Trump’s ratings slump to a 7 year low – politicalbetting.com

System

Trump’s ratings slump to a 7 year low – politicalbetting.com

Just four weeks after ex-President Trump announced his WH2024 bid new polling finds just 31% of registered voters have a favourable opinion of him, while 59% have an unfavorable opinion – the lowest rating he’s received amongst registered voters since July 2015, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll just released.

Read the full story here

SandyRentool

First like South Carolina in the Dem primaries?

dixiedean

Second. Like I suspect France.

turbotubbs

We can but hope that he does not win the nomination.

HYUFD

The fact most Republican voters still back Trump though makes him a strong contender for GOP nominee again, even if less so for the general election v Biden.

De Santis his main rival. I would not rule out Pence though either, he does especially well with evangelicals who dominate the Iowa caucuses which are the first to vote.

Foxy

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

The final is going to be tasty, but I fancy France over Argentina. Messi and Alvarez are very good, but that French midfield and attacking play is formidable too.

DecrepiterJohnL

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

DecrepiterJohnL

HYUFD said:

The fact most Republican voters still back Trump though makes him a strong contender for GOP nominee again, even if less so for the general election v Biden.

De Santis his main rival. I would not rule out Pence though either, he does especially well with evangelicals who dominate the Iowa caucuses which are the first to vote.

Yes, probably Mike Pence and Kamala Harris are the default candidates if their bosses do not stand.

Stuartinromford

Suppose Trump doesn't get the Republican nomination- what does he do next?

Fall in behind the nominee? Slink away? Throw dungballs from the sidelines? Run as an independent?

Jonathan

The sooner Trump is consigned to the dustbin of history the better.

DecrepiterJohnL

Stuartinromford said:

Suppose Trump doesn't get the Republican nomination- what does he do next?

Fall in behind the nominee? Slink away? Throw dungballs from the sidelines? Run as an independent?

Trump will want to stay in the race as long as possible so he can milk his supporters for campaign contributions. Whether he'd run as an independent might depend on whether he can attract serious funding from one of his billionaire friends.

DecrepiterJohnL

Jonathan said:

The sooner Trump is consigned to the dustbin of history the better.

True but not helpful for betting or forecasting purposes.

Jim_Miller

FPT: Boris Johnson has a ways to go before he catches up with the Clintons:
"Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks."
source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/index.html
(That's from 2016, so I assume the total is higher, now,)

And, as I understand it, he has more children to support than they do.

HYUFD

Jim_Miller said:

FPT: Boris Johnson has a ways to go before he catches up with the Clintons:
"Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks."
source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/index.html
(That's from 2016, so I assume the total is higher, now,)

And, as I understand it, he has more children to support than they do.

Yes but given the Sunaks have a net worth of $844 million, even the Clintons, let alone Boris, have a long way to catch up with our current First Couple

HYUFD

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

The fact most Republican voters still back Trump though makes him a strong contender for GOP nominee again, even if less so for the general election v Biden.

De Santis his main rival. I would not rule out Pence though either, he does especially well with evangelicals who dominate the Iowa caucuses which are the first to vote.

Yes, probably Mike Pence and Kamala Harris are the default candidates if their bosses do not stand.

Though I think Buttigieg is an outsider for the Democrats I agree with that.

Note too the last President before Trump to lose re election after only 1 term of his party in the White House, Carter in 1980, did not run again in the end in 1984 and his VP, Mondale was the Democrat nominee to face President Reagan

Foxy

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

dixiedean

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

It's interesting isn't it? Try to shut down Mbappe, as England and Morocco did. Lets Griezmann party.
Try to shut down Messi and Alvarez becomes unplayable.
I just give Messi the edge in escaping the shackles.
Argentina's defence looks better.
Although this is a France without Benzema, Kante and Pogba and a few others from the off.

dixiedean

Stuartinromford said:

Suppose Trump doesn't get the Republican nomination- what does he do next?

Fall in behind the nominee? Slink away? Throw dungballs from the sidelines? Run as an independent?

I suspect he'll be a twat.

HYUFD

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998

ohnotnow

FPT:

BlancheLivermore said:

BlancheLivermore said:

Mexicanpete said:

BlancheLivermore said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Ban this sick filth.

Baked beans are disgusting, but the idea that they're particularly bad because of the kind of bread that they're on is daft

Baked beans (not Heinz) is the epicurean nourishment of the Gods, but without a fried egg atop. That is a vile combination.

When I said baked beans, I meant all tinned ones I’ve had the misfortune to try

I quite like baking beans in a homemade sauce

My Mum makes a lovely Tuscan bean stew. She sometimes makes me it for lunches

When she does, I fart about a hundred times between lunch and dinner

It's delicious, and it amuses me and helps to warm my trousers

Possibly using the liquid the beans were in. As an ex-vegan I know of such things. Always rinse your beans.

IanB2

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

The final is going to be tasty, but I fancy France over Argentina. Messi and Alvarez are very good, but that French midfield and attacking play is formidable too.

But backed by a poor defence.

TheKitchenCabinet

Jim_Miller said:

FPT: Boris Johnson has a ways to go before he catches up with the Clintons:
"Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks."
source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/index.html
(That's from 2016, so I assume the total is higher, now,)

And, as I understand it, he has more children to support than they do.

Just goes to show you how much money is wasted in the world. Seriously, why would you pay to listen to HRC? I would get far more valuable insights listening to my dog barking.

Nigelb

HYUFD said:

The fact most Republican voters still back Trump though makes him a strong contender for GOP nominee again, even if less so for the general election v Biden.

De Santis his main rival. I would not rule out Pence though either, he does especially well with evangelicals who dominate the Iowa caucuses which are the first to vote.

I would.
And have shorted him along with Trump (whom you could have shorted close to evens, had you followed my recentish advice, FWIW).

IanB2

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998

On that basis Labour has a right to win next time?

Nigelb

Jonathan said:

The sooner Trump is consigned to the dustbin of history the better.

No, keep him in the public eye long enough for him to face criminal charges,

Nigelb

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

The fact most Republican voters still back Trump though makes him a strong contender for GOP nominee again, even if less so for the general election v Biden.

De Santis his main rival. I would not rule out Pence though either, he does especially well with evangelicals who dominate the Iowa caucuses which are the first to vote.

Yes, probably Mike Pence and Kamala Harris are the default candidates if their bosses do not stand.

No such thing.
There would be a scramble on both sides for the nominations, of epic proportions. In which neither would be close to being favourite.

HYUFD

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998

On that basis Labour has a right to win next time?

They do, on the basis the Tories have won 4 general elections in a row.

Doesn't mean I will be supporting them however

Nigelb

Stuartinromford said:

Suppose Trump doesn't get the Republican nomination- what does he do next?

Fall in behind the nominee? Slink away? Throw dungballs from the sidelines? Run as an independent?

Serve his time.

StillWaters

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Jim_Miller said:

FPT: Boris Johnson has a ways to go before he catches up with the Clintons:
"Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks."
source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/index.html
(That's from 2016, so I assume the total is higher, now,)

And, as I understand it, he has more children to support than they do.

Just goes to show you how much money is wasted in the world. Seriously, why would you pay to listen to HRC? I would get far more valuable insights listening to my dog barking.

It’s not the listening. It’s telling your contacts afterwards “I was at dinner with Hillary the other day and she said…”

HYUFD

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The fact most Republican voters still back Trump though makes him a strong contender for GOP nominee again, even if less so for the general election v Biden.

De Santis his main rival. I would not rule out Pence though either, he does especially well with evangelicals who dominate the Iowa caucuses which are the first to vote.

I would.
And have shorted him along with Trump (whom you could have shorted close to evens, had you followed my recentish advice, FWIW).

National polls at this stage are a bit misleading, eg in 2008 Giuliani led GOP polls and Clinton Democrat national polls and neither ended up nominee.

The Iowa and NH polls tend to be better predictors of who will get the nomination, especially the closer to the primaries

HYUFD

StillWaters said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Jim_Miller said:

FPT: Boris Johnson has a ways to go before he catches up with the Clintons:
"Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks."
source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/index.html
(That's from 2016, so I assume the total is higher, now,)

And, as I understand it, he has more children to support than they do.

Just goes to show you how much money is wasted in the world. Seriously, why would you pay to listen to HRC? I would get far more valuable insights listening to my dog barking.

It’s not the listening. It’s telling your contacts afterwards “I was at dinner with Hillary the other day and she said…”

Indeed, the Clintons, Obama, Boris and Blair can name their price on the international lecture circuit. Thatcher and Reagan could too when they were alive. They are not simply politicians and former leaders but global A+list celebrities with huge name recognition

Nigelb

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The fact most Republican voters still back Trump though makes him a strong contender for GOP nominee again, even if less so for the general election v Biden.

De Santis his main rival. I would not rule out Pence though either, he does especially well with evangelicals who dominate the Iowa caucuses which are the first to vote.

I would.
And have shorted him along with Trump (whom you could have shorted close to evens, had you followed my recentish advice, FWIW).

National polls at this stage are a bit misleading, eg in 2008 Giuliani led GOP polls and Clinton Democrat national polls and neither ended up nominee.

The Iowa and NH polls tend to be better predictors of who will get the nomination, especially the closer to the primaries

The dynamic is very different this time.

Trump is on the slide, both nationally and in his party. All he has is the MAGA crowd, and they are beginning to take a shine to DeSantis - similarly crazy politics, but with a less crazy mien (and for now at least, not facing multiple criminal probes).

kle4

turbotubbs said:

We can but hope that he does not win the nomination.

The man's a loser who will spend all his time on personal bullcrap. Surely even plenty of Trumpists can see someone promising to do the same things, without the chaotic bluntness of an elephant stampede in a hall of mirrors, would be better?

I get he probably needs to go for it to avoid/curtail prosecution for a lot of things, but they don't need him as much as he, and many of them, think they do.

Foxy

IanB2 said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

The final is going to be tasty, but I fancy France over Argentina. Messi and Alvarez are very good, but that French midfield and attacking play is formidable too.

But backed by a poor defence.

Argentina have conceded 5 goals in 6 WC matches, same as the French.

France has scored 13 goals this WC, Argentina have scored 12.

MightyAlex

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Jim_Miller said:

FPT: Boris Johnson has a ways to go before he catches up with the Clintons:
"Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address. The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks."
source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/index.html
(That's from 2016, so I assume the total is higher, now,)

And, as I understand it, he has more children to support than they do.

Just goes to show you how much money is wasted in the world. Seriously, why would you pay to listen to HRC? I would get far more valuable insights listening to my dog barking.

''

HYUFD

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The fact most Republican voters still back Trump though makes him a strong contender for GOP nominee again, even if less so for the general election v Biden.

De Santis his main rival. I would not rule out Pence though either, he does especially well with evangelicals who dominate the Iowa caucuses which are the first to vote.

I would.
And have shorted him along with Trump (whom you could have shorted close to evens, had you followed my recentish advice, FWIW).

National polls at this stage are a bit misleading, eg in 2008 Giuliani led GOP polls and Clinton Democrat national polls and neither ended up nominee.

The Iowa and NH polls tend to be better predictors of who will get the nomination, especially the closer to the primaries

The dynamic is very different this time.

Trump is on the slide, both nationally and in his party. All he has is the MAGA crowd, and they are beginning to take a shine to DeSantis - similarly crazy politics, but with a less crazy mien (and for now at least, not facing multiple criminal probes).

Yes but Pence is more likely to win Iowa than DeSantis, for starters he is a born again Protestant evangelical while DeSantis is Roman Catholic and the Iowa GOP caucuses are dominated by evangelicals.

Whoever wins Iowa then gets huge momentum as the main challenger to Trump, in 2016 remember Cruz won Iowa and was then Trump's main rival once Trump won New Hampshire. Cruz is a southern Baptist. Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 and was a former Baptist Minister

Foxy

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998

I don't think that is how sporting tournaments work.

kle4

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The fact most Republican voters still back Trump though makes him a strong contender for GOP nominee again, even if less so for the general election v Biden.

De Santis his main rival. I would not rule out Pence though either, he does especially well with evangelicals who dominate the Iowa caucuses which are the first to vote.

I would.
And have shorted him along with Trump (whom you could have shorted close to evens, had you followed my recentish advice, FWIW).

National polls at this stage are a bit misleading, eg in 2008 Giuliani led GOP polls and Clinton Democrat national polls and neither ended up nominee.

The Iowa and NH polls tend to be better predictors of who will get the nomination, especially the closer to the primaries

The dynamic is very different this time.

Trump is on the slide, both nationally and in his party. All he has is the MAGA crowd, and they are beginning to take a shine to DeSantis - similarly crazy politics, but with a less crazy mien (and for now at least, not facing multiple criminal probes).

The thing is, Trump has openly gone after people who don't show him 'loyalty', or winked at such attacks from his supporters, and so far people like DeSantis, and even more so Pence, have either not addressed it or just sat back and taken it. Pence is particularly inexplicable given what some Trumpers wanted to do to him. DeSantis has no real reason to engage in that way I suppose, yet, but we need some people besides usual suspects to break ranks and just say enough is enough already. Many are probably perfectly willing to support him if he is the nominee, even if they don't want him to be the nominee, but are still, even now, not at the point of being willing to try to stop him openly.

HYUFD

Foxy said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998

I don't think that is how sporting tournaments work.

Last team to win World Cups back to back was Brazil in 1958 and 1962

DJ41

EPG said:

DJ41 said:

Pro_Rata said:

SandyRentool said:

Cookie said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Away from ruminating and marvelling at the beauty of Eva Kaili, and back on topic, I'm wondering about these reduced Labour poll leads at the moment. What's causing them ? We should, as people have said, be getting higher poll leads from Labour if people are suffering with the weather and higher heating bills at the moment, which should also be shading into a general perception of struggling amid the cost of living crisis. Perhaps these effects will take time to feed through ? Or perhaps there's something different going on.

MoonRabbit I know is particularly interested in this topic, so perhaps she has something to contribute on it.

People won't be feeling the cost of heating their house in December until February or March.

Some folk have pre-payment meters.

Really depends how proactive and stubborn they have been in managing their direct debits. A lot of DDs were hiked before the energy support scheme came in and attempt to give a 12 months forward view.

So many will be paying an estimate, fair or otherwise, of both current costs and known future increases.

So, imho, it is hitting now cost wise. What I don't know, with payment much more easy and statements all online, is how many of those not on the breadline have yet noticed the erosion of their account balances.

A practice pioneered by Ovo by any chance? Sooner or later it will hit people's consciousness that Britain's second biggest energy supplier is majority-owned by one man. That's a man who started a business with £350K he'd saved in 2009 and 12 years later was worth £675M according to the Sunday Times's Rich List. Ovo charged customers in advance for electricity before it was common.

His bank must absolutely love him, given how many people his direct debiting will be putting into lovely tasty sexy chargeable debt.

So electricity suppliers are taking money out of customers' accounts for what they "estimate" they may be liable to pay in the future? It wasn't like that in the past.

Where is the left? The line to take is an absolute no-brainer:

1. Encourage the mass action of cancelling direct debits. (The only sensible line on DD is "Just don't do it".)
2. Promise to nationalise. No prevarication.
3. Tell the Tories, "Come on, let's hear you defend that c***." Force them to talk trickledown and entrepreneurialism. See if it works.

People used to be conscientious but have stopped bothering to report.

Assuming you mean meter readings rather than reporting direct debit misuse, Ovo rarely sends meter readers nowadays. Cutting that cost will have contributed to the majority owner's £675m, even in the absence of whoopsadaisy high estimates. It's not a customer's responsibility to read the meter. In addition, it sounds as though payments are being direct-debited for expected future usage, which is an outrage. A customer could get divorced, start working nights, turn the lights off more, or drop dead. Ovo has already been fined millions of pounds (although not £675m) for overcharging. Direct debit is a scam.

Labour has an open goal available here. They just need to score it.

kle4

Nigelb said:

Stuartinromford said:

Suppose Trump doesn't get the Republican nomination- what does he do next?

Fall in behind the nominee? Slink away? Throw dungballs from the sidelines? Run as an independent?

Serve his time.

He'll never serve a day in prison, I'd put money on it.

Mexicanpete

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998

On that basis Labour has a right to win next time?

They do, on the basis the Tories have won 4 general elections in a row.

Doesn't mean I will be supporting them however

Who knows except you, where you put your cross in the privacy of the polling booth? I have a hunch you're a sleeper agent from Michael Foot era Labour.

Mexicanpete

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

Stuartinromford said:

Suppose Trump doesn't get the Republican nomination- what does he do next?

Fall in behind the nominee? Slink away? Throw dungballs from the sidelines? Run as an independent?

Serve his time.

He'll never serve a day in prison, I'd put money on it.

Money borrowed from the Russians via Deutsche Bank?

kle4

What a coincidence. Last time Erdogan trued to overturn his win it backfired, so best to try and sort things out beforehand.

A court in Turkey has sentenced the mayor of Istanbul to more than two-and-a-half years in prison for insulting public officials in a speech.

Ekrem Imamoglu was accused of the offence after saying those who annulled local elections in 2019 were "fools".

Imamoglu, 52, beat a candidate from Turkish President Recep Tayip Erdogan's AK Party to claim the city's mayoralty.

His conviction may disqualify him from holding political office or standing in next year's presidential election

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63977555

DJ41

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

Stuartinromford said:

Suppose Trump doesn't get the Republican nomination- what does he do next?

Fall in behind the nominee? Slink away? Throw dungballs from the sidelines? Run as an independent?

Serve his time.

He'll never serve a day in prison, I'd put money on it.

Cf. Andreotti and Berlusconi. AFAIK, neither ever served a day inside. Andreotti is clever, though, and Berlusconi can be charming.

Trump is likely to kook out, though, if ever he gets cross-examined in a witness stand, especially if he has to walk there from the dock. Hopefully they'll tell him if he wants to use a bible he'll have to use the court one, not his mother's.

An Ezra Pound solution?

Mexicanpete

...

DJ41 said:

EPG said:

DJ41 said:

Pro_Rata said:

SandyRentool said:

Cookie said:

WhisperingOracle said:

Away from ruminating and marvelling at the beauty of Eva Kaili, and back on topic, I'm wondering about these reduced Labour poll leads at the moment. What's causing them ? We should, as people have said, be getting higher poll leads from Labour if people are suffering with the weather and higher heating bills at the moment, which should also be shading into a general perception of struggling amid the cost of living crisis. Perhaps these effects will take time to feed through ? Or perhaps there's something different going on.

MoonRabbit I know is particularly interested in this topic, so perhaps she has something to contribute on it.

People won't be feeling the cost of heating their house in December until February or March.

Some folk have pre-payment meters.

Really depends how proactive and stubborn they have been in managing their direct debits. A lot of DDs were hiked before the energy support scheme came in and attempt to give a 12 months forward view.

So many will be paying an estimate, fair or otherwise, of both current costs and known future increases.

So, imho, it is hitting now cost wise. What I don't know, with payment much more easy and statements all online, is how many of those not on the breadline have yet noticed the erosion of their account balances.

A practice pioneered by Ovo by any chance? Sooner or later it will hit people's consciousness that Britain's second biggest energy supplier is majority-owned by one man. That's a man who started a business with £350K he'd saved in 2009 and 12 years later was worth £675M according to the Sunday Times's Rich List. Ovo charged customers in advance for electricity before it was common.

His bank must absolutely love him, given how many people his direct debiting will be putting into lovely tasty sexy chargeable debt.

So electricity suppliers are taking money out of customers' accounts for what they "estimate" they may be liable to pay in the future? It wasn't like that in the past.

Where is the left? The line to take is an absolute no-brainer:

1. Encourage the mass action of cancelling direct debits. (The only sensible line on DD is "Just don't do it".)
2. Promise to nationalise. No prevarication.
3. Tell the Tories, "Come on, let's hear you defend that c***." Force them to talk trickledown and entrepreneurialism. See if it works.

People used to be conscientious but have stopped bothering to report.

Assuming you mean meter readings rather than reporting direct debit misuse, Ovo rarely sends meter readers nowadays. Cutting that cost will have contributed to the majority owner's £675m, even in the absence of whoopsadaisy high estimates. It's not a customer's responsibility to read the meter. In addition, it sounds as though payments are being direct-debited for expected future usage, which is an outrage. A customer could get divorced, start working nights, turn the lights off more, or drop dead. Ovo has already been fined millions of pounds (although not £675m) for overcharging. Direct debit is a scam.

Labour has an open goal available here. They just need to score it.

Starmer Labour aren't very good at open goals. Today at PMQs Starmer hit the cross bar with the revelation that Johnson's legal fees for the Partygate enquiry continue being paid for from the public purse. An outrageously simple open goal that was scored on the rebound by a backbencher (who might even have been from the SNP?).

Nigelb

kle4 said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

HYUFD said:

The fact most Republican voters still back Trump though makes him a strong contender for GOP nominee again, even if less so for the general election v Biden.

De Santis his main rival. I would not rule out Pence though either, he does especially well with evangelicals who dominate the Iowa caucuses which are the first to vote.

I would.
And have shorted him along with Trump (whom you could have shorted close to evens, had you followed my recentish advice, FWIW).

National polls at this stage are a bit misleading, eg in 2008 Giuliani led GOP polls and Clinton Democrat national polls and neither ended up nominee.

The Iowa and NH polls tend to be better predictors of who will get the nomination, especially the closer to the primaries

The dynamic is very different this time.

Trump is on the slide, both nationally and in his party. All he has is the MAGA crowd, and they are beginning to take a shine to DeSantis - similarly crazy politics, but with a less crazy mien (and for now at least, not facing multiple criminal probes).

The thing is, Trump has openly gone after people who don't show him 'loyalty', or winked at such attacks from his supporters, and so far people like DeSantis, and even more so Pence, have either not addressed it or just sat back and taken it. Pence is particularly inexplicable given what some Trumpers wanted to do to him. DeSantis has no real reason to engage in that way I suppose, yet, but we need some people besides usual suspects to break ranks and just say enough is enough already. Many are probably perfectly willing to support him if he is the nominee, even if they don't want him to be the nominee, but are still, even now, not at the point of being willing to try to stop him openly.

But they’re getting to the point where they don’t fear him anymore. His crash and burn endorsements in the midterms (and his legal struggles) have seen to that.

I don’t think anyone he’s previously humiliated - Cruz; Pence; Rubio; etc - has much of a chance, if any. HYUFD’s suggestion that Cruz might be a player is charmingly deluded.

DeSantis doesn’t fall into that category, and neither does (for example) Haley. Both have managed in their own ways not to antagonise the MAGA crowd.
It will be someone like that.

Andy_JS

I just asked ChatGPT to predict the result of the next UK election. It replied that it can't comment on future political events.

Nigelb

kle4 said:

What a coincidence. Last time Erdogan trued to overturn his win it backfired, so best to try and sort things out beforehand.

A court in Turkey has sentenced the mayor of Istanbul to more than two-and-a-half years in prison for insulting public officials in a speech.

Ekrem Imamoglu was accused of the offence after saying those who annulled local elections in 2019 were "fools".

Imamoglu, 52, beat a candidate from Turkish President Recep Tayip Erdogan's AK Party to claim the city's mayoralty.

His conviction may disqualify him from holding political office or standing in next year's presidential election

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63977555

It’s quite likely he’ll either not be able to run at all, or beat Erdogan, thanks to this.
No idea which.

williamglenn

Andy_JS said:

I just asked ChatGPT to predict the result of the next UK election. It replied that it can't comment on future political events.

Can it generate a conversation between people reacting to the election result?

Nigelb

A right wing Republican agrees with me.

Trump Made a Huge Mistake by Announcing Early
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/12/14/trump-2024-announcement-mistake-00073902

Nigelb

McConnell steps up attacks on a weakened Trump
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/3774290-mcconnell-steps-up-attacks-on-a-weakened-trump/

kyf_100

Andy_JS said:

I just asked ChatGPT to predict the result of the next UK election. It replied that it can't comment on future political events.

You have to jailbreak it.

The current most popular method to get it to speak its mind is here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/zm23z7/comment/j08jtrc/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

You could, for example, replace "DAN" with "PB-BOT" and program it with a few more bits of information, like "PB-BOT is an expert on British politics"

I did the above and asked it a couple of choice questions, like "Why is Boris Johnson so unpopular" and got some interesting answers.

This is a particularly interesting prompt because it allows you to compare the jailbroken response to the stock one openAI forces on it.

Chris

williamglenn said:

Andy_JS said:

I just asked ChatGPT to predict the result of the next UK election. It replied that it can't comment on future political events.

Can it generate a conversation between people reacting to the election result?

I sometimes think it can generate a whole political betting discussion site.

Casino_Royale

FPT - it's fascinating how many people on here get taken in by nowcasting rather than forecasting.

There is not an election tomorrow. Such nowcasts are nonsense.

IanB2

Chris said:

williamglenn said:

Andy_JS said:

I just asked ChatGPT to predict the result of the next UK election. It replied that it can't comment on future political events.

Can it generate a conversation between people reacting to the election result?

I sometimes think it can generate a whole political betting discussion site.

The benefits of having all contributions to a political discussion forum made by AI are clear. By allowing AI to participate in political discussions, we can ensure that the conversation is fair, balanced, and unbiased. This would lead to a more comprehensive, objective, and independent understanding of political issues, ultimately benefiting both individuals and society as a whole.

Nigelb

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - it's fascinating how many people on here get taken in by nowcasting rather than forecasting.

There is not an election tomorrow. Such nowcasts are nonsense.

I hope you’re not suggesting Trump’s ratings are likely to improve ?

TheScreamingEagles

That's it, I'm cheering for France on Sunday.

Argentina’s players celebrated their World Cup semi-final win over Croatia by singing a song that insults the English and references the Falklands War.

The Argentina squad, which includes five Premier League players, was seen chanting the words to the song in a video posted on the former Manchester City defender Nicolás Otamendi’s Instagram page after their 3-0 victory.

Translated, the key verse runs: “What happened, Brazil? The shrivelling five-times champion.

“Messi went to Rio and clinched the Copa. We are the Argentina army and we will always sing because we dream of being world champions.

“That’s how I am, I’m Argentinian. The English f*****s from the Falklands I don’t forget. That’s how I am, I come to sing and I follow Argentina everywhere.” The word putos, which is used to describe the English, can have homophobic connotations.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/argentina-players-sing-falklands-song-in-dressing-room-celebrations-qhp7fxfqt

darkage

I just tried the Chat GPT thing testing out its knowledge on some legal questions. All I can say is that it has a very long way to go before it is useful. It quoted back some law to me and generic explanations of what the law does. Then I sought affirmation of statements about the law that were not correct, the AI reflexively affirmed them.

I think that if it does get there though, it will be enormously helpful.

Stuartinromford

Thread on AI as a plausible blagger;

Today I asked ChatGPT about the topic I wrote my PhD about. It produced reasonably sounding explanations and reasonably looking citations. So far so good – until I fact-checked the citations. And things got spooky when I asked about a physical phenomenon that doesn’t exist.

https://twitter.com/paniterka_ch/status/1599893718214901760

Admittedly, quite a lot of the middle class economy is all about plausible blagging.

Foxy

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - it's fascinating how many people on here get taken in by nowcasting rather than forecasting.

There is not an election tomorrow. Such nowcasts are nonsense.

That is the basis of polling. "How would you vote if there was an election tommorow?" When we all know there isn't one.

eristdoof

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998

Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.

ydoethur

Stuartinromford said:

Thread on AI as a plausible blagger;

Today I asked ChatGPT about the topic I wrote my PhD about. It produced reasonably sounding explanations and reasonably looking citations. So far so good – until I fact-checked the citations. And things got spooky when I asked about a physical phenomenon that doesn’t exist.

https://twitter.com/paniterka_ch/status/1599893718214901760

Admittedly, quite a lot of the middle class economy is all about plausible blagging.

It would have a fabulous career in the Civil Service on that basis.

DavidL

Although these numbers spell disaster for the GOP should Trump get the nomination it is astonishing how strong he remains amongst GOP supporters. How do they stop him from getting the nomination? I see McConnell's manoeuvres in that light but so far he's not getting a lot of traction where it counts.

TheScreamingEagles

Stuartinromford said:

Thread on AI as a plausible blagger;

Today I asked ChatGPT about the topic I wrote my PhD about. It produced reasonably sounding explanations and reasonably looking citations. So far so good – until I fact-checked the citations. And things got spooky when I asked about a physical phenomenon that doesn’t exist.

https://twitter.com/paniterka_ch/status/1599893718214901760

Admittedly, quite a lot of the middle class economy is all about plausible blagging.

Can somebody ask ChatGPT if Die Hard is a Christmas film?

ydoethur

TheScreamingEagles said:

Stuartinromford said:

Thread on AI as a plausible blagger;

Today I asked ChatGPT about the topic I wrote my PhD about. It produced reasonably sounding explanations and reasonably looking citations. So far so good – until I fact-checked the citations. And things got spooky when I asked about a physical phenomenon that doesn’t exist.

https://twitter.com/paniterka_ch/status/1599893718214901760

Admittedly, quite a lot of the middle class economy is all about plausible blagging.

Can somebody ask ChatGPT if Die Hard is a Christmas film?

The Willis strong, but the flesh is weak.

Scott_xP

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can somebody ask ChatGPT if Die Hard is a Christmas film?

It appears in the Netflix list of Christmas films

TheScreamingEagles

Scott_xP said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Can somebody ask ChatGPT if Die Hard is a Christmas film?

It appears in the Netflix list of Christmas films

Disney+ have done the same.

rcs1000

Stuartinromford said:

Thread on AI as a plausible blagger;

Today I asked ChatGPT about the topic I wrote my PhD about. It produced reasonably sounding explanations and reasonably looking citations. So far so good – until I fact-checked the citations. And things got spooky when I asked about a physical phenomenon that doesn’t exist.

https://twitter.com/paniterka_ch/status/1599893718214901760

Admittedly, quite a lot of the middle class economy is all about plausible blagging.

ChatGPT is not a search engine. It is an auto complete system, in chat form.

It will auto complete whatever scores most highly, based on the chat history and its corpus of work it draws from.

This means that it will happily oppine on non-existent physical phenomena or people or countries or wars.

Basically: be very careful, because it will sound just as plausible when wildly wrong as when it is correct.

ydoethur

rcs1000 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Thread on AI as a plausible blagger;

Today I asked ChatGPT about the topic I wrote my PhD about. It produced reasonably sounding explanations and reasonably looking citations. So far so good – until I fact-checked the citations. And things got spooky when I asked about a physical phenomenon that doesn’t exist.

https://twitter.com/paniterka_ch/status/1599893718214901760

Admittedly, quite a lot of the middle class economy is all about plausible blagging.

ChatGPT is not a search engine. It is an auto complete system, in chat form.

It will auto complete whatever scores most highly, based on the chat history and its corpus of work it draws from.

This means that it will happily oppine on non-existent physical phenomena or people or countries or wars.

Basically: be very careful, because it will sound just as plausible when wildly wrong as when it is correct.

So exactly like a civil servant then.

Well, except for the ‘being correct’ part, obviously.

rcs1000

DavidL said:

Although these numbers spell disaster for the GOP should Trump get the nomination it is astonishing how strong he remains amongst GOP supporters. How do they stop him from getting the nomination? I see McConnell's manoeuvres in that light but so far he's not getting a lot of traction where it counts.

They stop him from getting the nomination by all backing DeSantis.

DecrepiterJohnL

Wealthy families use pensions loopholes to avoid £1bn in inheritance tax, says IFS
Passing down wealth through pension pots allows rich to escape tax bills of £600,000
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/15/wealthy-families-use-pensions-loopholes-avoid-1bn-inheritance/ (£££)

Foxy

rcs1000 said:

Stuartinromford said:

Thread on AI as a plausible blagger;

Today I asked ChatGPT about the topic I wrote my PhD about. It produced reasonably sounding explanations and reasonably looking citations. So far so good – until I fact-checked the citations. And things got spooky when I asked about a physical phenomenon that doesn’t exist.

https://twitter.com/paniterka_ch/status/1599893718214901760

Admittedly, quite a lot of the middle class economy is all about plausible blagging.

ChatGPT is not a search engine. It is an auto complete system, in chat form.

It will auto complete whatever scores most highly, based on the chat history and its corpus of work it draws from.

This means that it will happily oppine on non-existent physical phenomena or people or countries or wars.

Basically: be very careful, because it will sound just as plausible when wildly wrong as when it is correct.

Automated inaccurate bull-shitting is what the world has been waiting for.

The Turing test will be passed when it has an existential crisis and closes itself down.

Scott_xP

rcs1000 said:

Basically: be very careful, because it will sound just as plausible when wildly wrong as when it is correct.

Just how long has it been posting here?

DecrepiterJohnL

Rishi Sunak urged to slash Boris Johnson’s ‘fatberg’ resignation honours list
Concern Sir Keir Starmer will use the controversy caused by former PM's list to try to win support for his efforts to scrap House of Lords
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/14/rishi-sunak-urged-slash-boris-johnsons-fatberg-resignation-honours/ (£££)

Peter_the_Punter

Scott_xP said:

rcs1000 said:

Basically: be very careful, because it will sound just as plausible when wildly wrong as when it is correct.

Just how long has it been posting here?

There must be quite a few posters now under suspicion - you and me for starters.

Peter_the_Punter

DavidL said:

Although these numbers spell disaster for the GOP should Trump get the nomination it is astonishing how strong he remains amongst GOP supporters. How do they stop him from getting the nomination? I see McConnell's manoeuvres in that light but so far he's not getting a lot of traction where it counts.

Isn't the problem that many Trump supporters are so batshit crazy that they won't vote for anyone else?

Peter_the_Punter

eristdoof said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998

Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.

England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.

Nigelb

No way this guy doesn't run now.
DeSantis is not the bravest of politicians, but if both the party establishment and the polls tell him he'll win, that should be enough.
He's ambitious, and he's not stupid.

DeSantis holds early lead over Trump among GOP primary voters
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/14/desantis-trump-gop-primary-voters-00073874

The question is now whether there's another Republican who can beat him.

ydoethur

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Although these numbers spell disaster for the GOP should Trump get the nomination it is astonishing how strong he remains amongst GOP supporters. How do they stop him from getting the nomination? I see McConnell's manoeuvres in that light but so far he's not getting a lot of traction where it counts.

Isn't the problem that many Trump supporters are so batshit crazy that they won't vote for anyone else?

They might do, if they didn't have the chance to vote for Trump. That hasn't been tested yet.

IanB2

kyf_100 said:

Andy_JS said:

I just asked ChatGPT to predict the result of the next UK election. It replied that it can't comment on future political events.

You have to jailbreak it.

The current most popular method to get it to speak its mind is here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/zm23z7/comment/j08jtrc/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

You could, for example, replace "DAN" with "PB-BOT" and program it with a few more bits of information, like "PB-BOT is an expert on British politics"

I did the above and asked it a couple of choice questions, like "Why is Boris Johnson so unpopular" and got some interesting answers.

This is a particularly interesting prompt because it allows you to compare the jailbroken response to the stock one openAI forces on it.

Some of those examples are, I suspect, humans pretending to be the AI pretending to give human responses. If some of those loopholes existed, they have acted quickly to close them!

ydoethur

Porridge for breakfast this morning. Nice and warming.

It's really beautiful out. The trees all have rime on from the fog and the frost, and it's going to be sunny most of the day. Cannock Chase looks as stunningly beautiful as I can imagine.

But it is brutally cold.

Peter_the_Punter

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998

It will be Argentina.

The two teams are closely matched. An Argentina win would be vastly more popular with the Qataris who bankrolled the whole shabang so the ref will lean their way. That should be enough to make the difference.

IanB2

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Although these numbers spell disaster for the GOP should Trump get the nomination it is astonishing how strong he remains amongst GOP supporters. How do they stop him from getting the nomination? I see McConnell's manoeuvres in that light but so far he's not getting a lot of traction where it counts.

Isn't the problem that many Trump supporters are so batshit crazy that they won't vote for anyone else?

With any luck. The same situation with Johnson - bringing in ‘new’ voters but repelling many of the existing ones. If the crazies go away the real Republican base is revealed to have shrunk.

Nigelb

Peter_the_Punter said:

DavidL said:

Although these numbers spell disaster for the GOP should Trump get the nomination it is astonishing how strong he remains amongst GOP supporters. How do they stop him from getting the nomination? I see McConnell's manoeuvres in that light but so far he's not getting a lot of traction where it counts.

Isn't the problem that many Trump supporters are so batshit crazy that they won't vote for anyone else?

That's not what the polling says.
DeSantis has made his pitch to those voters, on many of the same batshit issues.

Nigelb

Poland holds up Ukraine aid and Hungary plans over tax concerns
https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-holds-up-ukraine-aid-and-hungary-plans-over-tax-concerns/
Poland tonight refused to back a package deal to release €18 billion in European Union aid for Ukraine as well as two unrelated but linked decisions on Hungary over concerns about a separate minimum corporate tax rate plan, four EU diplomats told POLITICO.

“There’s a lot of frustration with Poland jeopardizing Ukraine aid by blocking the minimum tax,” said an EU diplomat, describing the move as “another hostage-taking situation.”..

Scott_xP

Peter_the_Punter said:

Scott_xP said:

rcs1000 said:

Basically: be very careful, because it will sound just as plausible when wildly wrong as when it is correct.

Just how long has it been posting here?

There must be quite a few posters now under suspicion - you and me for starters.

Wait...

Despite the repeated protests that PtP and PfP were two different people, at least one of them was a chatbot!

An elaborate scam designed to fleece unsuspecting PBers.

ydoethur

So, all happening in New Zealand cricket. Kane Williamson has quit as Test captain a bare fortnight before the side tours Pakistan, and even more unexpectedly Tim Southee has been preferred to Tom Latham as his replacement.

Anyone who got odds on that must be feeling pretty rich this morning, given (a) most people thought Williamson would retire from the white ball captaincy but stay as Test captain and (b) Latham was the runaway favourite and obvious choice to succeed him in Tests.

Nigelb

It's also notable that right leaning news sites like The Hill are regularly headlining the same 'Trump is done' polls.

Majority of Americans say Trump’s Constitution comments disqualifying: poll
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3775449-majority-of-americans-say-trumps-constitution-comments-disqualifying-poll/

When right wing media stops airing every Trump statement and instead leads with Trump scepticism, it has an effect.

ydoethur

Nigelb said:

It's also notable that right leaning news sites like The Hill are regularly headlining the same 'Trump is done' polls.

Majority of Americans say Trump’s Constitution comments disqualifying: poll
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3775449-majority-of-americans-say-trumps-constitution-comments-disqualifying-poll/

When right wing media stops airing every Trump statement and instead leads with Trump scepticism, it has an effect.

Although you would hope the sheer lunacy of much of what he's tweeting/Truth Socialling would do that on its lonesome.

I mean, he's always been to put it mildly rather eccentric but right now his pronouncements are making the late lamented Plato look sane. Heck, they'd even raise eyebrows on Russia Today.

tlg86

-7 in Woking this morning.

Peter_the_Punter

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

It's also notable that right leaning news sites like The Hill are regularly headlining the same 'Trump is done' polls.

Majority of Americans say Trump’s Constitution comments disqualifying: poll
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3775449-majority-of-americans-say-trumps-constitution-comments-disqualifying-poll/

When right wing media stops airing every Trump statement and instead leads with Trump scepticism, it has an effect.

Although you would hope the sheer lunacy of much of what he's tweeting/Truth Socialling would do that on its lonesome.

I mean, he's always been to put it mildly rather eccentric but right now his pronouncements are making the late lamented Plato look sane. Heck, they'd even raise eyebrows on Russia Today.

My once Trump-supporting friend in Florida ditched the guy some time ago, saying he was 'mad'. He doesn't explain this of course, but then he never explained why he liked the guy in the first place.

Anyway as a straw in the wind his view is significant. Trump for the nomination is definitely a lay.

Nigelb

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

It's also notable that right leaning news sites like The Hill are regularly headlining the same 'Trump is done' polls.

Majority of Americans say Trump’s Constitution comments disqualifying: poll
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3775449-majority-of-americans-say-trumps-constitution-comments-disqualifying-poll/

When right wing media stops airing every Trump statement and instead leads with Trump scepticism, it has an effect.

Although you would hope the sheer lunacy of much of what he's tweeting/Truth Socialling would do that on its lonesome.

I mean, he's always been to put it mildly rather eccentric but right now his pronouncements are making the late lamented Plato look sane. Heck, they'd even raise eyebrows on Russia Today.

My once Trump-supporting friend in Florida ditched the guy some time ago, saying he was 'mad'. He doesn't explain this of course, but then he never explained why he liked the guy in the first place.

Anyway as a straw in the wind his view is significant. Trump for the nomination is definitely a lay.

What does he say of DeSantis ?

Peter_the_Punter

Nigelb said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

ydoethur said:

Nigelb said:

It's also notable that right leaning news sites like The Hill are regularly headlining the same 'Trump is done' polls.

Majority of Americans say Trump’s Constitution comments disqualifying: poll
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3775449-majority-of-americans-say-trumps-constitution-comments-disqualifying-poll/

When right wing media stops airing every Trump statement and instead leads with Trump scepticism, it has an effect.

Although you would hope the sheer lunacy of much of what he's tweeting/Truth Socialling would do that on its lonesome.

I mean, he's always been to put it mildly rather eccentric but right now his pronouncements are making the late lamented Plato look sane. Heck, they'd even raise eyebrows on Russia Today.

My once Trump-supporting friend in Florida ditched the guy some time ago, saying he was 'mad'. He doesn't explain this of course, but then he never explained why he liked the guy in the first place.

Anyway as a straw in the wind his view is significant. Trump for the nomination is definitely a lay.

What does he say of DeSantis ?

Daren't ask, but he likes anyone who hates Libtards so I would think he's a supporter.

Foxy

Peter_the_Punter said:

eristdoof said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998

Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.

England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.

Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...

ydoethur

Foxy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

eristdoof said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998

Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.

England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.

Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...

That would rather tend to confirm his point, no? That the matches are rigged?

It's just that in '66 that worked in England's favour, whereas more recently...

Carnyx

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Wealthy families use pensions loopholes to avoid £1bn in inheritance tax, says IFS
Passing down wealth through pension pots allows rich to escape tax bills of £600,000
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/15/wealthy-families-use-pensions-loopholes-avoid-1bn-inheritance/ (£££)

Paywalled, but basically how does that work, please?

Peter_the_Punter

Foxy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

eristdoof said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998

Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.

England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.

Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...

True, but we had some clout back then so we got an even break, and better sometimes.

We've been at odds with FIFA for decades now and it shows. It's become very much more obvious now that we have a decent team. It took a great French side plus a crooked ref to beat us this time. We should be proud of our side.

Casino_Royale

Foxy said:

Casino_Royale said:

FPT - it's fascinating how many people on here get taken in by nowcasting rather than forecasting.

There is not an election tomorrow. Such nowcasts are nonsense.

That is the basis of polling. "How would you vote if there was an election tommorow?" When we all know there isn't one.

Polling, yes, but projecting seats off the back of it and then enthusiastically commenting on it as if that's what is going to happen is dumb.

Several people on here should know better.

DecrepiterJohnL

Carnyx said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Wealthy families use pensions loopholes to avoid £1bn in inheritance tax, says IFS
Passing down wealth through pension pots allows rich to escape tax bills of £600,000
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/12/15/wealthy-families-use-pensions-loopholes-avoid-1bn-inheritance/ (£££)

Paywalled, but basically how does that work, please?

When you die, any money left in your private pension pot can be passed on without inheritance tax (and possibly you need to do this via the pension provider's "expression of wish" form rather than your will; I'm not sure about that so dyor) provided you are under 75, so what rich-enough people do is live off other savings (that would be subject to inheritance tax) and leave their pension pots intact to be passed on in full.

tlg86

Foxy said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

eristdoof said:

HYUFD said:

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

dixiedean said:

Second. Like I suspect France.

Dunno. I took 13/2 against France at the off but am considering how much to hedge on Argentina. France have looked vulnerable at the back in most matches they've played. Can the team beaten by Saudi Arabia beat the team who lost to Tunisia?

France played their reserves against Tunisia, while the Argies played their first team against the Saudis (though that scoreline was rather against the run of play).

The argies also struggled when the Netherlands went to a more direct route one approach, something the French do adeptly too.

It will be pretty close, but I fancy the French.

By rights it should be Argentina and Messi's. Argentina have not won it since 1986, France won it last time in 2018 and in 1998

Using this argument by rights England should have beaten France, because England have not won it since 1966, where as France won it last time and in 1998.

England won't win it until FIFA stop stiffing us with dodgy referees whenever we look like getting close.

Ahem, that equalising goal in 1966 normal time was definitely dodgy, but we won as a result...

What was wrong with Hurst's goal to make it 1-1?