Masters closes a little but still 84k adrift. Arizona wont be known for some time imo.
I think Lake wins, Masters falls short.
I tend to agree but there are, i think, enough votes left for Masters to get very close, very possibly into recount territory
There's around 33% of votes to go, and Masters has to overcome a five percentage point deficit. That means he needs to win the remainder by about 15 percentage points. That's a really tough ask.
At this stage in 2020, Biden was up two percentage points, and the race narrowed to a 0.3% lead.
NYTimes estimates the eventual margin will halve to 2.6% - that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I think Kari Lake has won the race for Governor, and has helped the Republicans take two Arizona House seats. She's one of the very few Trump-endorsed candidates who comes over well.
Not to me she doesn't. But given the state of the orhers I suppose relatively speaking she does. The tv presenting background maybe helps.
I think she comes over well to a lot of Americans.
Clearly so. As does her hero of course.
Looks over for him now though. Mucho shit to still hit the fan but no path back to the presidency imo. 10% chance max.
So bad day for Trump in America, bad day for Putin in Ukraine, good day for Kuntibula in Hampstead. 🙂
Lake continues to close in on Hobbs, Masters closes a little but still 84k adrift. Arizona wont be known for some time imo.
I think Lake wins, Masters falls short.
I tend to agree but there are, i think, enough votes left for Masters to get very close, very possibly into recount territory
There's around 33% of votes to go, and Masters has to overcome a five percentage point deficit. That means he needs to win the remainder by about 15 percentage points. That's a really tough ask.
At this stage in 2020, Biden was up two percentage points, and the race narrowed to a 0.3% lead.
NYTimes estimates the eventual margin will halve to 2.6% - that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I think Kari Lake has won the race for Governor, and has helped the Republicans take two Arizona House seats. She's one of the very few Trump-endorsed candidates who comes over well.
Not to me she doesn't. But given the state of the orhers I suppose relatively speaking she does. The tv presenting background maybe helps.
I think she comes over well to a lot of Americans.
Clearly so. As does her hero of course.
Looks over for him now though. Mucho shit to still hit the fan but no path back to the presidency imo. 10% chance max.
So bad day for Trump in America, bad day for Putin in Ukraine, good day for Kuntibula in Hampstead. 🙂
It is worth remembering that even at the current price, Bitcoin has a market cap of about $300bn.
Now, clearly to act as a float for transactions, and for there to be decent liquidity, a certain amount (value-wise) is needed. But it's very hard to work out why that should be more than $30bn or so... and maybe $100bn at a stretch.
As a result of corporate due diligence, as well as the latest news reports regarding mishandled customer funds and alleged US agency investigations, we have decided that we will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX.com. https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1590455680959668225/photo/1
Apparently an $8bn cash shortage today ? That’s not chump change.
Lake continues to close in on Hobbs, Masters closes a little but still 84k adrift. Arizona wont be known for some time imo.
I think Lake wins, Masters falls short.
I tend to agree but there are, i think, enough votes left for Masters to get very close, very possibly into recount territory
There's around 33% of votes to go, and Masters has to overcome a five percentage point deficit. That means he needs to win the remainder by about 15 percentage points. That's a really tough ask.
At this stage in 2020, Biden was up two percentage points, and the race narrowed to a 0.3% lead.
NYTimes estimates the eventual margin will halve to 2.6% - that doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
I think Kari Lake has won the race for Governor, and has helped the Republicans take two Arizona House seats. She's one of the very few Trump-endorsed candidates who comes over well.
Not to me she doesn't. But given the state of the orhers I suppose relatively speaking she does. The tv presenting background maybe helps.
I think she comes over well to a lot of Americans.
Clearly so. As does her hero of course.
Looks over for him now though. Mucho shit to still hit the fan but no path back to the presidency imo. 10% chance max.
So bad day for Trump in America, bad day for Putin in Ukraine, good day for Kuntibula in Hampstead. 🙂
Trump long gone. DeSantis is the GOP hope for 2024.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?
In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.
If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.
You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.
24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.
Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
No.
Your position is that it’s the mother body until birth and that’s all that matters.
The fundamentalist religious position is that as soon as the sperm fertilised the egg, the blastocyst is a baby with the same rights as a baby. And that’s all that matters.
Both positions are absurd because lots of factors matter in any decision to abort a foetus.
Recognition of this reality was the genius behind the “legal, safe and rare” detente.
Now America, and unfortunately, I fear increasingly over here, we’re back to moral/religious absolutists vs liberal absolutists/women’s rights fundamentalists yelling themselves into opposing corners in a fight to impose their truth on society.
You’re cheering on this fight, which I think is a disaster. As you basically said, you’d rather completely lose the argument than live in the complicated, morally hazy reality, which is, I recon, the far more more mature position to take.
Let us have this never ending political and moral debate about the number of weeks, the viability of foetuses, the implications of various disabilities, the complexities of babies conceived through rape etc etc.
Your absolutist position is infantile.
Neither religion nor science assist the debate in any significant way.
It's logic plus values.
...plus reasoning plus analogy plus argument as to rights of all including the unborn (if any) and duties.
Science tells you nothing about what value and rights to place upon any individual from conception onwards, or its moral status. Religion cannot helpfully add to the general universal agreement that unjustified killing of humans is to be avoided, and dogmatic religious assertions don't advance argument.
I'm agreeing it isn't about all that. It's about - for me - American women losing something fundamental to their freedom and welfare which they'd had for 50 years. I'm actually not interested in the chinstroke. It's boring and off the point.
And what about the freedom of the unborn child? I agree some of the state restrictions go too far but restrictions of 12 weeks for example in Florida are no different to those in Ireland or Italy or Germany for instance.
Poland still bans abortion in most circumstances
Yes, a balance. The right to choose with constraints and protocols. Like here. Like it was in America.
California has just effectively gone full Bart and legalised abortion to birth, enshrining a right to abortion with no mention of until viability restriction, giving one of the most liberal abortion laws in the Western world.
So it is a balance, just returning the decision on abortion law to the states. Not one size fits all from Alabama to California
The states varied before. It wasn’t one size fits all. Just the basic right was guaranteed.
Much much better than what this has opened the lid on.
ABC's projection for the House is now 215 Republican, 194 Democratic, 26 left to call. 218 gives a majority. Most of the 26 will be won by Democrats, but at least 8 will go Republican.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?
In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.
If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.
You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.
24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.
Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
No.
Your position is that it’s the mother body until birth and that’s all that matters.
The fundamentalist religious position is that as soon as the sperm fertilised the egg, the blastocyst is a baby with the same rights as a baby. And that’s all that matters.
Both positions are absurd because lots of factors matter in any decision to abort a foetus.
Recognition of this reality was the genius behind the “legal, safe and rare” detente.
Now America, and unfortunately, I fear increasingly over here, we’re back to moral/religious absolutists vs liberal absolutists/women’s rights fundamentalists yelling themselves into opposing corners in a fight to impose their truth on society.
You’re cheering on this fight, which I think is a disaster. As you basically said, you’d rather completely lose the argument than live in the complicated, morally hazy reality, which is, I recon, the far more more mature position to take.
Let us have this never ending political and moral debate about the number of weeks, the viability of foetuses, the implications of various disabilities, the complexities of babies conceived through rape etc etc.
Your absolutist position is infantile.
Neither religion nor science assist the debate in any significant way.
It's logic plus values.
...plus reasoning plus analogy plus argument as to rights of all including the unborn (if any) and duties.
Science tells you nothing about what value and rights to place upon any individual from conception onwards, or its moral status. Religion cannot helpfully add to the general universal agreement that unjustified killing of humans is to be avoided, and dogmatic religious assertions don't advance argument.
I'm agreeing it isn't about all that. It's about - for me - American women losing something fundamental to their freedom and welfare which they'd had for 50 years. I'm actually not interested in the chinstroke. It's boring and off the point.
And what about the freedom of the unborn child? I agree some of the state restrictions go too far but restrictions of 12 weeks for example in Florida are no different to those in Ireland or Italy or Germany for instance.
Poland still bans abortion in most circumstances
Yes, a balance. The right to choose with constraints and protocols. Like here. Like it was in America.
California has just effectively gone full Bart and legalised abortion to birth, enshrining a right to abortion with no mention of until viability restriction, giving one of the most liberal abortion laws in the Western world.
So it is a balance, just returning the decision on abortion law to the states. Not one size fits all from Alabama to California
The states varied before. It wasn’t one size fits all. Just the basic right was guaranteed.
Much much better than what this has opened the lid on.
Roe basically tried a middle ground, a fundamental right to an abortion but respect for pre natal life too using a trimester system.
Dobbs has effectively just given the states the power to decide from outright ban to abortion to birth
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
As regards Trump, whilst we have long history of demonising him on here, and many will go on about how the elections are a defeat in some form for him, the reality is that he has been yesterdays man for some time and enough of the GOP do want to move on from him as individudal. There has been no evidence that Trump has really been a big vote winner for the GOP. Motivating your own base is only one part of success. He lost the popular vote against a highly divisive candidate in 2016 and he lost against Biden.
On Kherson - as I understand it the east bank is lower than the west bank. So firstly that means blowing the dam would presumably damage Russian not Ukrainian positions. Secondly the Ukrainians would have the benefit of being on higher ground in any artillery duel.
Yet I've heard it repeatedly said that Russia will blow the dam. Is that plausible?
Confession of error: When I saw graphs including those contaminated poll averages I wondered whether Patty Murray could actually be in trouble here in Washington state. Everything I knew about Murray and her opponent, Tiffany Smiley, suggested the opposite. In fact, the only thing that suggested otherwise was the money Mitch McConnell was putting into the race -- which I have yet to explain to my own satisfaction.
I like to think that, had I actually been betting on the race, I would have checked the data carefully, but as I wasn't, I didn't. And that reminds me of one of the reasons I like this site: Since some here are using their own money, there is a continuing reality check on people's views on election outcomes. And that is a very good thing.
(It is awkward for me to do actual betting, and I don't have a large entertainment budget, so I haven't, for example, set up an account at the IEM.)
The Crypto crash is not going to be pretty. I wonder how much it will impact other markets. Not much so far.
The question is how much institutional money is in crypto. Retail investors are going to get burnt but if some sizeable outfit goes under thats a different level of importance than people who blew their stimulus cheques.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?
In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.
If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.
You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.
24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.
Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
No.
Your position is that it’s the mother body until birth and that’s all that matters.
The fundamentalist religious position is that as soon as the sperm fertilised the egg, the blastocyst is a baby with the same rights as a baby. And that’s all that matters.
Both positions are absurd because lots of factors matter in any decision to abort a foetus.
Recognition of this reality was the genius behind the “legal, safe and rare” detente.
Now America, and unfortunately, I fear increasingly over here, we’re back to moral/religious absolutists vs liberal absolutists/women’s rights fundamentalists yelling themselves into opposing corners in a fight to impose their truth on society.
You’re cheering on this fight, which I think is a disaster. As you basically said, you’d rather completely lose the argument than live in the complicated, morally hazy reality, which is, I recon, the far more more mature position to take.
Let us have this never ending political and moral debate about the number of weeks, the viability of foetuses, the implications of various disabilities, the complexities of babies conceived through rape etc etc.
Your absolutist position is infantile.
Neither religion nor science assist the debate in any significant way.
It's logic plus values.
...plus reasoning plus analogy plus argument as to rights of all including the unborn (if any) and duties.
Science tells you nothing about what value and rights to place upon any individual from conception onwards, or its moral status. Religion cannot helpfully add to the general universal agreement that unjustified killing of humans is to be avoided, and dogmatic religious assertions don't advance argument.
I'm agreeing it isn't about all that. It's about - for me - American women losing something fundamental to their freedom and welfare which they'd had for 50 years. I'm actually not interested in the chinstroke. It's boring and off the point.
And what about the freedom of the unborn child? I agree some of the state restrictions go too far but restrictions of 12 weeks for example in Florida are no different to those in Ireland or Italy or Germany for instance.
Poland still bans abortion in most circumstances
Yes, a balance. The right to choose with constraints and protocols. Like here. Like it was in America.
California has just effectively gone full Bart and legalised abortion to birth, enshrining a right to abortion with no mention of until viability restriction, giving one of the most liberal abortion laws in the Western world.
So it is a balance, just returning the decision on abortion law to the states. Not one size fits all from Alabama to California
The states varied before. It wasn’t one size fits all. Just the basic right was guaranteed.
Much much better than what this has opened the lid on.
Roe basically tried a middle ground, a fundamental right to an abortion but respect for pre natal life too using a trimester system.
Dobbs has effectively just given the states the power to decide from outright ban to abortion to birth
A perfect summary. Let's not spoil it by saying anything else. Me too.
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
The two points are not contradictory. Nor is it a UK or even Democrat phenomenom to view it that way.
Underperforming expectations can be a failure even if a side gains by important measures. Overperforming expectations can be a (relative) success even if you don't win outright. You just cannot get carried away with it (see the Corbynites).
On Kherson - as I understand it the east bank is lower than the west bank. So firstly that means blowing the dam would presumably damage Russian not Ukrainian positions. Secondly the Ukrainians would have the benefit of being on higher ground in any artillery duel.
Yet I've heard it repeatedly said that Russia will blow the dam. Is that plausible?
It is plausible yes because it will damage Ukrainian territory.
On Kherson - as I understand it the east bank is lower than the west bank. So firstly that means blowing the dam would presumably damage Russian not Ukrainian positions. Secondly the Ukrainians would have the benefit of being on higher ground in any artillery duel.
Yet I've heard it repeatedly said that Russia will blow the dam. Is that plausible?
Is it also the water source for Putin's "my precious" Crimea?
David Axelrod @davidaxelrod · 12m Despite the raft of Trump-inspired conspiracy theories, 2020 was the most scurtinized and certifiably honest election in U.S. history. Yesterday's elections went down with remarkably few complaints. This is a STRENGTH of our democracy, to be celebrated and preserved!
Nate Silver on Twitter is pointing out on that it wasn't the polls predicting a red wave, it was political pundits. The polls were predicting about 50.7 GOP seats in the Senate, which will probably prove to be fairly accurate. (Regrettably Newsnight just repeated the idea that the polls were predicting it).
The polls were fine, overall.
Depends which polls you include and which you don’t.
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
The two points are not contradictory. Nor is it a UK or even Democrat phenomenom to view it that way.
Underperforming expectations can be a failure even if a side gains by important measures. Overperforming expectations can be a (relative) success even if you don't win outright. You just cannot get carried away with it (see the Corbynites).
Nate Silver on Twitter is pointing out on that it wasn't the polls predicting a red wave, it was political pundits. The polls were predicting about 50.7 GOP seats in the Senate, which will probably prove to be fairly accurate. (Regrettably Newsnight just repeated the idea that the polls were predicting it).
Yep, I pointed this out early this morning. @MoonRabbit hit back at me for it, but overall, the polls were pretty accurate - and a better guide than most of the pundits. The betting markets were too GOP favourable, too.
Those betting on the polls made money, generally. There were a few exceptions, of course, but yeah, once again, the simple political betting strategy of punting on the polls was vindicated.
I regret not backing Fetterman @2.5, a couple of days ago. I watched his debate/campaign performances and listened to the pundits and talked myself out of it.
Amateur error, on my part.
You didn’t find a difference in consistency numbers between respected polling firms and partisan cowboys like I did trawling through it? 🥹
ABC's projection for the House is now 215 Republican, 194 Democratic, 26 left to call. 218 gives a majority. Most of the 26 will be won by Democrats, but at least 8 will go Republican.
In this case I like your concise "that’s a fact" style.
On Kherson - as I understand it the east bank is lower than the west bank. So firstly that means blowing the dam would presumably damage Russian not Ukrainian positions. Secondly the Ukrainians would have the benefit of being on higher ground in any artillery duel.
Yet I've heard it repeatedly said that Russia will blow the dam. Is that plausible?
It is plausible yes because it will damage Ukrainian territory.
And the fact that it us stupid and self-defeating for Russia doesn't mean Russia won't do it.
It did seem that the media in the USA had a narrative and refused to divert from that .
The Dem disaster was peddled for weeks and them saying it was all about the economy and that abortion wouldn’t be a big factor .
The ones who were most guilty of pushing the abortion isn’t a big deal in the mid terms were not surprisingly men !
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by voters and legislators, not by courts. There are a number of defensible and rational views, and it is a conscience matter.
There may be some evidence that the (IMHO correct) decision of the SC to say it is a matter for voters not courts is having an effect. Good.
Abortion is a classic case of something which should be decided by the woman who is pregnant.
Until birth?
No, until the fortieth trimester.
Yes, until birth.
OK, that's a position, but an extremist one. You won't find a lot of support for it.
I agree with Bart on that position. I trust the pregnant woman to make the right choice for the circumstance she finds herself in. I'm confident that they're only going to choose abortion at a late stage because of regrettable and extreme medical circumstances, and I think it's best to leave that choice with them, rather than to add to their difficulties at such a time.
Is there anywhere in the world that allows it currently?
The position in the UK is not all that far off. Although there's a time limit, there's an exception for a number of relevant medical situations.
It might be one of those situations a bit like "defund the police", or "climate reparations", where you can effectively implement the desired policy, in a lot more than 99.9% of cases, but with something that doesn't quite match the principle, but is a lot easier to get people to agree to - i.e. a time limit combined with exceptions for relevant medical circumstances.
Right. But AIUI Bartholomew doesn't want "exceptions for relevant medical circumstances", he wants no-questions-asked abortion on demand right up until birth.
I think there should be one question. "Are you sure?" And maybe a second "do you need any help or support"?
I trust women will only want it in extreme circumstances, and I would trust their judgement. Why not?
What if the mother and father want the baby up until Wk38 and then the father and mother fall out. The father wants the baby, the mother doesn't.
Its the mother's body until birth.
I find your argument every bit as absurd as the fundamentalist religious position that full moral and legal rights should be granted to the baby at conception.
I don't find Bart's position absurd per se. Birth is no more or less arbitrary a position than conception or 12 weeks or 15 weeks or 24 weeks or, as was discussed earlier, 12 and a third. I think 24 weeks is right. Bart thinks birth. A fundamental Catholic thinks conception. Ron DeSantis thinks 15 weeks. Any are reasonable positions. And just because the argument is debatable it doesn't therefore follow that the right answer is somewhere in the middle. What would be absurd though is not understanding the debatability of the subject and of brooking no dissent.
Indeed. How is birth any less reasonable than 24 weeks, or 22, or 36?
In one way I think the two extremes (conception or birth) are both more reasonable than an arbitrary and messy compromise at 24 weeks.
If abortion is murder, it should be conception. If abortion isn't murder, it should be birth.
You can't be half-pregnant, and you can't be half a murderer.
24 weeks is just a messy compromise, like Sunday trading laws, a silly and pointless sop to try and keep everyone happy. I would rather just treat the women with respect to make the appropriate decision and not second-guess them, which is essentially the law as it really operates in practice today anyway in this country already.
Having said that, I understand why many people are happier with the messy compromise. Doesn't mean I need to agree or respect it, but I respect other's rights to hold their own opinion - I just think all opinions apart from the woman's are irrelevant.
No.
Your position is that it’s the mother body until birth and that’s all that matters.
The fundamentalist religious position is that as soon as the sperm fertilised the egg, the blastocyst is a baby with the same rights as a baby. And that’s all that matters.
Both positions are absurd because lots of factors matter in any decision to abort a foetus.
Recognition of this reality was the genius behind the “legal, safe and rare” detente.
Now America, and unfortunately, I fear increasingly over here, we’re back to moral/religious absolutists vs liberal absolutists/women’s rights fundamentalists yelling themselves into opposing corners in a fight to impose their truth on society.
You’re cheering on this fight, which I think is a disaster. As you basically said, you’d rather completely lose the argument than live in the complicated, morally hazy reality, which is, I recon, the far more more mature position to take.
Let us have this never ending political and moral debate about the number of weeks, the viability of foetuses, the implications of various disabilities, the complexities of babies conceived through rape etc etc.
Your absolutist position is infantile.
Neither religion nor science assist the debate in any significant way.
It's logic plus values.
...plus reasoning plus analogy plus argument as to rights of all including the unborn (if any) and duties.
Science tells you nothing about what value and rights to place upon any individual from conception onwards, or its moral status. Religion cannot helpfully add to the general universal agreement that unjustified killing of humans is to be avoided, and dogmatic religious assertions don't advance argument.
I'm agreeing it isn't about all that. It's about - for me - American women losing something fundamental to their freedom and welfare which they'd had for 50 years. I'm actually not interested in the chinstroke. It's boring and off the point.
And what about the freedom of the unborn child? I agree some of the state restrictions go too far but restrictions of 12 weeks for example in Florida are no different to those in Ireland or Italy or Germany for instance.
Poland still bans abortion in most circumstances
Yes, a balance. The right to choose with constraints and protocols. Like here. Like it was in America.
California has just effectively gone full Bart and legalised abortion to birth, enshrining a right to abortion with no mention of until viability restriction, giving one of the most liberal abortion laws in the Western world.
So it is a balance, just returning the decision on abortion law to the states. Not one size fits all from Alabama to California
The states varied before. It wasn’t one size fits all. Just the basic right was guaranteed.
Much much better than what this has opened the lid on.
Well if you were in favour of the status quo, yes. But clearly not everybody was. Again, to be clear, I am in favour of abortion being legal under the circumstances we have in the UK. I see grave risks with the reverse. But you cannot in a democracy say "well that area is not even up for discussion", particularly if a lot of people feel strongly about it.
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
The two points are not contradictory. Nor is it a UK or even Democrat phenomenom to view it that way.
Underperforming expectations can be a failure even if a side gains by important measures. Overperforming expectations can be a (relative) success even if you don't win outright. You just cannot get carried away with it (see the Corbynites).
Boil it down and a one nil win is still a win.
Not particularly because they tell us that one side is weaker than would be expected given the time in the cycle and the economy, so the new knowledge about underlying strength affects what each party can do in the next two years. Same reason it's better to have a 200 seat majority than a 60 seat majority: it lets you go further and makes your opponents move toward you.
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
The two points are not contradictory. Nor is it a UK or even Democrat phenomenom to view it that way.
Underperforming expectations can be a failure even if a side gains by important measures. Overperforming expectations can be a (relative) success even if you don't win outright. You just cannot get carried away with it (see the Corbynites).
Boil it down and a one nil win is still a win.
But a high scoring 50-50 draw is definitely a loss
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
The two points are not contradictory. Nor is it a UK or even Democrat phenomenom to view it that way.
Underperforming expectations can be a failure even if a side gains by important measures. Overperforming expectations can be a (relative) success even if you don't win outright. You just cannot get carried away with it (see the Corbynites).
Boil it down and a one nil win is still a win.
Not if you then have to go to Anfield away for the second leg. Not all wins are equal.
On Kherson - as I understand it the east bank is lower than the west bank. So firstly that means blowing the dam would presumably damage Russian not Ukrainian positions. Secondly the Ukrainians would have the benefit of being on higher ground in any artillery duel.
Yet I've heard it repeatedly said that Russia will blow the dam. Is that plausible?
Is it also the water source for Putin's "my precious" Crimea?
Depends which polls you use in your poll of polls and punditry and which you don’t.
Some posters here are (I’m laughing this end) trying to have it both ways - saying “polls” overall allows the firms with awful polling record, you have quickly shared but one example, to hide their abysmal record behind the record of the decent firms - like orcs trying to hind behind elves and saying, but we are all the same.
In American politics, no, you are orcs. Orc Polling.
The posters on here trying to make out pollsters were are all the same in performance and intent to be accurate - laughable.
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
The two points are not contradictory. Nor is it a UK or even Democrat phenomenom to view it that way.
Underperforming expectations can be a failure even if a side gains by important measures. Overperforming expectations can be a (relative) success even if you don't win outright. You just cannot get carried away with it (see the Corbynites).
Boil it down and a one nil win is still a win.
What if the match has two legs?
I don't understand the resistance to people noting the fact that, usually, the president's party would do quite a bit worse than this. If you like facts why is accepting another one a problem?
No one is denying the Republicans have won the House, and may still have a shot of winning the Senate. They are just noting other facts as well.
The reason it is silly to ignore that is because people are quite reasonably looking ahead - they want to know if things are looking positive for future presidential prospects. This result doesn't rule out a Republican win, but it isn't as encouraging as they'd have liked.
If the wide which has won is itself disappointed, it is hardly unreasonable for people to agree with them.
Edit: biggles puts it a bit more succinctly. There are categories of winning and losing, which depends on the context. Ever heard of a dead rubber for example?
World's richest man doing world's coolest things x 3. I wish I was dumb like that.
Luck and rich parents are part of why he is where he is now. Perhaps you should wish for those too.
Doing the world's coolest things? Running Twitter sounds like a nightmare, even if you're any good at it, which he's not.
You seem to persist in the idea that Musk is a fool.
Clearly he is not. SpaceX alone is a stupendous achievement.
Cofounding Tesla, Paypal are also big, big achievements.
Luck actually plays a big role in everyone who makes it. So do parents who are well-off. So, why you sneer at him for this is beyond me.
The number of people who can overcome bad luck and an impoverished family background and yet still make it is vanishingly small.
I get you don't like him. And for sure, he doesn't understand how to run Twitter. But that doesn't make him dumb.
He didn’t co-found Tesla. He didn’t co-found PayPal.
I don’t sneer at Musk for luck and rich parents. I question this idea that he got where he is today just by being clever.
No-one (sensible) can possibly like Musk, but that’s clearly a different question from whether he’s clever.
From wiki,
"A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five – Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk, and Straubel – to call themselves co-founders."
"Musk co-founded the online bank X.com, which merged with Confinity in 2000 to form PayPal."
You said Musk was dumb (repeatedly). You have now corrected this by saying "I question this idea that he got where he is today just by being clever."
But, I don't think anyone ever said that Musk just got where he was by being clever.
As regards Twitter, I think it is quite conceivable that making money was not Musk's primary goal in buying it.
As it happens, I don't like Musk much, but he is clearly not dumb.
It is worth remembering that even at the current price, Bitcoin has a market cap of about $300bn.
Now, clearly to act as a float for transactions, and for there to be decent liquidity, a certain amount (value-wise) is needed. But it's very hard to work out why that should be more than $30bn or so... and maybe $100bn at a stretch.
$300bn in theory.
The problem is that the whole market cap is made of fictional numbers getting bandied around, but there's no assets or revenue stream to support those numbers. When people try and withdraw money, then the pyramid of cards comes tumbling down.
Its worth remembering that Bitcoin was supposedly "worth" $66k this time last year. In the space of a year its lost 77% of its value, leaving only about another 25% to go. Yes, those numbers add up to 100%, because Bitcoin isn't just a pyramid scheme, its a negative value one; due to the horrendous design of this scam, a lot of people won't just lose what they put into the coins but will be left liable with debts for hardware, machines, electric bills etc on top.
On the plus side, we might find it a bit easier to get new graphics cards in the future.
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
As regards Trump, whilst we have long history of demonising him on here, and many will go on about how the elections are a defeat in some form for him, the reality is that he has been yesterdays man for some time and enough of the GOP do want to move on from him as individudal. There has been no evidence that Trump has really been a big vote winner for the GOP. Motivating your own base is only one part of success. He lost the popular vote against a highly divisive candidate in 2016 and he lost against Biden.
I'll run with that from a counter-consensual medium term / long term view
First. as you said, the GOP now has the House and a worst case of 49 in the Senate. That means it has more power than pre-yesterday.
Second, on the basis of last night, Texas and Florida are now R strongholds as opposed to swing / potential swing states. NC has been strengthened (Supreme Court). It has opened up ground in NY State (and kicked off a power struggle in the NY D party).
Third, as you said, this is the nail in the coffin for Trump. The bad orange man is not going to act as a motivator. RDS would be a significant improvement. It also opens the field to others.
Fourth, abortion. Banning it is a vote loser. That is going to make the vocal, pro-life lobby less influential. Expect the GOP to move more towards a 15-week plus ban and / or it's down to the individual.
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
The two points are not contradictory. Nor is it a UK or even Democrat phenomenom to view it that way.
Underperforming expectations can be a failure even if a side gains by important measures. Overperforming expectations can be a (relative) success even if you don't win outright. You just cannot get carried away with it (see the Corbynites).
Boil it down and a one nil win is still a win.
What if the match has two legs?
I don't understand the resistance to people noting the fact that, usually, the president's party would do quite a bit worse than this. If you like facts why is accepting another one a problem?
No one is denying the Republicans have won the House, and may still have a shot of winning the Senate. They are just noting other facts as well.
The reason it is silly to ignore that is because people are quite reasonably looking ahead - they want to know if things are looking positive for future presidential prospects. This result doesn't rule out a Republican win, but it isn't as encouraging as they'd have liked.
If the wide which has won is itself disappointed, it is hardly unreasonable for people to agree with them.
Edit: biggles puts it a bit more succinctly. There are categories of winning and losing, which depends on the context. Ever heard of a dead rubber for example?
On the other hand though, we have General Elections called in UK on back of strong local election results, that then went pear shaped - 2017, 1970 come quickly to mind.
Generally I think you are right - the Democrats would rather have such fine results in key bellwether Legislatures in these mid terms, than had a torrid time in them.
I appreciate though, at the end of bruising election results that didn’t go as planned, one side or other will be feeling hurt this evening and next few days, so I expect plenty more partisan waffling rather than admit the truths. That’s what people do in political herds.
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
As regards Trump, whilst we have long history of demonising him on here, and many will go on about how the elections are a defeat in some form for him, the reality is that he has been yesterdays man for some time and enough of the GOP do want to move on from him as individudal. There has been no evidence that Trump has really been a big vote winner for the GOP. Motivating your own base is only one part of success. He lost the popular vote against a highly divisive candidate in 2016 and he lost against Biden.
I'll run with that from a counter-consensual medium term / long term view
First. as you said, the GOP now has the House and a worst case of 49 in the Senate. That means it has more power than pre-yesterday.
Second, on the basis of last night, Texas and Florida are now R strongholds as opposed to swing / potential swing states. NC has been strengthened (Supreme Court). It has opened up ground in NY State (and kicked off a power struggle in the NY D party).
Third, as you said, this is the nail in the coffin for Trump. The bad orange man is not going to act as a motivator. RDS would be a significant improvement. It also opens the field to others.
Fourth, abortion. Banning it is a vote loser. That is going to make the vocal, pro-life lobby less influential. Expect the GOP to move more towards a 15-week plus ban and / or it's down to the individual.
I will add a fifth. This is going to be arguably the worst set of candidates the GOP is going to ever have. In several places, the Ds effectively chose their opponents by funding them in primaries. That won't happen again. And the candidate quality will be ticked up more generally.
World's richest man doing world's coolest things x 3. I wish I was dumb like that.
Luck and rich parents are part of why he is where he is now. Perhaps you should wish for those too.
Doing the world's coolest things? Running Twitter sounds like a nightmare, even if you're any good at it, which he's not.
You seem to persist in the idea that Musk is a fool.
Clearly he is not. SpaceX alone is a stupendous achievement.
Cofounding Tesla, Paypal are also big, big achievements.
Luck actually plays a big role in everyone who makes it. So do parents who are well-off. So, why you sneer at him for this is beyond me.
The number of people who can overcome bad luck and an impoverished family background and yet still make it is vanishingly small.
I get you don't like him. And for sure, he doesn't understand how to run Twitter. But that doesn't make him dumb.
He didn’t co-found Tesla. He didn’t co-found PayPal.
I don’t sneer at Musk for luck and rich parents. I question this idea that he got where he is today just by being clever.
No-one (sensible) can possibly like Musk, but that’s clearly a different question from whether he’s clever.
From wiki,
"A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five – Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk, and Straubel – to call themselves co-founders."
"Musk co-founded the online bank X.com, which merged with Confinity in 2000 to form PayPal."
You said Musk was dumb (repeatedly). You have now corrected this by saying "I question this idea that he got where he is today just by being clever."
But, I don't think anyone ever said that Musk just got where he was by being clever.
As regards Twitter, I think it is quite conceivable that making money was not Musk's primary goal in buying it.
As it happens, I don't like Musk much, but he is clearly not dumb.
A lawsuit might allow Musk to call himself a co-founder of Tesla, but Tesla existed before him.
Musk co-founded X.com, which merged with Confinity, and they decided to pursue Confinity’s tech. They then became PayPal. So, at best, Musk co-founded half of what became PayPal, but not the half who worked out the clever stuff.
Ishmael implied Musk’s success was from being clever. That’s what I was responding to.
He’s doing a lot of dumb things presently. Doing dumb = being dumb.
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
As regards Trump, whilst we have long history of demonising him on here, and many will go on about how the elections are a defeat in some form for him, the reality is that he has been yesterdays man for some time and enough of the GOP do want to move on from him as individudal. There has been no evidence that Trump has really been a big vote winner for the GOP. Motivating your own base is only one part of success. He lost the popular vote against a highly divisive candidate in 2016 and he lost against Biden.
I'll run with that from a counter-consensual medium term / long term view
First. as you said, the GOP now has the House and a worst case of 49 in the Senate. That means it has more power than pre-yesterday.
Second, on the basis of last night, Texas and Florida are now R strongholds as opposed to swing / potential swing states. NC has been strengthened (Supreme Court). It has opened up ground in NY State (and kicked off a power struggle in the NY D party).
Third, as you said, this is the nail in the coffin for Trump. The bad orange man is not going to act as a motivator. RDS would be a significant improvement. It also opens the field to others.
Fourth, abortion. Banning it is a vote loser. That is going to make the vocal, pro-life lobby less influential. Expect the GOP to move more towards a 15-week plus ban and / or it's down to the individual.
I will add a fifth. This is going to be arguably the worst set of candidates the GOP is going to ever have. In several places, the Ds effectively chose their opponents by funding them in primaries. That won't happen again. And the candidate quality will be ticked up more generally.
I don't think points 3-5 are wins, rather they illustrate that fundamental parts of the party's offer have reached the end of the road, and the assumption that things can only get better isn't necessarily true even in the medium term. Liberal / left Democrats genuinely were locked out of power after LBJ; those who followed as Democrats in power were very different.
To be fair, Trafalgar managed to be off by about ten points in every race.
The media, especially internet and blogs, will analyse the good and bad polling (the difference between Elves and Orcs) over the coming week, you don’t have to do all the work yourself tonight Robert.
But we both know what went down here, because you called it before the event. You’ve been calling it out for a long time I gather.
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
As regards Trump, whilst we have long history of demonising him on here, and many will go on about how the elections are a defeat in some form for him, the reality is that he has been yesterdays man for some time and enough of the GOP do want to move on from him as individudal. There has been no evidence that Trump has really been a big vote winner for the GOP. Motivating your own base is only one part of success. He lost the popular vote against a highly divisive candidate in 2016 and he lost against Biden.
I'll run with that from a counter-consensual medium term / long term view
First. as you said, the GOP now has the House and a worst case of 49 in the Senate. That means it has more power than pre-yesterday.
Second, on the basis of last night, Texas and Florida are now R strongholds as opposed to swing / potential swing states. NC has been strengthened (Supreme Court). It has opened up ground in NY State (and kicked off a power struggle in the NY D party).
Third, as you said, this is the nail in the coffin for Trump. The bad orange man is not going to act as a motivator. RDS would be a significant improvement. It also opens the field to others.
Fourth, abortion. Banning it is a vote loser. That is going to make the vocal, pro-life lobby less influential. Expect the GOP to move more towards a 15-week plus ban and / or it's down to the individual.
(3) and (4) are predicated on the Republicans making sensible choices. If they made sensible choices, they would’ve dumped Trump and gone more softly on abortion before today.
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
As regards Trump, whilst we have long history of demonising him on here, and many will go on about how the elections are a defeat in some form for him, the reality is that he has been yesterdays man for some time and enough of the GOP do want to move on from him as individudal. There has been no evidence that Trump has really been a big vote winner for the GOP. Motivating your own base is only one part of success. He lost the popular vote against a highly divisive candidate in 2016 and he lost against Biden.
I'll run with that from a counter-consensual medium term / long term view
First. as you said, the GOP now has the House and a worst case of 49 in the Senate. That means it has more power than pre-yesterday.
Second, on the basis of last night, Texas and Florida are now R strongholds as opposed to swing / potential swing states. NC has been strengthened (Supreme Court). It has opened up ground in NY State (and kicked off a power struggle in the NY D party).
Third, as you said, this is the nail in the coffin for Trump. The bad orange man is not going to act as a motivator. RDS would be a significant improvement. It also opens the field to others.
Fourth, abortion. Banning it is a vote loser. That is going to make the vocal, pro-life lobby less influential. Expect the GOP to move more towards a 15-week plus ban and / or it's down to the individual.
I will add a fifth. This is going to be arguably the worst set of candidates the GOP is going to ever have. In several places, the Ds effectively chose their opponents by funding them in primaries. That won't happen again. And the candidate quality will be ticked up more generally.
There does seem to have been a little bit of rat-fucking by the Dems but it'll only have made a difference at the margins. It was GOP primary voters who chose those candidates, and they mainly chose them because Trump endorsed them.
It remains to be seen whether they've learned their lesson. At this point I can't see any evidence that they have. There are some GOP bigwigs complaining about Trump but none who dare to do it on the record.
To be fair, Trafalgar managed to be off by about ten points in every race.
The media, especially internet and blogs, will analyse the good and bad polling (the difference between Elves and Orcs) over the coming week, you don’t have to do all the work yourself tonight Robert.
But we both know what went down here, because you called it before the event. You’ve been calling it out for a long time I gather.
Why will no one ever see things from the perspective of the Orcs? They clearly represent the persecuted indigenous population and the humans, Elves, and Dwarfs should pay reparations.
To be fair, Trafalgar managed to be off by about ten points in every race.
The media, especially internet and blogs, will analyse the good and bad polling (the difference between Elves and Orcs) over the coming week, you don’t have to do all the work yourself tonight Robert.
But we both know what went down here, because you called it before the event. You’ve been calling
it out for a long time I gather.
Indeed he has. Back in 2020 he essentially proved that Bobby Bow Tie was sitting on his clown arse and writing works of fiction, and publishing them as ‘polls’. The best bit was that these fools’ surveys were presented to a decimal point.
I see Clark in NV are saying they have 100k left to count and will give an update once a day and expect to count 15k per day
FFS
I bunked off maths, but even I know that’s 7 days, isn’t it?
The export opportunity for north east election count officials is massive here. Add in the sixth formers to carry the boxes and this could fix our balance of payments.
To be fair, Trafalgar managed to be off by about ten points in every race.
The media, especially internet and blogs, will analyse the good and bad polling (the difference between Elves and Orcs) over the coming week, you don’t have to do all the work yourself tonight Robert.
But we both know what went down here, because you called it before the event. You’ve been calling
it out for a long time I gather.
Indeed he has. Back in 2020 he essentially proved that Bobby Bow Tie was sitting on his clown arse and writing works of fiction, and publishing them as ‘polls’. The best bit was that these fools’ surveys were presented to a decimal point.
It is worth remembering that even at the current price, Bitcoin has a market cap of about $300bn.
Now, clearly to act as a float for transactions, and for there to be decent liquidity, a certain amount (value-wise) is needed. But it's very hard to work out why that should be more than $30bn or so... and maybe $100bn at a stretch.
As a result of corporate due diligence, as well as the latest news reports regarding mishandled customer funds and alleged US agency investigations, we have decided that we will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX.com. https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1590455680959668225/photo/1
Apparently an $8bn cash shortage today ? That’s not chump change.
It is worth remembering that even at the current price, Bitcoin has a market cap of about $300bn.
Now, clearly to act as a float for transactions, and for there to be decent liquidity, a certain amount (value-wise) is needed. But it's very hard to work out why that should be more than $30bn or so... and maybe $100bn at a stretch.
As a result of corporate due diligence, as well as the latest news reports regarding mishandled customer funds and alleged US agency investigations, we have decided that we will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX.com. https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1590455680959668225/photo/1
Apparently an $8bn cash shortage today ? That’s not chump change.
Wow: that's a series of pretty serious issues.
Yes it might as well say “following our first round of due diligence, the considered option of our financial, compliance, policy, and legal departments was that we’d have to be on drugs to proceed”.
It is worth remembering that even at the current price, Bitcoin has a market cap of about $300bn.
Now, clearly to act as a float for transactions, and for there to be decent liquidity, a certain amount (value-wise) is needed. But it's very hard to work out why that should be more than $30bn or so... and maybe $100bn at a stretch.
As a result of corporate due diligence, as well as the latest news reports regarding mishandled customer funds and alleged US agency investigations, we have decided that we will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX.com. https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1590455680959668225/photo/1
Apparently an $8bn cash shortage today ? That’s not chump change.
Wow: that's a series of pretty serious issues.
WSJ confirms it is looking for $8bn emergency funding to meet withdrawal requests - and is being investigated (starting some time back) for securities violations.
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
The two points are not contradictory. Nor is it a UK or even Democrat phenomenom to view it that way.
Underperforming expectations can be a failure even if a side gains by important measures. Overperforming expectations can be a (relative) success even if you don't win outright. You just cannot get carried away with it (see the Corbynites).
Boil it down and a one nil win is still a win.
What if the match has two legs?
I don't understand the resistance to people noting the fact that, usually, the president's party would do quite a bit worse than this. If you like facts why is accepting another one a problem?
No one is denying the Republicans have won the House, and may still have a shot of winning the Senate. They are just noting other facts as well.
The reason it is silly to ignore that is because people are quite reasonably looking ahead - they want to know if things are looking positive for future presidential prospects. This result doesn't rule out a Republican win, but it isn't as encouraging as they'd have liked.
If the wide which has won is itself disappointed, it is hardly unreasonable for people to agree with them.
Edit: biggles puts it a bit more succinctly. There are categories of winning and losing, which depends on the context. Ever heard of a dead rubber for example?
Because some of the analysis feels as if it is in the Corbynite category where a loss is somehow a win. The Republicans did gain and given that this is about political power, the GOPs power is enhanced out of this election.
It is worth remembering that even at the current price, Bitcoin has a market cap of about $300bn.
Now, clearly to act as a float for transactions, and for there to be decent liquidity, a certain amount (value-wise) is needed. But it's very hard to work out why that should be more than $30bn or so... and maybe $100bn at a stretch.
As a result of corporate due diligence, as well as the latest news reports regarding mishandled customer funds and alleged US agency investigations, we have decided that we will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX.com. https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1590455680959668225/photo/1
Apparently an $8bn cash shortage today ? That’s not chump change.
Wow: that's a series of pretty serious issues.
WSJ confirms it is looking for $8bn emergency funding to meet withdrawal requests - and is being investigated (starting some time back) for securities violations.
Would I be correct in assuming the crypto sector remains unregulated and has no capital requirements? If so…. Hmmm.
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
The two points are not contradictory. Nor is it a UK or even Democrat phenomenom to view it that way.
Underperforming expectations can be a failure even if a side gains by important measures. Overperforming expectations can be a (relative) success even if you don't win outright. You just cannot get carried away with it (see the Corbynites).
Boil it down and a one nil win is still a win.
What if the match has two legs?
I don't understand the resistance to people noting the fact that, usually, the president's party would do quite a bit worse than this. If you like facts why is accepting another one a problem?
No one is denying the Republicans have won the House, and may still have a shot of winning the Senate. They are just noting other facts as well.
The reason it is silly to ignore that is because people are quite reasonably looking ahead - they want to know if things are looking positive for future presidential prospects. This result doesn't rule out a Republican win, but it isn't as encouraging as they'd have liked.
If the wide which has won is itself disappointed, it is hardly unreasonable for people to agree with them.
Edit: biggles puts it a bit more succinctly. There are categories of winning and losing, which depends on the context. Ever heard of a dead rubber for example?
Because some of the analysis feels as if it is in the Corbynite category where a loss is somehow a win. The Republicans did gain and given that this is about political power, the GOPs power is enhanced out of this election.
Don't think Biden will go begging the DUP for help to cling on though
To be fair, Trafalgar managed to be off by about ten points in every race.
The media, especially internet and blogs, will analyse the good and bad polling (the difference between Elves and Orcs) over the coming week, you don’t have to do all the work yourself tonight Robert.
But we both know what went down here, because you called it before the event. You’ve been calling it out for a long time I gather.
Why will no one ever see things from the perspective of the Orcs? They clearly represent the persecuted indigenous population and the humans, Elves, and Dwarfs should pay reparations.
You’ve probably just spoiled season two of Rings of Power 😠
It is worth remembering that even at the current price, Bitcoin has a market cap of about $300bn.
Now, clearly to act as a float for transactions, and for there to be decent liquidity, a certain amount (value-wise) is needed. But it's very hard to work out why that should be more than $30bn or so... and maybe $100bn at a stretch.
As a result of corporate due diligence, as well as the latest news reports regarding mishandled customer funds and alleged US agency investigations, we have decided that we will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX.com. https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1590455680959668225/photo/1
Apparently an $8bn cash shortage today ? That’s not chump change.
Wow: that's a series of pretty serious issues.
WSJ confirms it is looking for $8bn emergency funding to meet withdrawal requests - and is being investigated (starting some time back) for securities violations.
Would I be correct in assuming the crypto sector remains unregulated and has no capital requirements? If so…. Hmmm.
That depends on the country. In the US there's lots of regulation but it's mostly focused on stopping the dreaded Bad Actors from transacting without uploading a photo of somebody's passport, they don't care if you want to entrust your money with a kid with big hair who plays League of Legends during VC pitches.
In Japan there's a lot of regulation of exchanges created after the Mt Gox debacle, which is supposed to ensure that the exchange has customer funds in segregated accounts and reasonable technical security measures in place. But they also had a lot of bad ideas like only letting you trade coins on a whitelist approved by a committee of retired banking bureaucrats, so Japanese people use overseas exchanges instead and lose their money on those.
It is worth remembering that even at the current price, Bitcoin has a market cap of about $300bn.
Now, clearly to act as a float for transactions, and for there to be decent liquidity, a certain amount (value-wise) is needed. But it's very hard to work out why that should be more than $30bn or so... and maybe $100bn at a stretch.
As a result of corporate due diligence, as well as the latest news reports regarding mishandled customer funds and alleged US agency investigations, we have decided that we will not pursue the potential acquisition of FTX.com. https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1590455680959668225/photo/1
Apparently an $8bn cash shortage today ? That’s not chump change.
Wow: that's a series of pretty serious issues.
WSJ confirms it is looking for $8bn emergency funding to meet withdrawal requests - and is being investigated (starting some time back) for securities violations.
Would I be correct in assuming the crypto sector remains unregulated and has no capital requirements? If so…. Hmmm.
That depends on the country. In the US there's lots of regulation but it's mostly focused on stopping the dreaded Bad Actors from transacting without uploading a photo of somebody's passport, they don't care if you want to entrust your money with a kid with big hair who plays League of Legends during VC pitches.
In Japan there's a lot of regulation of exchanges created after the Mt Gox debacle, which is supposed to ensure that the exchange has customer funds in segregated accounts and reasonable technical security measures in place. But they also had a lot of bad ideas like only letting you trade coins on a whitelist approved by a committee of retired banking bureaucrats, so Japanese people use overseas exchanges instead and lose their money on those.
Thanks. Add in the fact that, what, 60% of investors probably don’t understand what they bought?
Listening to a fair amount of UK media coverage thew mid terms are being termed as a Republican failure.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
The two points are not contradictory. Nor is it a UK or even Democrat phenomenom to view it that way.
Underperforming expectations can be a failure even if a side gains by important measures. Overperforming expectations can be a (relative) success even if you don't win outright. You just cannot get carried away with it (see the Corbynites).
Boil it down and a one nil win is still a win.
What if the match has two legs?
I don't understand the resistance to people noting the fact that, usually, the president's party would do quite a bit worse than this. If you like facts why is accepting another one a problem?
No one is denying the Republicans have won the House, and may still have a shot of winning the Senate. They are just noting other facts as well.
The reason it is silly to ignore that is because people are quite reasonably looking ahead - they want to know if things are looking positive for future presidential prospects. This result doesn't rule out a Republican win, but it isn't as encouraging as they'd have liked.
If the wide which has won is itself disappointed, it is hardly unreasonable for people to agree with them.
Edit: biggles puts it a bit more succinctly. There are categories of winning and losing, which depends on the context. Ever heard of a dead rubber for example?
Because some of the analysis feels as if it is in the Corbynite category where a loss is somehow a win. The Republicans did gain and given that this is about political power, the GOPs power is enhanced out of this election.
Don't think Biden will go begging the DUP for help to cling on though
Oh I dunno, they had some great ideas about renewable heat that Biden could take on board.
Could someone explain the Alaska senate situation? From glancing at the numbers it seems certain that a Republican will win. Is this right? If so I don't understand why another seat isn't being added to the GOP total.
Could someone explain the Alaska senate situation? From glancing at the numbers it seems certain that a Republican will win. Is this right? If so I don't understand why another seat isn't being added to the GOP total.
It’s because there is a runoff with ranked choice (AV) voting which could theoretically be won by one of the independents
Could someone explain the Alaska senate situation? From glancing at the numbers it seems certain that a Republican will win. Is this right? If so I don't understand why another seat isn't being added to the GOP total.
It’s because there is a runoff with ranked choice (AV) voting which could theoretically be won by one of the independents
Right but wiki is showing 75% reported and the two Republicans on 44.4% and 42.7% respectively so at this point it seems mathematically impossible for a non-Republican to win.
Could someone explain the Alaska senate situation? From glancing at the numbers it seems certain that a Republican will win. Is this right? If so I don't understand why another seat isn't being added to the GOP total.
It’s because there is a runoff with ranked choice (AV) voting which could theoretically be won by one of the independents
Right but wiki is showing 75% reported and the two Republicans on 44.4% and 42.7% respectively so at this point it seems mathematically impossible for a non-Republican to win.
It's a fair point: the Republicans are really on 49 seats, and it's possible they win all three of the remaining seats, and possible they lose all three.
About 75 percent of the vote has been counted in Alaska. From the Washington Post:
"Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) is one of four contenders who emerged from the state’s all-party primary in August. Her closest challenger is Kelly Tshibaka (R), a former commissioner in the Alaska Department of Administration who has Donald Trump’s nod. Alaska is for the first time using ranked-choice voting, which means we’re unlikely to know the results on Nov. 8.
Ranked-choice voting, along with an all-party primary, is thought to favor Murkowski, who has bucked the GOP on several occasions and voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol."
So a Republican will win but we don't now know whether it will be moderate Murkowski or Trumpista Tshibaka.
About 75 percent of the vote has been counted in Alaska. From the Washington Post:
"Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) is one of four contenders who emerged from the state’s all-party primary in August. Her closest challenger is Kelly Tshibaka (R), a former commissioner in the Alaska Department of Administration who has Donald Trump’s nod. Alaska is for the first time using ranked-choice voting, which means we’re unlikely to know the results on Nov. 8.
Ranked-choice voting, along with an all-party primary, is thought to favor Murkowski, who has bucked the GOP on several occasions and voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol."
So a Republican will win but we don't now know whether it will be moderate Murkowski or Trumpista Tshibaka.
Comments
It is worth remembering that even at the current price, Bitcoin has a market cap of about $300bn.
Now, clearly to act as a float for transactions, and for there to be decent liquidity, a certain amount (value-wise) is needed. But it's very hard to work out why that should be more than $30bn or so... and maybe $100bn at a stretch.
Hortensia made the remarkably advanced argument in Rome, that since she paid the same taxes as a man, she should have the same right to run for political office as a man. The Senate was so impressed by her arguments that they exempted her from taxation, so as not to concede her right to run for office.
But there were some big polling fails all the same.
The pollsters had just a two point lead for Hassan in New Hampshire. And it looks like she won by nine.
Pollsters thought Washington was a five point lead for the Dems... and they actually won by 14.
We don't know the final results for AZ and NV, but the polling averages made it look like some not at all close races were tight.
So it is a balance, just returning the decision on abortion law to the states. Not one size fits all from Alabama to California
Those betting on the polls made money, generally. There were a few exceptions, of course, but yeah, once again, the simple political betting strategy of punting on the polls was vindicated.
I regret not backing Fetterman @2.5, a couple of days ago. I watched his debate/campaign performances and listened to the pundits and talked myself out of it.
Amateur error, on my part.
Looks over for him now though. Mucho shit to still hit the fan but no path back to the presidency imo. 10% chance max.
So bad day for Trump in America, bad day for Putin in Ukraine, good day for Kuntibula in Hampstead. 🙂
Trafalgar: Murray +1
Actual: Murray +14
New Hampshire
Trafalgar: Bolduc +1
Actual: Hassan +9
Pennsylvania
Trafalgar: Oz +2
Actual: Fetterman +4
Colorado
Trafalgar: Bennett +2
Actual: Bennett +12
Was it Country or The Colonel?
I'd love it to have been Otis, but I think it was Cropper
well as the latest news reports regarding
mishandled customer funds and alleged US
agency investigations, we have decided that
we will not pursue the potential acquisition
of FTX.com.
https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1590455680959668225/photo/1
Apparently an $8bn cash shortage today ?
That’s not chump change.
Not convinced Kari has won but let's see DYOR.
Much much better than what this has opened the lid on.
https://twitter.com/JennyENicholson/status/1590466584623329280?t=-K7N0nH-sGTgNhArXU37AQ&s=19
The scam accounts are all over Twitter at the moment.
The New Hampshire poll wad a proper misstep by Cahaly. Got high on his own supply.
Dobbs has effectively just given the states the power to decide from outright ban to abortion to birth
I think he's more likely to bow out if it isn't Trump.
Fact: They have gained. Whether its less than some projections, they have gained both in numbers are power by taking the House.
As regards Trump, whilst we have long history of demonising him on here, and many will go on about how the elections are a defeat in some form for him, the reality is that he has been yesterdays man for some time and enough of the GOP do want to move on from him as individudal. There has been no evidence that Trump has really been a big vote winner for the GOP. Motivating your own base is only one part of success. He lost the popular vote against a highly divisive candidate in 2016 and he lost against Biden.
Yet I've heard it repeatedly said that Russia will blow the dam. Is that plausible?
And yet...
I like to think that, had I actually been betting on the race, I would have checked the data carefully, but as I wasn't, I didn't. And that reminds me of one of the reasons I like this site: Since some here are using their own money, there is a continuing reality check on people's views on election outcomes. And that is a very good thing.
(It is awkward for me to do actual betting, and I don't have a large entertainment budget, so I haven't, for example, set up an account at the IEM.)
Underperforming expectations can be a failure even if a side gains by important measures. Overperforming expectations can be a (relative) success even if you don't win outright. You just cannot get carried away with it (see the Corbynites).
David Axelrod
@davidaxelrod
·
12m
Despite the raft of Trump-inspired conspiracy theories, 2020 was the most scurtinized and certifiably honest election in U.S. history. Yesterday's elections went down with remarkably few complaints.
This is a STRENGTH of our democracy, to be celebrated and preserved!
I sleep the sleep of the fretless man.
"If you don't like abortions just ignore them like you do school shootings"
Again, to be clear, I am in favour of abortion being legal under the circumstances we have in the UK. I see grave risks with the reverse. But you cannot in a democracy say "well that area is not even up for discussion", particularly if a lot of people feel strongly about it.
I don’t sneer at Musk for luck and rich parents. I question this idea that he got where he is today just by being clever.
No-one (sensible) can possibly like Musk, but that’s clearly a different question from whether he’s clever.
ever since the Beckhams named Brooklyn after where he was conceived.
Some posters here are (I’m laughing this end) trying to have it both ways - saying “polls” overall allows the firms with awful polling record, you have quickly shared but one example, to hide their abysmal record behind the record of the decent firms - like orcs trying to hind behind elves and saying, but we are all the same.
In American politics, no, you are orcs. Orc Polling.
The posters on here trying to make out pollsters were are all the same in performance and intent to be accurate - laughable.
I don't understand the resistance to people noting the fact that, usually, the president's party would do quite a bit worse than this. If you like facts why is accepting another one a problem?
No one is denying the Republicans have won the House, and may still have a shot of winning the Senate. They are just noting other facts as well.
The reason it is silly to ignore that is because people are quite reasonably looking ahead - they want to know if things are looking positive for future presidential prospects. This result doesn't rule out a Republican win, but it isn't as encouraging as they'd have liked.
If the wide which has won is itself disappointed, it is hardly unreasonable for people to agree with them.
Edit: biggles puts it a bit more succinctly. There are categories of winning and losing, which depends on the context. Ever heard of a dead rubber for example?
"A lawsuit settlement agreed to by Eberhard and Tesla in September 2009 allows all five – Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright, Musk, and Straubel – to call themselves co-founders."
"Musk co-founded the online bank X.com, which merged with Confinity in 2000 to form PayPal."
You said Musk was dumb (repeatedly). You have now corrected this by saying "I question this idea that he got where he is today just by being clever."
But, I don't think anyone ever said that Musk just got where he was by being clever.
As regards Twitter, I think it is quite conceivable that making money was not Musk's primary goal in buying it.
As it happens, I don't like Musk much, but he is clearly not dumb.
The problem is that the whole market cap is made of fictional numbers getting bandied around, but there's no assets or revenue stream to support those numbers. When people try and withdraw money, then the pyramid of cards comes tumbling down.
Its worth remembering that Bitcoin was supposedly "worth" $66k this time last year. In the space of a year its lost 77% of its value, leaving only about another 25% to go. Yes, those numbers add up to 100%, because Bitcoin isn't just a pyramid scheme, its a negative value one; due to the horrendous design of this scam, a lot of people won't just lose what they put into the coins but will be left liable with debts for hardware, machines, electric bills etc on top.
On the plus side, we might find it a bit easier to get new graphics cards in the future.
First. as you said, the GOP now has the House and a worst case of 49 in the Senate. That means it has more power than pre-yesterday.
Second, on the basis of last night, Texas and Florida are now R strongholds as opposed to swing / potential swing states. NC has been strengthened (Supreme Court). It has opened up ground in NY State (and kicked off a power struggle in the NY D party).
Third, as you said, this is the nail in the coffin for Trump. The bad orange man is not going to act as a motivator. RDS would be a significant improvement. It also opens the field to others.
Fourth, abortion. Banning it is a vote loser. That is going to make the vocal, pro-life lobby less influential. Expect the GOP to move more towards a 15-week plus ban and / or it's down to the individual.
Generally I think you are right - the Democrats would rather have such fine results in key bellwether Legislatures in these mid terms, than had a torrid time in them.
I appreciate though, at the end of bruising election results that didn’t go as planned, one side or other will be feeling hurt this evening and next few days, so I expect plenty more partisan waffling rather than admit the truths. That’s what people do in political herds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSU5r0p-d00
Musk co-founded X.com, which merged with Confinity, and they decided to pursue Confinity’s tech. They then became PayPal. So, at best, Musk co-founded half of what became PayPal, but not the half who worked out the clever stuff.
Ishmael implied Musk’s success was from being clever. That’s what I was responding to.
He’s doing a lot of dumb things presently. Doing dumb = being dumb.
FFS
But we both know what went down here, because you called it before the event. You’ve been calling it out for a long time I gather.
It remains to be seen whether they've learned their lesson. At this point I can't see any evidence that they have. There are some GOP bigwigs complaining about Trump but none who dare to do it on the record.
Why do we need tanks if the Russians are beaten?
Surely we won't need them against China?
https://mobile.twitter.com/NoContextBrits/status/1590380880279003142/photo/1
Looks like the Nevada Ranked Choice ballot proposition is going to win.
In Japan there's a lot of regulation of exchanges created after the Mt Gox debacle, which is supposed to ensure that the exchange has customer funds in segregated accounts and reasonable technical security measures in place. But they also had a lot of bad ideas like only letting you trade coins on a whitelist approved by a committee of retired banking bureaucrats, so Japanese people use overseas exchanges instead and lose their money on those.
Do we have anyone like that now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ570S3XhEM
GOP 210
Dem 191
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2022/us/results
"Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) is one of four contenders who emerged from the state’s all-party primary in August. Her closest challenger is Kelly Tshibaka (R), a former commissioner in the Alaska Department of Administration who has Donald Trump’s nod. Alaska is for the first time using ranked-choice voting, which means we’re unlikely to know the results on Nov. 8.
Ranked-choice voting, along with an all-party primary, is thought to favor Murkowski, who has bucked the GOP on several occasions and voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol."
So a Republican will win but we don't now know whether it will be moderate Murkowski or Trumpista Tshibaka.
Alaska uses a top-four primary system, but one of the four dropped out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_election_in_Alaska
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Murkowski
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2022/results/senate?election-data-id=2022-SG&election-painting-mode=projection&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false