It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?
Why should he have to prove his innocence?
Well, he was accused of a crime. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, but you and Sandpit are acting as if Tucker Carlson’s video would’ve have changed what happened if it had been seen at the time. It only would’ve changed what happened if it provided evidence of his innocence. It doesn’t.
I don't know what Tucker Carlson has to do with anything, I've never mentioned him?
Congress released the tapes exclusively to Fox News, so Carlson's edited selection is what we get to see.
So are you saying the footage of the Shaman being led through the Capitol is false / doctored? Because if you are not - and accept it is real - then I have no idea what other interpretation you could draw from that footage than that he was in there with the knowledge and in the company of police officers.
Also interesting that, literally days after that footage is released, he gets released at a discount to his sentence for 'good behaviour'.
Having already entered the building as part of a violent protest and seeking to disrupt an official proceeding, footage, heavily edited by Tucker Carlson, shows the undermanned police handling the situation by trying to lead Chansley and others around.
Do you have any actual evidence for that, or are you playing the man not the ball?
That's how it's been reported by media around the globe.
And, also, this is Tucker Carlson. If you can't play the man when you're dealing with a proven liar and propagandist, who has admitted to saying lies for entertainment, when can you? This guy has spread COVID-19 conspiracy theories, and described Iraqis as "semi-literate primitive monkeys".
Hmmmm. Let’s swap some words around.
“Fucker Carlson is a semi-literate primitive monkey“
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
If they were going to add another one in England then somewhere in the south outside of London would have been nice. Southampton maybe?
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
True, Southampton would be a good pick - B&H Albion's ground also is a reasonable logistical choice for yer Albania v Estonia-type fixtures - as, I suppose, would Aberdeen's new ground, if it ever actually gets built.
(Fact is, this really could/should have been an England bid - five nations co-hosting is taking the piss a bit. A lot of very good stadiums in this country. I get why it's not though.)
England probably has more decent stadiums per square mile than any country on earth
On top of those listed you’ve got Twickenham, Anfield, Old Trafford, Chelsea, the Olympic stadium, the new Highbury, etc etc. You could even adapt Lords. An embarrassment of riches
While I don't disagree with the spirit of that, the title of 'most decent stadiums per square mile' possibly, lamentably, now goes to Qatar, or else to some microstate (OTTOMH: Barbados, with the Kensington Oval?)
But you're right. Not least because lots of countries just don't have non-football sports which draw crowds in the same we as we do. I was at a conference at Old Trafford football stadium a few years back with some Europeans. Now, if you're getting to Old Trafford football stadium by public transport, the most obvious and common way to do it is to get the tram to Old Trafford tram stop - the walk from which takes you past Old Trafford cricket ground. Almost all of the Europeans - and in particular the Germans - that I spoke to about it expressed amazement that a sport apart from football (and especially cricket, which they thought of as a bit of a twee joke) could support such a big stadium - most just assumed it was Manchester City's ground. (To be clear, these were people who weren't necessarily massive sports fans - the conference was nothing to do with football.)
Twickenham could easily be the national stadium in most countries - modern, impressive, capacity 82,000. It's not even dedicated to our main sport
GPT4, it turns out, is an exceptionally capable scientist
“Conclusions In this paper, we presented an Intelligent Agent system capable of autonomously designing, planning, and executing complex scientific experiments. Our system demonstrates exceptional reasoning and experimental design capabilities, effectively addressing complex problems and generating high-quality code”
Indeed it is so good the authors slightly freak out, and demand that it be prevented from creating new drugs, poisons, bioweapons. Etc. Good luck persuading the Chinese to do that
That’s not quite what they wrote.
You may not be aware but there has been software/databases that design chemical synthesis for a while - one such is called reaxys - I use it frequently. There have also been software to predict properties of novel compounds, although prediction does not always meet reality. What this paper presents is interesting, but I don’t see a spark of AGI here, rather improvements on things that are already happening. Looks extremely useful for the design of new molecular targets, but I note it refused to synthsise the one interesting looking drug…
Er, that IS what they wrote, because I quote them verbatim
And this is their warning at the end:
"We strongly believe that guardrails must be put in place to prevent this type of potential dual-use of large language models. We call for the AI community to engage in prioritizing safety of these powerful models. We call upon OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Meta, Deepmind, Anthropic, and all the other major players to push the strongest possible efforts on safety of their LLMs. We call upon the physical sciences community to be engaged with the players involved in developing LLMs to assist them in developing those guardrails"
Not clear to me why Murrayfield (and, thus, Edinburgh) was overlooked for Euro 2028. Great stadium in a superb city.
If there's only going to be one stadium in Scotland, the SFA is going to insist it's Hampden.
If there are only 10 stadiums in total, can they really justify a second one in Scotland?
It;'s a long way from Glasgow to Newcastle though (which given how the initial games will be structured will be the other stadium for the initial set of games).
Only 150 miles, only about 30 miles further than Cardiff to Birmingham (which I assume will be paired by elimination).
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
If they were going to add another one in England then somewhere in the south outside of London would have been nice. Southampton maybe?
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
True, Southampton would be a good pick - B&H Albion's ground also is a reasonable logistical choice for yer Albania v Estonia-type fixtures - as, I suppose, would Aberdeen's new ground, if it ever actually gets built.
(Fact is, this really could/should have been an England bid - five nations co-hosting is taking the piss a bit. A lot of very good stadiums in this country. I get why it's not though.)
England probably has more decent stadiums per square mile than any country on earth
On top of those listed you’ve got Twickenham, Anfield, Old Trafford, Chelsea, the Olympic stadium, the new Highbury, etc etc. You could even adapt Lords. An embarrassment of riches
While I don't disagree with the spirit of that, the title of 'most decent stadiums per square mile' possibly, lamentably, now goes to Qatar, or else to some microstate (OTTOMH: Barbados, with the Kensington Oval?)
But you're right. Not least because lots of countries just don't have non-football sports which draw crowds in the same we as we do. I was at a conference at Old Trafford football stadium a few years back with some Europeans. Now, if you're getting to Old Trafford football stadium by public transport, the most obvious and common way to do it is to get the tram to Old Trafford tram stop - the walk from which takes you past Old Trafford cricket ground. Almost all of the Europeans - and in particular the Germans - that I spoke to about it expressed amazement that a sport apart from football (and especially cricket, which they thought of as a bit of a twee joke) could support such a big stadium - most just assumed it was Manchester City's ground. (To be clear, these were people who weren't necessarily massive sports fans - the conference was nothing to do with football.)
Twickenham could easily be the national stadium in most countries - modern, impressive, capacity 82,000. It's not even dedicated to our main sport
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?
Why should he have to prove his innocence?
Well, he was accused of a crime. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, but you and Sandpit are acting as if Tucker Carlson’s video would’ve have changed what happened if it had been seen at the time. It only would’ve changed what happened if it provided evidence of his innocence. It doesn’t.
I don't know what Tucker Carlson has to do with anything, I've never mentioned him?
Congress released the tapes exclusively to Fox News, so Carlson's edited selection is what we get to see.
So are you saying the footage of the Shaman being led through the Capitol is false / doctored? Because if you are not - and accept it is real - then I have no idea what other interpretation you could draw from that footage than that he was in there with the knowledge and in the company of police officers.
Also interesting that, literally days after that footage is released, he gets released at a discount to his sentence for 'good behaviour'.
Having already entered the building as part of a violent protest and seeking to disrupt an official proceeding, footage, heavily edited by Tucker Carlson, shows the undermanned police handling the situation by trying to lead Chansley and others around.
Obviously he was there with the knowledge of police officers. They could see him. He's quite distinctive.
He was in the company of police officers at times as they tried to manage the situation.
Neither of those facts alter that he shouldn't have been in the building at all and had entered to disrupt proceedings. The footage, indeed, shows Chansley was where he shouldn't be.
Do you have any evidence that his early release was connected to the Carlson footage? Or is that just you swallowing a bullshit Trumpist conspiracy theory?
"Do you have any evidence that his early release was connected to the Carlson footage? "
Oh yes absolutely, because I am so connected into the US Justice system that I am given the exact truthful details of why they release prisoners...of course I don't and, even if I did have 100% proof, you would not accept it because you do not want to - you would just shout "Trumpist conspiracy BS".
You mention that it was heavily edited but, to throw back the question at you, do you have any evidence that it was and more so than the footage that was originally shown? Looking at that footage, it does not look manipulated or tampered with and, it clearly shows what it does - namely the Shaman going around in a peaceful manner with police officers not feeling the need to restrain him.
I think you are clutching at straws here with the whole "oh look, it's Tucker Carlson!" Everyone can see the footage and it is fairly clear what it shows.
If you can't play the man when you're dealing with [Tucker Carlson], when can you?
Never, that's the whole point of ad hominem being a logical fallacy.
So, I should equally believe something if I'm told it by, say, Martin Lewis, David Attenborough, Tom Hanks, Boris Johnson, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin?
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
If they were going to add another one in England then somewhere in the south outside of London would have been nice. Southampton maybe?
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
True, Southampton would be a good pick - B&H Albion's ground also is a reasonable logistical choice for yer Albania v Estonia-type fixtures - as, I suppose, would Aberdeen's new ground, if it ever actually gets built.
(Fact is, this really could/should have been an England bid - five nations co-hosting is taking the piss a bit. A lot of very good stadiums in this country. I get why it's not though.)
England probably has more decent stadiums per square mile than any country on earth
On top of those listed you’ve got Twickenham, Anfield, Old Trafford, Chelsea, the Olympic stadium, the new Highbury, etc etc. You could even adapt Lords. An embarrassment of riches
While I don't disagree with the spirit of that, the title of 'most decent stadiums per square mile' possibly, lamentably, now goes to Qatar, or else to some microstate (OTTOMH: Barbados, with the Kensington Oval?)
But you're right. Not least because lots of countries just don't have non-football sports which draw crowds in the same we as we do. I was at a conference at Old Trafford football stadium a few years back with some Europeans. Now, if you're getting to Old Trafford football stadium by public transport, the most obvious and common way to do it is to get the tram to Old Trafford tram stop - the walk from which takes you past Old Trafford cricket ground. Almost all of the Europeans - and in particular the Germans - that I spoke to about it expressed amazement that a sport apart from football (and especially cricket, which they thought of as a bit of a twee joke) could support such a big stadium - most just assumed it was Manchester City's ground. (To be clear, these were people who weren't necessarily massive sports fans - the conference was nothing to do with football.)
There are also a number of football teams with stadia far better than they ought to have because they share with rugby. Wigan Athletic, Hull and Huddersfield for three.
Interestingly, all rugby league. Are there any rugby union clubs left sharing with football after Wasps' demise?
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?
Why should he have to prove his innocence?
Well, he was accused of a crime. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, but you and Sandpit are acting as if Tucker Carlson’s video would’ve have changed what happened if it had been seen at the time. It only would’ve changed what happened if it provided evidence of his innocence. It doesn’t.
I don't know what Tucker Carlson has to do with anything, I've never mentioned him?
Congress released the tapes exclusively to Fox News, so Carlson's edited selection is what we get to see.
So are you saying the footage of the Shaman being led through the Capitol is false / doctored? Because if you are not - and accept it is real - then I have no idea what other interpretation you could draw from that footage than that he was in there with the knowledge and in the company of police officers.
Also interesting that, literally days after that footage is released, he gets released at a discount to his sentence for 'good behaviour'.
Having already entered the building as part of a violent protest and seeking to disrupt an official proceeding, footage, heavily edited by Tucker Carlson, shows the undermanned police handling the situation by trying to lead Chansley and others around.
Obviously he was there with the knowledge of police officers. They could see him. He's quite distinctive.
He was in the company of police officers at times as they tried to manage the situation.
Neither of those facts alter that he shouldn't have been in the building at all and had entered to disrupt proceedings. The footage, indeed, shows Chansley was where he shouldn't be.
Do you have any evidence that his early release was connected to the Carlson footage? Or is that just you swallowing a bullshit Trumpist conspiracy theory?
"Do you have any evidence that his early release was connected to the Carlson footage? "
Oh yes absolutely, because I am so connected into the US Justice system that I am given the exact truthful details of why they release prisoners...of course I don't and, even if I did have 100% proof, you would not accept it because you do not want to - you would just shout "Trumpist conspiracy BS".
You mention that it was heavily edited but, to throw back the question at you, do you have any evidence that it was and more so than the footage that was originally shown? Looking at that footage, it does not look manipulated or tampered with and, it clearly shows what it does - namely the Shaman going around in a peaceful manner with police officers not feeling the need to restrain him.
I think you are clutching at straws here with the whole "oh look, it's Tucker Carlson!" Everyone can see the footage and it is fairly clear what it shows.
Great, so you admit you have no evidence that Chansley's early release was connected to the Carlson footage.
I didn't say the Carlson footage was "manipulated or tampered with". I said it was heavily edited. It was.
If you can't play the man when you're dealing with [Tucker Carlson], when can you?
Never, that's the whole point of ad hominem being a logical fallacy.
So, I should equally believe something if I'm told it by, say, Martin Lewis, David Attenborough, Tom Hanks, Boris Johnson, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin?
Not what I said, but you're clever enough to realise that.
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
If they were going to add another one in England then somewhere in the south outside of London would have been nice. Southampton maybe?
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
True, Southampton would be a good pick - B&H Albion's ground also is a reasonable logistical choice for yer Albania v Estonia-type fixtures - as, I suppose, would Aberdeen's new ground, if it ever actually gets built.
(Fact is, this really could/should have been an England bid - five nations co-hosting is taking the piss a bit. A lot of very good stadiums in this country. I get why it's not though.)
England probably has more decent stadiums per square mile than any country on earth
On top of those listed you’ve got Twickenham, Anfield, Old Trafford, Chelsea, the Olympic stadium, the new Highbury, etc etc. You could even adapt Lords. An embarrassment of riches
While I don't disagree with the spirit of that, the title of 'most decent stadiums per square mile' possibly, lamentably, now goes to Qatar, or else to some microstate (OTTOMH: Barbados, with the Kensington Oval?)
But you're right. Not least because lots of countries just don't have non-football sports which draw crowds in the same we as we do. I was at a conference at Old Trafford football stadium a few years back with some Europeans. Now, if you're getting to Old Trafford football stadium by public transport, the most obvious and common way to do it is to get the tram to Old Trafford tram stop - the walk from which takes you past Old Trafford cricket ground. Almost all of the Europeans - and in particular the Germans - that I spoke to about it expressed amazement that a sport apart from football (and especially cricket, which they thought of as a bit of a twee joke) could support such a big stadium - most just assumed it was Manchester City's ground. (To be clear, these were people who weren't necessarily massive sports fans - the conference was nothing to do with football.)
There are also a number of football teams with stadia far better than they ought to have because they share with rugby. Wigan Athletic, Hull and Huddersfield for three.
Interestingly, all rugby league. Are there any rugby union clubs left sharing with football after Wasps' demise?
Bristol Bears for one.
Don’t Sale still share with Stockport County ? EDIT - they now share with Salford Reds
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
If they were going to add another one in England then somewhere in the south outside of London would have been nice. Southampton maybe?
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
True, Southampton would be a good pick - B&H Albion's ground also is a reasonable logistical choice for yer Albania v Estonia-type fixtures - as, I suppose, would Aberdeen's new ground, if it ever actually gets built.
(Fact is, this really could/should have been an England bid - five nations co-hosting is taking the piss a bit. A lot of very good stadiums in this country. I get why it's not though.)
England probably has more decent stadiums per square mile than any country on earth
On top of those listed you’ve got Twickenham, Anfield, Old Trafford, Chelsea, the Olympic stadium, the new Highbury, etc etc. You could even adapt Lords. An embarrassment of riches
While I don't disagree with the spirit of that, the title of 'most decent stadiums per square mile' possibly, lamentably, now goes to Qatar, or else to some microstate (OTTOMH: Barbados, with the Kensington Oval?)
But you're right. Not least because lots of countries just don't have non-football sports which draw crowds in the same we as we do. I was at a conference at Old Trafford football stadium a few years back with some Europeans. Now, if you're getting to Old Trafford football stadium by public transport, the most obvious and common way to do it is to get the tram to Old Trafford tram stop - the walk from which takes you past Old Trafford cricket ground. Almost all of the Europeans - and in particular the Germans - that I spoke to about it expressed amazement that a sport apart from football (and especially cricket, which they thought of as a bit of a twee joke) could support such a big stadium - most just assumed it was Manchester City's ground. (To be clear, these were people who weren't necessarily massive sports fans - the conference was nothing to do with football.)
There are also a number of football teams with stadia far better than they ought to have because they share with rugby. Wigan Athletic, Hull and Huddersfield for three.
Interestingly, all rugby league. Are there any rugby union clubs left sharing with football after Wasps' demise?
Brentford share with London Irish, who used to share with Reading.
Sale used to share with Stockport County, but now share with Salford rugby league (in a stadium neither of them want, but that's another story).
Sale's original ground in Sale itself is now home to a phoenix club (Sale FC - which is the original name of the club) which started when Sale turned professional, and after a couple of successful decades is now the third-highest placed rugby union club in the North West (after the club whose ashes it sprang from, and Caldy) - but it shares the ground with Swinton RLFC. So Swinton now play in Sale and Sale Sharks play in Swinton. (Actually, they don't, the AJ Bell Stadium is between Irlam and Eccles, but for the purposes of this anecdote it will have to do.)
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?
Why should he have to prove his innocence?
Well, he was accused of a crime. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, but you and Sandpit are acting as if Tucker Carlson’s video would’ve have changed what happened if it had been seen at the time. It only would’ve changed what happened if it provided evidence of his innocence. It doesn’t.
I don't know what Tucker Carlson has to do with anything, I've never mentioned him?
Congress released the tapes exclusively to Fox News, so Carlson's edited selection is what we get to see.
So are you saying the footage of the Shaman being led through the Capitol is false / doctored? Because if you are not - and accept it is real - then I have no idea what other interpretation you could draw from that footage than that he was in there with the knowledge and in the company of police officers.
Also interesting that, literally days after that footage is released, he gets released at a discount to his sentence for 'good behaviour'.
Having already entered the building as part of a violent protest and seeking to disrupt an official proceeding, footage, heavily edited by Tucker Carlson, shows the undermanned police handling the situation by trying to lead Chansley and others around.
Obviously he was there with the knowledge of police officers. They could see him. He's quite distinctive.
He was in the company of police officers at times as they tried to manage the situation.
Neither of those facts alter that he shouldn't have been in the building at all and had entered to disrupt proceedings. The footage, indeed, shows Chansley was where he shouldn't be.
Do you have any evidence that his early release was connected to the Carlson footage? Or is that just you swallowing a bullshit Trumpist conspiracy theory?
"Do you have any evidence that his early release was connected to the Carlson footage? "
Oh yes absolutely, because I am so connected into the US Justice system that I am given the exact truthful details of why they release prisoners...of course I don't and, even if I did have 100% proof, you would not accept it because you do not want to - you would just shout "Trumpist conspiracy BS".
You mention that it was heavily edited but, to throw back the question at you, do you have any evidence that it was and more so than the footage that was originally shown? Looking at that footage, it does not look manipulated or tampered with and, it clearly shows what it does - namely the Shaman going around in a peaceful manner with police officers not feeling the need to restrain him.
I think you are clutching at straws here with the whole "oh look, it's Tucker Carlson!" Everyone can see the footage and it is fairly clear what it shows.
Great, so you admit you have no evidence that Chansley's early release was connected to the Carlson footage.
I didn't say the Carlson footage was "manipulated or tampered with". I said it was heavily edited. It was.
What evidence would you like re the early release? The AG to go on public record and say "look, we got busted on Chansley so we have to let him go"? You know as well as I do there is not going to be any written down order on that and that no one outside limited circles would have access if there was. You knew that before you asked the question.
Maybe a better way of framing the question is to say "Do we think the explanation of why Chansley was released early is credible in the circumstances, namely that evidence was released showing a different explanation as to what the prosecution claimed". Dubious is my answer given the explanations and what normally happens.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?
Why should he have to prove his innocence?
Well, he was accused of a crime. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, but you and Sandpit are acting as if Tucker Carlson’s video would’ve have changed what happened if it had been seen at the time. It only would’ve changed what happened if it provided evidence of his innocence. It doesn’t.
I don't know what Tucker Carlson has to do with anything, I've never mentioned him?
Congress released the tapes exclusively to Fox News, so Carlson's edited selection is what we get to see.
So are you saying the footage of the Shaman being led through the Capitol is false / doctored? Because if you are not - and accept it is real - then I have no idea what other interpretation you could draw from that footage than that he was in there with the knowledge and in the company of police officers.
Also interesting that, literally days after that footage is released, he gets released at a discount to his sentence for 'good behaviour'.
Having already entered the building as part of a violent protest and seeking to disrupt an official proceeding, footage, heavily edited by Tucker Carlson, shows the undermanned police handling the situation by trying to lead Chansley and others around.
Obviously he was there with the knowledge of police officers. They could see him. He's quite distinctive.
He was in the company of police officers at times as they tried to manage the situation.
Neither of those facts alter that he shouldn't have been in the building at all and had entered to disrupt proceedings. The footage, indeed, shows Chansley was where he shouldn't be.
Do you have any evidence that his early release was connected to the Carlson footage? Or is that just you swallowing a bullshit Trumpist conspiracy theory?
"Do you have any evidence that his early release was connected to the Carlson footage? "
Oh yes absolutely, because I am so connected into the US Justice system that I am given the exact truthful details of why they release prisoners...of course I don't and, even if I did have 100% proof, you would not accept it because you do not want to - you would just shout "Trumpist conspiracy BS".
You mention that it was heavily edited but, to throw back the question at you, do you have any evidence that it was and more so than the footage that was originally shown? Looking at that footage, it does not look manipulated or tampered with and, it clearly shows what it does - namely the Shaman going around in a peaceful manner with police officers not feeling the need to restrain him.
I think you are clutching at straws here with the whole "oh look, it's Tucker Carlson!" Everyone can see the footage and it is fairly clear what it shows.
Great, so you admit you have no evidence that Chansley's early release was connected to the Carlson footage.
I didn't say the Carlson footage was "manipulated or tampered with". I said it was heavily edited. It was.
You wouldn't even need to heavily edit Bill Clinton to get him to say "I did have sexual relations with that woman."
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
If they were going to add another one in England then somewhere in the south outside of London would have been nice. Southampton maybe?
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
True, Southampton would be a good pick - B&H Albion's ground also is a reasonable logistical choice for yer Albania v Estonia-type fixtures - as, I suppose, would Aberdeen's new ground, if it ever actually gets built.
(Fact is, this really could/should have been an England bid - five nations co-hosting is taking the piss a bit. A lot of very good stadiums in this country. I get why it's not though.)
England probably has more decent stadiums per square mile than any country on earth
On top of those listed you’ve got Twickenham, Anfield, Old Trafford, Chelsea, the Olympic stadium, the new Highbury, etc etc. You could even adapt Lords. An embarrassment of riches
While I don't disagree with the spirit of that, the title of 'most decent stadiums per square mile' possibly, lamentably, now goes to Qatar, or else to some microstate (OTTOMH: Barbados, with the Kensington Oval?)
But you're right. Not least because lots of countries just don't have non-football sports which draw crowds in the same we as we do. I was at a conference at Old Trafford football stadium a few years back with some Europeans. Now, if you're getting to Old Trafford football stadium by public transport, the most obvious and common way to do it is to get the tram to Old Trafford tram stop - the walk from which takes you past Old Trafford cricket ground. Almost all of the Europeans - and in particular the Germans - that I spoke to about it expressed amazement that a sport apart from football (and especially cricket, which they thought of as a bit of a twee joke) could support such a big stadium - most just assumed it was Manchester City's ground. (To be clear, these were people who weren't necessarily massive sports fans - the conference was nothing to do with football.)
There are also a number of football teams with stadia far better than they ought to have because they share with rugby. Wigan Athletic, Hull and Huddersfield for three.
Interestingly, all rugby league. Are there any rugby union clubs left sharing with football after Wasps' demise?
Bristol Bears for one.
Don’t Sale still share with Stockport County ?
Ah, yes, forgot about them.
No, Sale haven't shared with County for years, thank god. They now share with Salford RL.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
I wouldn't want to be charged with anything in America. Their justice system stinks.
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
If they were going to add another one in England then somewhere in the south outside of London would have been nice. Southampton maybe?
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
True, Southampton would be a good pick - B&H Albion's ground also is a reasonable logistical choice for yer Albania v Estonia-type fixtures - as, I suppose, would Aberdeen's new ground, if it ever actually gets built.
(Fact is, this really could/should have been an England bid - five nations co-hosting is taking the piss a bit. A lot of very good stadiums in this country. I get why it's not though.)
England probably has more decent stadiums per square mile than any country on earth
On top of those listed you’ve got Twickenham, Anfield, Old Trafford, Chelsea, the Olympic stadium, the new Highbury, etc etc. You could even adapt Lords. An embarrassment of riches
While I don't disagree with the spirit of that, the title of 'most decent stadiums per square mile' possibly, lamentably, now goes to Qatar, or else to some microstate (OTTOMH: Barbados, with the Kensington Oval?)
But you're right. Not least because lots of countries just don't have non-football sports which draw crowds in the same we as we do. I was at a conference at Old Trafford football stadium a few years back with some Europeans. Now, if you're getting to Old Trafford football stadium by public transport, the most obvious and common way to do it is to get the tram to Old Trafford tram stop - the walk from which takes you past Old Trafford cricket ground. Almost all of the Europeans - and in particular the Germans - that I spoke to about it expressed amazement that a sport apart from football (and especially cricket, which they thought of as a bit of a twee joke) could support such a big stadium - most just assumed it was Manchester City's ground. (To be clear, these were people who weren't necessarily massive sports fans - the conference was nothing to do with football.)
There are also a number of football teams with stadia far better than they ought to have because they share with rugby. Wigan Athletic, Hull and Huddersfield for three.
Interestingly, all rugby league. Are there any rugby union clubs left sharing with football after Wasps' demise?
Bristol Bears for one.
Don’t Sale still share with Stockport County ?
Ah, yes, forgot about them.
No, Sale haven't shared with County for years, thank god. They now share with Salford RL.
"Thank God" - you have strong opinions on this, Driver?
Personally I preferred it when Sale shared with Stockport (where I went occasionally) to them sharing with Salford (where I never go). I rather like Edgeley Park; the AJ Bell seems a bit soulless (to me).
If you can't play the man when you're dealing with [Tucker Carlson], when can you?
Never, that's the whole point of ad hominem being a logical fallacy.
So, I should equally believe something if I'm told it by, say, Martin Lewis, David Attenborough, Tom Hanks, Boris Johnson, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin?
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
I wouldn't want to be charged with anything in America. Their justice system stinks.
Not keen on it happening here either , but I take your point
If you can't play the man when you're dealing with [Tucker Carlson], when can you?
Never, that's the whole point of ad hominem being a logical fallacy.
So, I should equally believe something if I'm told it by, say, Martin Lewis, David Attenborough, Tom Hanks, Boris Johnson, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin?
Not what I said, but you're clever enough to realise that.
But this isn't about an ad hominem attack. It's about whether we should trust something that comes from Tucker Carlson. You want to. I don't.
2) Butthurt, he alleges vote rigging and runs as an independent;
3) DeSantis quits as Governor of Florida to focus on being nominee;
4) Biden selects Whitmer, Ossoff or Buttigieg as his VP;
5) Biden wins in an absolute landslide, due to the split vote, consigning both Trump and DeSantis to the outer darkness;
6) Biden then retires for undisclosed health reasons, leaving a capable President in charge;
7) A sane Republican nominee - Haley, perhaps? - emerges in 2028 and wins easily.
4 and 6 are not essential, but they would be optimal.
I think point 4 - maybe not necessarily one of those, but a VP who is sensible, competent and doesn't drive away swing voters - is actually essential. If Biden does that he's going to win by a landslide that even the paranoid would see couldn't be overturned.
The problem is, the VP role is occupied by someone who doesn't necessarily fulfil any of those three requirements. And who was the last POTUS to jettison their VP before their re-election bid?
Ford, and before that, Roosevelt (twice, although on the first occasion the Veep had opposed him at the convention).
I have to say with all due respect to Biden I still think it was a real error by Obama not to bring forward a younger VP in 2012. Clinton would never have bothered to stand in that case and Trump would never happened.
1. Gerald Ford's Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, being the only VP in US history who was NOT elected on ticket with POTUS, but instead was appointed after Spiro Agnew resigned. So outside usual parameters of vice presidential re-nomination.
2. Franklin Roosevelt's first Vice President, John Nance Garner, did NOT oppose FDR at 1940 Democratic National Convention, which he did not even attend. Instead, he'd already broken with Roosevelt (in private but only semi-publically) long before, over course of New Deal in general, and court-packing AND third-term in particular.
The former Roosevelt loyalist who DID oppose FDR at 1940 DNC, as declared candidate to replace him, was his former campaign manager and cabinet secretary as US Postmaster General, James Farley.
3. Last time an incumbent POTUS ended up with a new VP running mate, replacing his old, elected-in-normal-way Veep, was FDR, when Henry Wallace got dumped (with Roosevelt's connivance) for Harry Truman.
1944 being a special case, because > wide-spread concern among Roosevelt's inner circle and other top Democrats re: his deteriorating health as WWII was about to reach it's crescendo, and prospect that his (next) VP might well end up becoming his successor before their term was up. > the "Guru Letters" scandal against Henry Wallace, that Republicans had threatened to use against FDR in 1940, but were stymied when Dems countered by threatening to publicize sex scandal against Wendell Willkie; however, by 1944 WW was clearly NOT gonna be GOP nominee, whereas HW and his Guru Letters will still around.
4. Since Franklin Roosevelt, other POTUS are known to have considered doing so, most notably Nixon, who would have preferred John Connolly to Spiro Agnew. HOWEVER, actually defenestrating ones own chosen VP is an exercise that is politically FRAUGHT WITH PERIL.
5. Thus notion that Obama could have just chucked Biden over the side, and gotten a new & improved running mate, is about 99.46% nonsense. Seeing as how the known pain of such an operation - calling into question a president's "first" big decision (picking the old VP) as well as their entire administration on a basic, or at least optical, level.
6. Same applies to Biden viz-a-viz Harris today, and next year.
7. Finally, do NOT overrate the electoral impact of vice presidential nominee for ANY incumbent president, or any presidential nominee for that matter. Even in very close elections the vote-winning AND vote-loosing contribution of POTUS nominee's side-kick is highly debatable.
Which is in fact one reason for NOT second-guessing the first choice for second banana.
That's about 7 degrees below the average for the time of year. UGH
And raining. And then sunny. Then raining. I think we are in for a lovely evening now.
As I came back from Glasgow to Dundee today there was a fair bit of snow on the hills near Stirling down to surprisingly low levels.
Likewise - Mrs Eek was doing site visits round the Dales and it was snowing all morning.
The Ochils are mainly under 2k feet with the odd exception. Going by the height of the hills I would have said that the snow line was somewhere around 1k feet which is pretty remarkable for mid April.
Tucker Carlson may be the most evil man in the world, or whatever, but he is also really good at what he does.
Lying with a straight face. Yep.
He also has a demeanour that makes you want to punch him in the face (I don't know why) and that is coming from someone who has never wanted to hit anyone in his adult life.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?
Why should he have to prove his innocence?
Well, he was accused of a crime. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, but you and Sandpit are acting as if Tucker Carlson’s video would’ve have changed what happened if it had been seen at the time. It only would’ve changed what happened if it provided evidence of his innocence. It doesn’t.
I don't know what Tucker Carlson has to do with anything, I've never mentioned him?
Congress released the tapes exclusively to Fox News, so Carlson's edited selection is what we get to see.
So are you saying the footage of the Shaman being led through the Capitol is false / doctored? Because if you are not - and accept it is real - then I have no idea what other interpretation you could draw from that footage than that he was in there with the knowledge and in the company of police officers.
Also interesting that, literally days after that footage is released, he gets released at a discount to his sentence for 'good behaviour'.
Having already entered the building as part of a violent protest and seeking to disrupt an official proceeding, footage, heavily edited by Tucker Carlson, shows the undermanned police handling the situation by trying to lead Chansley and others around.
Obviously he was there with the knowledge of police officers. They could see him. He's quite distinctive.
He was in the company of police officers at times as they tried to manage the situation.
Neither of those facts alter that he shouldn't have been in the building at all and had entered to disrupt proceedings. The footage, indeed, shows Chansley was where he shouldn't be.
Do you have any evidence that his early release was connected to the Carlson footage? Or is that just you swallowing a bullshit Trumpist conspiracy theory?
"Do you have any evidence that his early release was connected to the Carlson footage? "
Oh yes absolutely, because I am so connected into the US Justice system that I am given the exact truthful details of why they release prisoners...of course I don't and, even if I did have 100% proof, you would not accept it because you do not want to - you would just shout "Trumpist conspiracy BS".
You mention that it was heavily edited but, to throw back the question at you, do you have any evidence that it was and more so than the footage that was originally shown? Looking at that footage, it does not look manipulated or tampered with and, it clearly shows what it does - namely the Shaman going around in a peaceful manner with police officers not feeling the need to restrain him.
I think you are clutching at straws here with the whole "oh look, it's Tucker Carlson!" Everyone can see the footage and it is fairly clear what it shows.
Great, so you admit you have no evidence that Chansley's early release was connected to the Carlson footage.
I didn't say the Carlson footage was "manipulated or tampered with". I said it was heavily edited. It was.
What evidence would you like re the early release? The AG to go on public record and say "look, we got busted on Chansley so we have to let him go"? You know as well as I do there is not going to be any written down order on that and that no one outside limited circles would have access if there was. You knew that before you asked the question.
Maybe a better way of framing the question is to say "Do we think the explanation of why Chansley was released early is credible in the circumstances, namely that evidence was released showing a different explanation as to what the prosecution claimed". Dubious is my answer given the explanations and what normally happens.
This is a classic conspiracy theory. You don't have any evidence for it. Instead, you argue that there can't be any evidence for it, therefore -- somehow -- it must be true?
Early release decisions are not meant to be made based on new evidence. If there is new evidence, an appeal can be sought. Early release decisions are very different to appeals, because early release generally requires the defendant to acknowledge their guilt.
So, you have no evidence, and you are postulating something that is antithetical to how the justice system works.
If you can't play the man when you're dealing with [Tucker Carlson], when can you?
Never, that's the whole point of ad hominem being a logical fallacy.
So, I should equally believe something if I'm told it by, say, Martin Lewis, David Attenborough, Tom Hanks, Boris Johnson, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin?
Not what I said, but you're clever enough to realise that.
But this isn't about an ad hominem attack. It's about whether we should trust something that comes from Tucker Carlson. You want to. I don't.
No, I don't think that it being broadcast on his show is in itself a reason to discount it. You do. Ad hominem is exactly what it is.
That's about 7 degrees below the average for the time of year. UGH
And raining. And then sunny. Then raining. I think we are in for a lovely evening now.
As I came back from Glasgow to Dundee today there was a fair bit of snow on the hills near Stirling down to surprisingly low levels.
Likewise - Mrs Eek was doing site visits round the Dales and it was snowing all morning.
The Ochils are mainly under 2k feet with the odd exception. Going by the height of the hills I would have said that the snow line was somewhere around 1k feet which is pretty remarkable for mid April.
There was some snow last night. Very little in the hills over the Easter weekend.
If you can't play the man when you're dealing with [Tucker Carlson], when can you?
Never, that's the whole point of ad hominem being a logical fallacy.
So, I should equally believe something if I'm told it by, say, Martin Lewis, David Attenborough, Tom Hanks, Boris Johnson, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin?
Not what I said, but you're clever enough to realise that.
But this isn't about an ad hominem attack. It's about whether we should trust something that comes from Tucker Carlson. You want to. I don't.
No, I don't think that it being broadcast on his show is in itself a reason to discount it. You do. Ad hominem is exactly what it is.
Am personally old enough to remember when Richard Nixon attempted to stop the rising tide of Watergate revelations, by releasing an EDITED version of his White House tapes.
Which strangely enough, did NOT include the "smoking gun" that ended up pulling the trigger on his presidency.
Very O/T - but a friend of mine is going to be visiting Soho soon for the first time (and first time in London for about 10 years). Anyone have some recommendations for food/drinks? He's open to any style/region and not that fussed about the price (assuming not insane 'wtaf' prices). He's mid-30s, professional, Italian family background if that narrows anything down.
Kolomba is an extremely good Sri Lankan restaurant in Soho. It's reasonably priced, is a nice venue and the food is exceptionally good (the best Sri Lankan food in London IMHO).
Very O/T - but a friend of mine is going to be visiting Soho soon for the first time (and first time in London for about 10 years). Anyone have some recommendations for food/drinks? He's open to any style/region and not that fussed about the price (assuming not insane 'wtaf' prices). He's mid-30s, professional, Italian family background if that narrows anything down.
Kolomba is an extremely good Sri Lankan restaurant in Soho. It's reasonably priced, is a nice venue and the food is exceptionally good (the best Sri Lankan food in London IMHO).
2) Butthurt, he alleges vote rigging and runs as an independent;
3) DeSantis quits as Governor of Florida to focus on being nominee;
4) Biden selects Whitmer, Ossoff or Buttigieg as his VP;
5) Biden wins in an absolute landslide, due to the split vote, consigning both Trump and DeSantis to the outer darkness;
6) Biden then retires for undisclosed health reasons, leaving a capable President in charge;
7) A sane Republican nominee - Haley, perhaps? - emerges in 2028 and wins easily.
4 and 6 are not essential, but they would be optimal.
I think point 4 - maybe not necessarily one of those, but a VP who is sensible, competent and doesn't drive away swing voters - is actually essential. If Biden does that he's going to win by a landslide that even the paranoid would see couldn't be overturned.
The problem is, the VP role is occupied by someone who doesn't necessarily fulfil any of those three requirements. And who was the last POTUS to jettison their VP before their re-election bid?
Ford, and before that, Roosevelt (twice, although on the first occasion the Veep had opposed him at the convention).
I have to say with all due respect to Biden I still think it was a real error by Obama not to bring forward a younger VP in 2012. Clinton would never have bothered to stand in that case and Trump would never happened.
1. Gerald Ford's Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, being the only VP in US history who was NOT elected on ticket with POTUS, but instead was appointed after Spiro Agnew resigned. So outside usual parameters of vice presidential re-nomination.
2. Franklin Roosevelt's first Vice President, John Nance Garner, did NOT oppose FDR at 1940 Democratic National Convention, which he did not even attend. Instead, he'd already broken with Roosevelt (in private but only semi-publically) long before, over course of New Deal in general, and court-packing AND third-term in particular.
The former Roosevelt loyalist who DID oppose FDR at 1940 DNC, as declared candidate to replace him, was his former campaign manager and cabinet secretary as US Postmaster General, James Farley.
3. Last time an incumbent POTUS ended up with a new VP running mate, replacing his old, elected-in-normal-way Veep, was FDR, when Henry Wallace got dumped (with Roosevelt's connivance) for Harry Truman.
1944 being a special case, because > wide-spread concern among Roosevelt's inner circle and other top Democrats re: his deteriorating health as WWII was about to reach it's crescendo, and prospect that his (next) VP might well end up becoming his successor before their term was up. > the "Guru Letters" scandal against Henry Wallace, that Republicans had threatened to use against FDR in 1940, but were stymied when Dems countered by threatening to publicize sex scandal against Wendell Willkie; however, by 1944 WW was clearly NOT gonna be GOP nominee, whereas HW and his Guru Letters will still around.
4. Since Franklin Roosevelt, other POTUS are known to have considered doing so, most notably Nixon, who would have preferred John Connolly to Spiro Agnew. HOWEVER, actually defenestrating ones own chosen VP is an exercise that is politically FRAUGHT WITH PERIL.
5. Thus notion that Obama could have just chucked Biden over the side, and gotten a new & improved running mate, is about 99.46% nonsense. Seeing as how the known pain of such an operation - calling into question a president's "first" big decision (picking the old VP) as well as their entire administration on a basic, or at least optical, level.
6. Same applies to Biden viz-a-viz Harris today, and next year.
7. Finally, do NOT overrate the electoral impact of vice presidential nominee for ANY incumbent president, or any presidential nominee for that matter. Even in very close elections the vote-winning AND vote-loosing contribution of POTUS nominee's side-kick is highly debatable.
Which is in fact one reason for NOT second-guessing the first choice for second banana.
Just on point 7 here, in normal circumstances you're right. But in normal circumstances the presidential candidate not finishing out the term is not a reasonably foreseeable possibility.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
I wouldn't want to be charged with anything in America. Their justice system stinks.
Not keen on it happening here either , but I take your point
2) Butthurt, he alleges vote rigging and runs as an independent;
3) DeSantis quits as Governor of Florida to focus on being nominee;
4) Biden selects Whitmer, Ossoff or Buttigieg as his VP;
5) Biden wins in an absolute landslide, due to the split vote, consigning both Trump and DeSantis to the outer darkness;
6) Biden then retires for undisclosed health reasons, leaving a capable President in charge;
7) A sane Republican nominee - Haley, perhaps? - emerges in 2028 and wins easily.
4 and 6 are not essential, but they would be optimal.
I think point 4 - maybe not necessarily one of those, but a VP who is sensible, competent and doesn't drive away swing voters - is actually essential. If Biden does that he's going to win by a landslide that even the paranoid would see couldn't be overturned.
The problem is, the VP role is occupied by someone who doesn't necessarily fulfil any of those three requirements. And who was the last POTUS to jettison their VP before their re-election bid?
Ford, and before that, Roosevelt (twice, although on the first occasion the Veep had opposed him at the convention).
I have to say with all due respect to Biden I still think it was a real error by Obama not to bring forward a younger VP in 2012. Clinton would never have bothered to stand in that case and Trump would never happened.
1. Gerald Ford's Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, being the only VP in US history who was NOT elected on ticket with POTUS, but instead was appointed after Spiro Agnew resigned. So outside usual parameters of vice presidential re-nomination.
2. Franklin Roosevelt's first Vice President, John Nance Garner, did NOT oppose FDR at 1940 Democratic National Convention, which he did not even attend. Instead, he'd already broken with Roosevelt (in private but only semi-publically) long before, over course of New Deal in general, and court-packing AND third-term in particular.
The former Roosevelt loyalist who DID oppose FDR at 1940 DNC, as declared candidate to replace him, was his former campaign manager and cabinet secretary as US Postmaster General, James Farley.
3. Last time an incumbent POTUS ended up with a new VP running mate, replacing his old, elected-in-normal-way Veep, was FDR, when Henry Wallace got dumped (with Roosevelt's connivance) for Harry Truman.
1944 being a special case, because > wide-spread concern among Roosevelt's inner circle and other top Democrats re: his deteriorating health as WWII was about to reach it's crescendo, and prospect that his (next) VP might well end up becoming his successor before their term was up…
So not entirely unadjacent to the situation the Democrats find themselves in now.
I agree with you that replacing Harris is pretty unlikely - and even if a vacancy were to arise on the SC (again unlikely), elevating Harris, just to free up the VP slot, would look very odd, and do nothing for her credibility as a justice on the court.
Tucker Carlson may be the most evil man in the world, or whatever, but he is also really good at what he does.
Lying with a straight face. Yep.
He's a polemicist, and he is superb at it
Also a liar and the rest. But talent is talent.
My reaction is more akin to kjh’s, but each to their own.
That's a failing, to my mind. It is easier to make good judgements and predictions if you can set aside your own beliefs and see things objectively
eg I can appreciate the talents of people on the left with whom I utterly disagree. Stewart Lee on form is a genius, yet I generally abhor his politics. Owen Jones can write very skilfully, even if he annoys the heck out of me, and even tho he lies
Ditto politicians. Salmond was bloody good in his pomp, yet he wanted to break up my beloved country.
Trump is also good in his own weird way. He knows how to wind his opponents up til they lose it - which benefits him (Boris has a bit of this too)
That's what makes Trump so dangerous. Not because he's useless, it's because he has weird but definite skill
That's about 7 degrees below the average for the time of year. UGH
It's nice and sunny in Crete. But we're coming home tomorrow night.
Prepare yourself. It's bitter. Like January
Tho it is meant to get warm in about a week. Finally
Ouch. The weather has been crap this year. Maybe that means we're due a good summer?
Easter was nice but apart from that it has been a windy grey and extremely rainy spring. The forecast for this Friday is 10C and driving cold rain in London. That will be a shock after Crete
However, the medium term forecast is a lot better - starting early next week. At last. Lots of sun and even warm temps. Inshallah
2) Butthurt, he alleges vote rigging and runs as an independent;
3) DeSantis quits as Governor of Florida to focus on being nominee;
4) Biden selects Whitmer, Ossoff or Buttigieg as his VP;
5) Biden wins in an absolute landslide, due to the split vote, consigning both Trump and DeSantis to the outer darkness;
6) Biden then retires for undisclosed health reasons, leaving a capable President in charge;
7) A sane Republican nominee - Haley, perhaps? - emerges in 2028 and wins easily.
4 and 6 are not essential, but they would be optimal.
I think point 4 - maybe not necessarily one of those, but a VP who is sensible, competent and doesn't drive away swing voters - is actually essential. If Biden does that he's going to win by a landslide that even the paranoid would see couldn't be overturned.
The problem is, the VP role is occupied by someone who doesn't necessarily fulfil any of those three requirements. And who was the last POTUS to jettison their VP before their re-election bid?
Ford, and before that, Roosevelt (twice, although on the first occasion the Veep had opposed him at the convention).
I have to say with all due respect to Biden I still think it was a real error by Obama not to bring forward a younger VP in 2012. Clinton would never have bothered to stand in that case and Trump would never happened.
1. Gerald Ford's Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, being the only VP in US history who was NOT elected on ticket with POTUS, but instead was appointed after Spiro Agnew resigned. So outside usual parameters of vice presidential re-nomination.
2. Franklin Roosevelt's first Vice President, John Nance Garner, did NOT oppose FDR at 1940 Democratic National Convention, which he did not even attend. Instead, he'd already broken with Roosevelt (in private but only semi-publically) long before, over course of New Deal in general, and court-packing AND third-term in particular.
The former Roosevelt loyalist who DID oppose FDR at 1940 DNC, as declared candidate to replace him, was his former campaign manager and cabinet secretary as US Postmaster General, James Farley.
3. Last time an incumbent POTUS ended up with a new VP running mate, replacing his old, elected-in-normal-way Veep, was FDR, when Henry Wallace got dumped (with Roosevelt's connivance) for Harry Truman.
1944 being a special case, because > wide-spread concern among Roosevelt's inner circle and other top Democrats re: his deteriorating health as WWII was about to reach it's crescendo, and prospect that his (next) VP might well end up becoming his successor before their term was up. > the "Guru Letters" scandal against Henry Wallace, that Republicans had threatened to use against FDR in 1940, but were stymied when Dems countered by threatening to publicize sex scandal against Wendell Willkie; however, by 1944 WW was clearly NOT gonna be GOP nominee, whereas HW and his Guru Letters will still around.
4. Since Franklin Roosevelt, other POTUS are known to have considered doing so, most notably Nixon, who would have preferred John Connolly to Spiro Agnew. HOWEVER, actually defenestrating ones own chosen VP is an exercise that is politically FRAUGHT WITH PERIL.
5. Thus notion that Obama could have just chucked Biden over the side, and gotten a new & improved running mate, is about 99.46% nonsense. Seeing as how the known pain of such an operation - calling into question a president's "first" big decision (picking the old VP) as well as their entire administration on a basic, or at least optical, level.
6. Same applies to Biden viz-a-viz Harris today, and next year.
7. Finally, do NOT overrate the electoral impact of vice presidential nominee for ANY incumbent president, or any presidential nominee for that matter. Even in very close elections the vote-winning AND vote-loosing contribution of POTUS nominee's side-kick is highly debatable.
Which is in fact one reason for NOT second-guessing the first choice for second banana.
Just on point 7 here, in normal circumstances you're right. But in normal circumstances the the presidential candidate not finishing out the term is not a reasonably foreseeable possibility.
It's rank speculation, based solely on Biden's age. Thus his finishing out a 2nd term, is more reasonably possibility than not - certainly far more reasonable, than FDR finishing his 4th.
However one slices this salami, odds on Kamala Harris being the next Hannibal Hamlin are quite slim.
Very O/T - but a friend of mine is going to be visiting Soho soon for the first time (and first time in London for about 10 years). Anyone have some recommendations for food/drinks? He's open to any style/region and not that fussed about the price (assuming not insane 'wtaf' prices). He's mid-30s, professional, Italian family background if that narrows anything down.
Kolomba is an extremely good Sri Lankan restaurant in Soho. It's reasonably priced, is a nice venue and the food is exceptionally good (the best Sri Lankan food in London IMHO).
Oh - thanks! Another to pass along!
We like Miele e Pele (I think that's it) but it is Italian. For drinks, and it depends his tastes, there is a WW2 themed cocktail bar at the Golden Square end of Kingly Street which have heard is good. There is always Andrew Edmunds as well
Tucker Carlson may be the most evil man in the world, or whatever, but he is also really good at what he does. Polemics
That is one reason why he is so loathed - and feared. He's highly capable
All seems fairly bog standard stuff to me, no different to some opposite figure spewing absurd marxist claptrap, but his audience seems to lap it up and the GOP establishment types seem on board, even though he doesn't even believe everything he himself says.
If you can't play the man when you're dealing with [Tucker Carlson], when can you?
Never, that's the whole point of ad hominem being a logical fallacy.
So, I should equally believe something if I'm told it by, say, Martin Lewis, David Attenborough, Tom Hanks, Boris Johnson, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin?
Not what I said, but you're clever enough to realise that.
But this isn't about an ad hominem attack. It's about whether we should trust something that comes from Tucker Carlson. You want to. I don't.
An ad hominem attack on Driver is what I'd recommend after 4 hours of this. It's the only way sometimes.
That's about 7 degrees below the average for the time of year. UGH
It's nice and sunny in Crete. But we're coming home tomorrow night.
Prepare yourself. It's bitter. Like January
Tho it is meant to get warm in about a week. Finally
Ouch. The weather has been crap this year. Maybe that means we're due a good summer?
If only it worked like that!
Easter being a moveable feast plays tricks on us. It’s early this year and the weather has been changeable to say the least. But then April is the month for showers, hinting at an increase in westerlys and increased convection from the stronger sunshine. Give it a week or two and a decent sunny day will see temps into the high teens.
Very O/T - but a friend of mine is going to be visiting Soho soon for the first time (and first time in London for about 10 years). Anyone have some recommendations for food/drinks? He's open to any style/region and not that fussed about the price (assuming not insane 'wtaf' prices). He's mid-30s, professional, Italian family background if that narrows anything down.
Kolomba is an extremely good Sri Lankan restaurant in Soho. It's reasonably priced, is a nice venue and the food is exceptionally good (the best Sri Lankan food in London IMHO).
Oh - thanks! Another to pass along!
We like Miele e Pele (I think that's it) but it is Italian. For drinks, and it depends his tastes, there is a WW2 themed cocktail bar at the Golden Square end of Kingly Street which have heard is good. There is always Andrew Edmunds as well
Tucker Carlson may be the most evil man in the world, or whatever, but he is also really good at what he does.
Lying with a straight face. Yep.
He's a polemicist, and he is superb at it
Also a liar and the rest. But talent is talent.
My reaction is more akin to kjh’s, but each to their own.
That's a failing, to my mind. It is easier to make good judgements and predictions if you can set aside your own beliefs and see things objectively
eg I can appreciate the talents of people on the left with whom I utterly disagree. Stewart Lee on form is a genius, yet I generally abhor his politics. Owen Jones can write very skilfully, even if he annoys the heck out of me, and even tho he lies
Ditto politicians. Salmond was bloody good in his pomp, yet he wanted to break up my beloved country.
Trump is also good in his own weird way. He knows how to wind his opponents up til they lose it - which benefits him (Boris has a bit of this too)
That's what makes Trump so dangerous. Not because he's useless, it's because he has weird but definite skill.
Oh, I can see they're both very good at what they do, but I think it's more emotional manipulation than polemics.
Neither is particularly coherent in actual argument.
As far as my reaction is concerned, I think if you're immune to the manipulation, then you find it more than a little repulsive to watch.
Tucker Carlson may be the most evil man in the world, or whatever, but he is also really good at what he does. Polemics
That is one reason why he is so loathed - and feared. He's highly capable
Odd way to spend your life - doing 'highly capable polemics'.
Can't he learn an instrument or something?
On the contrary it seems the urge to do it is inescapable - see how many people might start out as partisan but still credible and even accomplished commentators, but they get a bit taken with pleasing people and the limelight, and next thing you know they are just spewing idiotic cliches on topics about which they know nothing to please one section of an audience, in some pursuit of polemical fame.
For @MarqueeMark Mr Yousless may yet surprise on the upside - which is the only way he can. Today's Telegraph, Scottish edition, has a picture of Humza talking with Simon Forrest of Nova International, a tidal energy company. Nothing else, just the picture, but there could be a confluence of interests …
Picking up SSI's post, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_A._Wallace is a fascinating read - a left-winger with great mainstream credentials and a fine record against segregation, but also first pro-Soviet and then anti-Soviet, with an interest in mysticism. He sounds quite a character, though not perhaps ideally suited to be President.
That's about 7 degrees below the average for the time of year. UGH
It's nice and sunny in Crete. But we're coming home tomorrow night.
Prepare yourself. It's bitter. Like January
Tho it is meant to get warm in about a week. Finally
Ouch. The weather has been crap this year. Maybe that means we're due a good summer?
Easter was nice but apart from that it has been a windy grey and extremely rainy spring. The forecast for this Friday is 10C and driving cold rain in London. That will be a shock after Crete
However, the medium term forecast is a lot better - starting early next week. At last. Lots of sun and even warm temps. Inshallah
Spring is still in progress, but just looking at March, it was both warmer and (in the east of the UK) drier than normal. And it's wet *now*, but the first weekend of April was lovely, and last week was pretty nice.
Basically, it's been at least as nice as normal for the time of year. Properly nice weather before May is not unknown but is at best a bit sporadic.
For @MarqueeMark Mr Yousless may yet surprise on the upside - which is the only way he can. Today's Telegraph, Scottish edition, has a picture of Humza talking with Simon Forrest of Nova International, a tidal energy company. Nothing else, just the picture, but there could be a confluence of interests …
For @MarqueeMark Mr Yousless may yet surprise on the upside - which is the only way he can. Today's Telegraph, Scottish edition, has a picture of Humza talking with Simon Forrest of Nova International, a tidal energy company. Nothing else, just the picture, but there could be a confluence of interests …
2) Butthurt, he alleges vote rigging and runs as an independent;
3) DeSantis quits as Governor of Florida to focus on being nominee;
4) Biden selects Whitmer, Ossoff or Buttigieg as his VP;
5) Biden wins in an absolute landslide, due to the split vote, consigning both Trump and DeSantis to the outer darkness;
6) Biden then retires for undisclosed health reasons, leaving a capable President in charge;
7) A sane Republican nominee - Haley, perhaps? - emerges in 2028 and wins easily.
4 and 6 are not essential, but they would be optimal.
I think point 4 - maybe not necessarily one of those, but a VP who is sensible, competent and doesn't drive away swing voters - is actually essential. If Biden does that he's going to win by a landslide that even the paranoid would see couldn't be overturned.
The problem is, the VP role is occupied by someone who doesn't necessarily fulfil any of those three requirements. And who was the last POTUS to jettison their VP before their re-election bid?
Ford, and before that, Roosevelt (twice, although on the first occasion the Veep had opposed him at the convention).
I have to say with all due respect to Biden I still think it was a real error by Obama not to bring forward a younger VP in 2012. Clinton would never have bothered to stand in that case and Trump would never happened.
1. Gerald Ford's Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, being the only VP in US history who was NOT elected on ticket with POTUS, but instead was appointed after Spiro Agnew resigned. So outside usual parameters of vice presidential re-nomination.
2. Franklin Roosevelt's first Vice President, John Nance Garner, did NOT oppose FDR at 1940 Democratic National Convention, which he did not even attend. Instead, he'd already broken with Roosevelt (in private but only semi-publically) long before, over course of New Deal in general, and court-packing AND third-term in particular.
The former Roosevelt loyalist who DID oppose FDR at 1940 DNC, as declared candidate to replace him, was his former campaign manager and cabinet secretary as US Postmaster General, James Farley.
3. Last time an incumbent POTUS ended up with a new VP running mate, replacing his old, elected-in-normal-way Veep, was FDR, when Henry Wallace got dumped (with Roosevelt's connivance) for Harry Truman.
1944 being a special case, because > wide-spread concern among Roosevelt's inner circle and other top Democrats re: his deteriorating health as WWII was about to reach it's crescendo, and prospect that his (next) VP might well end up becoming his successor before their term was up…
So not entirely unadjacent to the situation the Democrats find themselves in now.
I agree with you that replacing Harris is pretty unlikely - and even if a vacancy were to arise on the SC (again unlikely), elevating Harris, just to free up the VP slot, would look very odd, and do nothing for her credibility as a justice on the court.
Keep on coloring me skeptical. HOWEVER, the VEEP > SCOTUS route is perhaps an very outside possibility.
BUT question whether KP's current status as President of Senate would help OR hurt her chances of confirmation as Justice?
PLUS fact that, if she DID move to the Court, then her place as next-in-line in presidential succession would be taken by . . . wait for it . . . Kevin McCarthy. Unless and until POTUS nominated and US Senate confirmed an appointed Veep.
That's about 7 degrees below the average for the time of year. UGH
It's nice and sunny in Crete. But we're coming home tomorrow night.
Prepare yourself. It's bitter. Like January
Tho it is meant to get warm in about a week. Finally
Ouch. The weather has been crap this year. Maybe that means we're due a good summer?
Easter was nice but apart from that it has been a windy grey and extremely rainy spring. The forecast for this Friday is 10C and driving cold rain in London. That will be a shock after Crete
However, the medium term forecast is a lot better - starting early next week. At last. Lots of sun and even warm temps. Inshallah
Spring is still in progress, but just looking at March, it was both warmer and (in the east of the UK) drier than normal. And it's wet *now*, but the first weekend of April was lovely, and last week was pretty nice.
Basically, it's been at least as nice as normal for the time of year. Properly nice weather before May is not unknown but is at best a bit sporadic.
You what?
"Last month was the wettest March since 1981, figures show - and among the dullest thanks to less-than-average sunshine"
Tucker Carlson may be the most evil man in the world, or whatever, but he is also really good at what he does. Polemics
That is one reason why he is so loathed - and feared. He's highly capable
Odd way to spend your life - doing 'highly capable polemics'.
Can't he learn an instrument or something?
On the contrary it seems the urge to do it is inescapable - see how many people might start out as partisan but still credible and even accomplished commentators, but they get a bit taken with pleasing people and the limelight, and next thing you know they are just spewing idiotic cliches on topics about which they know nothing to please one section of an audience, in some pursuit of polemical fame.
Yes indeed. That little thrill of a like or a retweet. Just ask Gary Lineker (who does, at least, have another skill).
We did have these people before social media, but we didn't have quite so many of them.
Tucker Carlson may be the most evil man in the world, or whatever, but he is also really good at what he does.
Lying with a straight face. Yep.
He's a polemicist, and he is superb at it
Also a liar and the rest. But talent is talent.
My reaction is more akin to kjh’s, but each to their own.
That's a failing, to my mind. It is easier to make good judgements and predictions if you can set aside your own beliefs and see things objectively
eg I can appreciate the talents of people on the left with whom I utterly disagree. Stewart Lee on form is a genius, yet I generally abhor his politics. Owen Jones can write very skilfully, even if he annoys the heck out of me, and even tho he lies
Ditto politicians. Salmond was bloody good in his pomp, yet he wanted to break up my beloved country.
Trump is also good in his own weird way. He knows how to wind his opponents up til they lose it - which benefits him (Boris has a bit of this too)
That's what makes Trump so dangerous. Not because he's useless, it's because he has weird but definite skill
Well that was a blooming huge assumption on your part wasn't it? I also appreciate journalists and politicians from a broad spectrum. I have nothing in common with Farage but consider him to be one of the most influential commentators and politicians, similarly with you on Salmond. You have just made a massive assumption about us. All I said was Tucker's demeanour makes me want to punch him in the face. He is smarmy and condescending as well as being dishonest and .....
If you can't play the man when you're dealing with [Tucker Carlson], when can you?
Never, that's the whole point of ad hominem being a logical fallacy.
So, I should equally believe something if I'm told it by, say, Martin Lewis, David Attenborough, Tom Hanks, Boris Johnson, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin?
Not what I said, but you're clever enough to realise that.
But this isn't about an ad hominem attack. It's about whether we should trust something that comes from Tucker Carlson. You want to. I don't.
An ad hominem attack on Driver is what I'd recommend after 4 hours of this. It's the only way sometimes.
That's about 7 degrees below the average for the time of year. UGH
It's nice and sunny in Crete. But we're coming home tomorrow night.
Prepare yourself. It's bitter. Like January
Tho it is meant to get warm in about a week. Finally
Ouch. The weather has been crap this year. Maybe that means we're due a good summer?
Easter was nice but apart from that it has been a windy grey and extremely rainy spring. The forecast for this Friday is 10C and driving cold rain in London. That will be a shock after Crete
However, the medium term forecast is a lot better - starting early next week. At last. Lots of sun and even warm temps. Inshallah
Spring is still in progress, but just looking at March, it was both warmer and (in the east of the UK) drier than normal. And it's wet *now*, but the first weekend of April was lovely, and last week was pretty nice.
Basically, it's been at least as nice as normal for the time of year. Properly nice weather before May is not unknown but is at best a bit sporadic.
You what?
"Last month was the wettest March since 1981, figures show - and among the dullest thanks to less-than-average sunshine"
Ha, apologies - I had the 'actual' button ticked rather than the '1991-2010 anomaly'. Yes, looking at the right map, it has indeed been jolly wet. But no colder than normal.
EDIT: I'm tickled that the Mail (presumably) tells us it has been the dullest thanks to less than average sunshine. That's what dull means. Perhaps the article then goes on to speculate that it has been wet because of all the rain, or that the wind has been caused by air moving quickly from one place to another.
EDIT2: My gut reaction that it hadn't been that wet was partially due to me reflecting over the last few times I've been out and about on the firm ground and surprising lack of puddles. Perhaps the ground was still quite parched leading up to it.
Tucker Carlson may be the most evil man in the world, or whatever, but he is also really good at what he does.
Lying with a straight face. Yep.
He's a polemicist, and he is superb at it
Also a liar and the rest. But talent is talent.
My reaction is more akin to kjh’s, but each to their own.
That's a failing, to my mind. It is easier to make good judgements and predictions if you can set aside your own beliefs and see things objectively
eg I can appreciate the talents of people on the left with whom I utterly disagree. Stewart Lee on form is a genius, yet I generally abhor his politics. Owen Jones can write very skilfully, even if he annoys the heck out of me, and even tho he lies
Ditto politicians. Salmond was bloody good in his pomp, yet he wanted to break up my beloved country.
Trump is also good in his own weird way. He knows how to wind his opponents up til they lose it - which benefits him (Boris has a bit of this too)
That's what makes Trump so dangerous. Not because he's useless, it's because he has weird but definite skill.
Oh, I can see they're both very good at what they do, but I think it's more emotional manipulation than polemics.
Neither is particularly coherent in actual argument.
As far as my reaction is concerned, I think if you're immune to the manipulation, then you find it more than a little repulsive to watch.
This is an immature and myopic take. Tucker Carlson is very successful at what he aims to do, and he can sometimes skewer leftwing hypocrisy quite brilliantly (and he can do it without lying). Because, let's face it, the American Left can easily be as mad and obnoxious as the Right
This is why he is feared and hated. If he was crap, no one would give a toss. Or watch him
Whereas, in fact, he has the most watched Cable News show in the USA
2) Butthurt, he alleges vote rigging and runs as an independent;
3) DeSantis quits as Governor of Florida to focus on being nominee;
4) Biden selects Whitmer, Ossoff or Buttigieg as his VP;
5) Biden wins in an absolute landslide, due to the split vote, consigning both Trump and DeSantis to the outer darkness;
6) Biden then retires for undisclosed health reasons, leaving a capable President in charge;
7) A sane Republican nominee - Haley, perhaps? - emerges in 2028 and wins easily.
4 and 6 are not essential, but they would be optimal.
I think point 4 - maybe not necessarily one of those, but a VP who is sensible, competent and doesn't drive away swing voters - is actually essential. If Biden does that he's going to win by a landslide that even the paranoid would see couldn't be overturned.
The problem is, the VP role is occupied by someone who doesn't necessarily fulfil any of those three requirements. And who was the last POTUS to jettison their VP before their re-election bid?
Ford, and before that, Roosevelt (twice, although on the first occasion the Veep had opposed him at the convention).
I have to say with all due respect to Biden I still think it was a real error by Obama not to bring forward a younger VP in 2012. Clinton would never have bothered to stand in that case and Trump would never happened.
1. Gerald Ford's Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, being the only VP in US history who was NOT elected on ticket with POTUS, but instead was appointed after Spiro Agnew resigned. So outside usual parameters of vice presidential re-nomination.
Ummmm...I think you'll find there was a second Vice President who was not elected on a ticket with POTUS. Bloke named Gerald Ford.
(Also, strictly speaking Adams, Jefferson and arguably Burr were all elected in actual opposition to POTUS, except insofar as Adams did not actually seek the Presidency against Washington.)
I agree incidentally that Harris won't be removed. And oddly from what I've seen of her I think she might actually make a rather good president, as long as she inherited the office rather than campaigned for it.
Tucker Carlson may be the most evil man in the world, or whatever, but he is also really good at what he does.
Lying with a straight face. Yep.
He's a polemicist, and he is superb at it
Also a liar and the rest. But talent is talent.
My reaction is more akin to kjh’s, but each to their own.
That's a failing, to my mind. It is easier to make good judgements and predictions if you can set aside your own beliefs and see things objectively
eg I can appreciate the talents of people on the left with whom I utterly disagree. Stewart Lee on form is a genius, yet I generally abhor his politics. Owen Jones can write very skilfully, even if he annoys the heck out of me, and even tho he lies
Ditto politicians. Salmond was bloody good in his pomp, yet he wanted to break up my beloved country.
Trump is also good in his own weird way. He knows how to wind his opponents up til they lose it - which benefits him (Boris has a bit of this too)
That's what makes Trump so dangerous. Not because he's useless, it's because he has weird but definite skill
Well that was a blooming huge assumption on your part wasn't it? I also appreciate journalists and politicians from a broad spectrum. I have nothing in common with Farage but consider him to be one of the most influential commentators and politicians, similarly with you on Salmond. You have just made a massive assumption about us. All I said was Tucker's demeanour makes me want to punch him in the face. He is smarmy and condescending as well as being dishonest and .....
Except that I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing @Nigelb
Tucker Carlson may be the most evil man in the world, or whatever, but he is also really good at what he does.
Lying with a straight face. Yep.
He's a polemicist, and he is superb at it
Also a liar and the rest. But talent is talent.
My reaction is more akin to kjh’s, but each to their own.
That's a failing, to my mind. It is easier to make good judgements and predictions if you can set aside your own beliefs and see things objectively
eg I can appreciate the talents of people on the left with whom I utterly disagree. Stewart Lee on form is a genius, yet I generally abhor his politics. Owen Jones can write very skilfully, even if he annoys the heck out of me, and even tho he lies
Ditto politicians. Salmond was bloody good in his pomp, yet he wanted to break up my beloved country.
Trump is also good in his own weird way. He knows how to wind his opponents up til they lose it - which benefits him (Boris has a bit of this too)
That's what makes Trump so dangerous. Not because he's useless, it's because he has weird but definite skill
Well that was a blooming huge assumption on your part wasn't it? I also appreciate journalists and politicians from a broad spectrum. I have nothing in common with Farage but consider him to be one of the most influential commentators and politicians, similarly with you on Salmond. You have just made a massive assumption about us. All I said was Tucker's demeanour makes me want to punch him in the face. He is smarmy and condescending as well as being dishonest and .....
Except that I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing @Nigelb
Apart from that, good point
You made the same unfounded assumption about him so yes a good point.
If you can't play the man when you're dealing with [Tucker Carlson], when can you?
Never, that's the whole point of ad hominem being a logical fallacy.
So, I should equally believe something if I'm told it by, say, Martin Lewis, David Attenborough, Tom Hanks, Boris Johnson, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin?
Not what I said, but you're clever enough to realise that.
But this isn't about an ad hominem attack. It's about whether we should trust something that comes from Tucker Carlson. You want to. I don't.
An ad hominem attack on Driver is what I'd recommend after 4 hours of this. It's the only way sometimes.
Ah, the bully is back.
"Bully!" - Theodore Roosevelt
Who was notably chosen as William McKinley's 2nd VP running mate, after the 1st died in office during first term.
Picked partly to bolster WMcK's electoral chances in pivotal New York State, but even more at urging of NY GOP leader Tom Platt aka "the Easy Boss". Who wanted to kick Teddy, then Governor of NY State, out of Albany were he was messing with the Republican power structure & status quo.
Idea was to send TR to the presumed political nullity, obscurity & oblivion of the vice presidency.
Which it did . . .until that fateful, fatal day in Buffalo . . .
That's about 7 degrees below the average for the time of year. UGH
It's nice and sunny in Crete. But we're coming home tomorrow night.
Prepare yourself. It's bitter. Like January
Tho it is meant to get warm in about a week. Finally
Ouch. The weather has been crap this year. Maybe that means we're due a good summer?
Easter was nice but apart from that it has been a windy grey and extremely rainy spring. The forecast for this Friday is 10C and driving cold rain in London. That will be a shock after Crete
However, the medium term forecast is a lot better - starting early next week. At last. Lots of sun and even warm temps. Inshallah
Spring is still in progress, but just looking at March, it was both warmer and (in the east of the UK) drier than normal. And it's wet *now*, but the first weekend of April was lovely, and last week was pretty nice.
Basically, it's been at least as nice as normal for the time of year. Properly nice weather before May is not unknown but is at best a bit sporadic.
I disagree somewhat, from my parochial perspective. March was the gloomiest for 30 years in Wiltshire. It’s not just temperature or rain that matter - the lack of sun was, to be slightly Leonesque, horrific.
2) Butthurt, he alleges vote rigging and runs as an independent;
3) DeSantis quits as Governor of Florida to focus on being nominee;
4) Biden selects Whitmer, Ossoff or Buttigieg as his VP;
5) Biden wins in an absolute landslide, due to the split vote, consigning both Trump and DeSantis to the outer darkness;
6) Biden then retires for undisclosed health reasons, leaving a capable President in charge;
7) A sane Republican nominee - Haley, perhaps? - emerges in 2028 and wins easily.
4 and 6 are not essential, but they would be optimal.
I think point 4 - maybe not necessarily one of those, but a VP who is sensible, competent and doesn't drive away swing voters - is actually essential. If Biden does that he's going to win by a landslide that even the paranoid would see couldn't be overturned.
The problem is, the VP role is occupied by someone who doesn't necessarily fulfil any of those three requirements. And who was the last POTUS to jettison their VP before their re-election bid?
Ford, and before that, Roosevelt (twice, although on the first occasion the Veep had opposed him at the convention).
I have to say with all due respect to Biden I still think it was a real error by Obama not to bring forward a younger VP in 2012. Clinton would never have bothered to stand in that case and Trump would never happened.
1. Gerald Ford's Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, being the only VP in US history who was NOT elected on ticket with POTUS, but instead was appointed after Spiro Agnew resigned. So outside usual parameters of vice presidential re-nomination.
2. Franklin Roosevelt's first Vice President, John Nance Garner, did NOT oppose FDR at 1940 Democratic National Convention, which he did not even attend. Instead, he'd already broken with Roosevelt (in private but only semi-publically) long before, over course of New Deal in general, and court-packing AND third-term in particular.
The former Roosevelt loyalist who DID oppose FDR at 1940 DNC, as declared candidate to replace him, was his former campaign manager and cabinet secretary as US Postmaster General, James Farley.
3. Last time an incumbent POTUS ended up with a new VP running mate, replacing his old, elected-in-normal-way Veep, was FDR, when Henry Wallace got dumped (with Roosevelt's connivance) for Harry Truman.
1944 being a special case, because > wide-spread concern among Roosevelt's inner circle and other top Democrats re: his deteriorating health as WWII was about to reach it's crescendo, and prospect that his (next) VP might well end up becoming his successor before their term was up…
So not entirely unadjacent to the situation the Democrats find themselves in now.
I agree with you that replacing Harris is pretty unlikely - and even if a vacancy were to arise on the SC (again unlikely), elevating Harris, just to free up the VP slot, would look very odd, and do nothing for her credibility as a justice on the court.
Keep on coloring me skeptical. HOWEVER, the VEEP > SCOTUS route is perhaps an very outside possibility.
BUT question whether KP's current status as President of Senate would help OR hurt her chances of confirmation as Justice?
PLUS fact that, if she DID move to the Court, then her place as next-in-line in presidential succession would be taken by . . . wait for it . . . Kevin McCarthy. Unless and until POTUS nominated and US Senate confirmed an appointed Veep.
If a Vice President resigns in office, then both the House and Senate must approve the replacement.
Tucker Carlson may be the most evil man in the world, or whatever, but he is also really good at what he does.
Lying with a straight face. Yep.
He's a polemicist, and he is superb at it
Also a liar and the rest. But talent is talent.
My reaction is more akin to kjh’s, but each to their own.
That's a failing, to my mind. It is easier to make good judgements and predictions if you can set aside your own beliefs and see things objectively
eg I can appreciate the talents of people on the left with whom I utterly disagree. Stewart Lee on form is a genius, yet I generally abhor his politics. Owen Jones can write very skilfully, even if he annoys the heck out of me, and even tho he lies
Ditto politicians. Salmond was bloody good in his pomp, yet he wanted to break up my beloved country.
Trump is also good in his own weird way. He knows how to wind his opponents up til they lose it - which benefits him (Boris has a bit of this too)
That's what makes Trump so dangerous. Not because he's useless, it's because he has weird but definite skill
Well that was a blooming huge assumption on your part wasn't it? I also appreciate journalists and politicians from a broad spectrum. I have nothing in common with Farage but consider him to be one of the most influential commentators and politicians, similarly with you on Salmond. You have just made a massive assumption about us. All I said was Tucker's demeanour makes me want to punch him in the face. He is smarmy and condescending as well as being dishonest and .....
Except that I wasn't addressing you, I was addressing @Nigelb
Apart from that, good point
You made the same unfounded assumption about him so yes a good point.
If I wanted to have a chat with a stupid, pompous boring old fuck, I would have addressed you directly, as is only polite. I always insist on politeness. As it is, I had no desire to talk to a rancid git like you, so I did not begin a conversation with you
I hope that is clear, and no offence need be taken by either side, and we can draw a line
That's about 7 degrees below the average for the time of year. UGH
It's nice and sunny in Crete. But we're coming home tomorrow night.
Prepare yourself. It's bitter. Like January
Tho it is meant to get warm in about a week. Finally
Ouch. The weather has been crap this year. Maybe that means we're due a good summer?
Easter was nice but apart from that it has been a windy grey and extremely rainy spring. The forecast for this Friday is 10C and driving cold rain in London. That will be a shock after Crete
However, the medium term forecast is a lot better - starting early next week. At last. Lots of sun and even warm temps. Inshallah
Spring is still in progress, but just looking at March, it was both warmer and (in the east of the UK) drier than normal. And it's wet *now*, but the first weekend of April was lovely, and last week was pretty nice.
Basically, it's been at least as nice as normal for the time of year. Properly nice weather before May is not unknown but is at best a bit sporadic.
I disagree somewhat, from my parochial perspective. March was the gloomiest for 30 years in Wiltshire. It’s not just temperature or rain that matter - the lack of sun was, to be slightly Leonesque, horrific.
Yes, I take it back - I was looking at the wrong map. Parts of the SE had less than half the average sunshine for March.
Sky reporting Sadio Mane punched Leroy Sane in the face following Bayern Munich's 3- 0 defeat to Man City last night. !!!!
Also it has been cold, wet and miserable here in Llandudno with sleet and no doubt snow in the mountains
Indeed there are webcams to verify your assumption, showing snow to the east of Bethesda, though the first webcam I found for Snowdon itself hadn't posted an image since the 4th.
2) Butthurt, he alleges vote rigging and runs as an independent;
3) DeSantis quits as Governor of Florida to focus on being nominee;
4) Biden selects Whitmer, Ossoff or Buttigieg as his VP;
5) Biden wins in an absolute landslide, due to the split vote, consigning both Trump and DeSantis to the outer darkness;
6) Biden then retires for undisclosed health reasons, leaving a capable President in charge;
7) A sane Republican nominee - Haley, perhaps? - emerges in 2028 and wins easily.
4 and 6 are not essential, but they would be optimal.
I think point 4 - maybe not necessarily one of those, but a VP who is sensible, competent and doesn't drive away swing voters - is actually essential. If Biden does that he's going to win by a landslide that even the paranoid would see couldn't be overturned.
The problem is, the VP role is occupied by someone who doesn't necessarily fulfil any of those three requirements. And who was the last POTUS to jettison their VP before their re-election bid?
Ford, and before that, Roosevelt (twice, although on the first occasion the Veep had opposed him at the convention).
I have to say with all due respect to Biden I still think it was a real error by Obama not to bring forward a younger VP in 2012. Clinton would never have bothered to stand in that case and Trump would never happened.
1. Gerald Ford's Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, being the only VP in US history who was NOT elected on ticket with POTUS, but instead was appointed after Spiro Agnew resigned. So outside usual parameters of vice presidential re-nomination.
2. Franklin Roosevelt's first Vice President, John Nance Garner, did NOT oppose FDR at 1940 Democratic National Convention, which he did not even attend. Instead, he'd already broken with Roosevelt (in private but only semi-publically) long before, over course of New Deal in general, and court-packing AND third-term in particular.
The former Roosevelt loyalist who DID oppose FDR at 1940 DNC, as declared candidate to replace him, was his former campaign manager and cabinet secretary as US Postmaster General, James Farley.
3. Last time an incumbent POTUS ended up with a new VP running mate, replacing his old, elected-in-normal-way Veep, was FDR, when Henry Wallace got dumped (with Roosevelt's connivance) for Harry Truman.
1944 being a special case, because > wide-spread concern among Roosevelt's inner circle and other top Democrats re: his deteriorating health as WWII was about to reach it's crescendo, and prospect that his (next) VP might well end up becoming his successor before their term was up…
So not entirely unadjacent to the situation the Democrats find themselves in now.
I agree with you that replacing Harris is pretty unlikely - and even if a vacancy were to arise on the SC (again unlikely), elevating Harris, just to free up the VP slot, would look very odd, and do nothing for her credibility as a justice on the court.
Keep on coloring me skeptical. HOWEVER, the VEEP > SCOTUS route is perhaps an very outside possibility.
BUT question whether KP's current status as President of Senate would help OR hurt her chances of confirmation as Justice?
PLUS fact that, if she DID move to the Court, then her place as next-in-line in presidential succession would be taken by . . . wait for it . . . Kevin McCarthy. Unless and until POTUS nominated and US Senate confirmed an appointed Veep.
If a Vice President resigns in office, then both the House and Senate must approve the replacement.
For @MarqueeMark Mr Yousless may yet surprise on the upside - which is the only way he can. Today's Telegraph, Scottish edition, has a picture of Humza talking with Simon Forrest of Nova International, a tidal energy company. Nothing else, just the picture, but there could be a confluence of interests …
That's about 7 degrees below the average for the time of year. UGH
It's nice and sunny in Crete. But we're coming home tomorrow night.
Prepare yourself. It's bitter. Like January
Tho it is meant to get warm in about a week. Finally
Ouch. The weather has been crap this year. Maybe that means we're due a good summer?
Easter was nice but apart from that it has been a windy grey and extremely rainy spring. The forecast for this Friday is 10C and driving cold rain in London. That will be a shock after Crete
However, the medium term forecast is a lot better - starting early next week. At last. Lots of sun and even warm temps. Inshallah
Spring is still in progress, but just looking at March, it was both warmer and (in the east of the UK) drier than normal. And it's wet *now*, but the first weekend of April was lovely, and last week was pretty nice.
Basically, it's been at least as nice as normal for the time of year. Properly nice weather before May is not unknown but is at best a bit sporadic.
I disagree somewhat, from my parochial perspective. March was the gloomiest for 30 years in Wiltshire. It’s not just temperature or rain that matter - the lack of sun was, to be slightly Leonesque, horrific.
March was fecking horrible, as @Cookie has now agreed. That slashing rain, for day after day. Jeeez
Anyway let us look forward. This time next week in London it is meant to be 19C with cloudless skies. YAY
That's about 7 degrees below the average for the time of year. UGH
It's nice and sunny in Crete. But we're coming home tomorrow night.
Prepare yourself. It's bitter. Like January
Tho it is meant to get warm in about a week. Finally
Ouch. The weather has been crap this year. Maybe that means we're due a good summer?
Easter was nice but apart from that it has been a windy grey and extremely rainy spring. The forecast for this Friday is 10C and driving cold rain in London. That will be a shock after Crete
However, the medium term forecast is a lot better - starting early next week. At last. Lots of sun and even warm temps. Inshallah
Spring is still in progress, but just looking at March, it was both warmer and (in the east of the UK) drier than normal. And it's wet *now*, but the first weekend of April was lovely, and last week was pretty nice.
Basically, it's been at least as nice as normal for the time of year. Properly nice weather before May is not unknown but is at best a bit sporadic.
I disagree somewhat, from my parochial perspective. March was the gloomiest for 30 years in Wiltshire. It’s not just temperature or rain that matter - the lack of sun was, to be slightly Leonesque, horrific.
March was fecking horrible, as @Cookie has now agreed. That slashing rain, for day after day. Jeeez
Anyway let us look forward. This time next week in London it is meant to be 19C with cloudless skies. YAY
Right now the weather here is such that no sensible person would step outside. Thankfully the house is still intact this time; the really strong gusts have been few and far between.
2) Butthurt, he alleges vote rigging and runs as an independent;
3) DeSantis quits as Governor of Florida to focus on being nominee;
4) Biden selects Whitmer, Ossoff or Buttigieg as his VP;
5) Biden wins in an absolute landslide, due to the split vote, consigning both Trump and DeSantis to the outer darkness;
6) Biden then retires for undisclosed health reasons, leaving a capable President in charge;
7) A sane Republican nominee - Haley, perhaps? - emerges in 2028 and wins easily.
4 and 6 are not essential, but they would be optimal.
I think point 4 - maybe not necessarily one of those, but a VP who is sensible, competent and doesn't drive away swing voters - is actually essential. If Biden does that he's going to win by a landslide that even the paranoid would see couldn't be overturned.
The problem is, the VP role is occupied by someone who doesn't necessarily fulfil any of those three requirements. And who was the last POTUS to jettison their VP before their re-election bid?
Ford, and before that, Roosevelt (twice, although on the first occasion the Veep had opposed him at the convention).
I have to say with all due respect to Biden I still think it was a real error by Obama not to bring forward a younger VP in 2012. Clinton would never have bothered to stand in that case and Trump would never happened.
1. Gerald Ford's Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, being the only VP in US history who was NOT elected on ticket with POTUS, but instead was appointed after Spiro Agnew resigned. So outside usual parameters of vice presidential re-nomination.
2. Franklin Roosevelt's first Vice President, John Nance Garner, did NOT oppose FDR at 1940 Democratic National Convention, which he did not even attend. Instead, he'd already broken with Roosevelt (in private but only semi-publically) long before, over course of New Deal in general, and court-packing AND third-term in particular.
The former Roosevelt loyalist who DID oppose FDR at 1940 DNC, as declared candidate to replace him, was his former campaign manager and cabinet secretary as US Postmaster General, James Farley.
3. Last time an incumbent POTUS ended up with a new VP running mate, replacing his old, elected-in-normal-way Veep, was FDR, when Henry Wallace got dumped (with Roosevelt's connivance) for Harry Truman.
1944 being a special case, because > wide-spread concern among Roosevelt's inner circle and other top Democrats re: his deteriorating health as WWII was about to reach it's crescendo, and prospect that his (next) VP might well end up becoming his successor before their term was up…
So not entirely unadjacent to the situation the Democrats find themselves in now.
I agree with you that replacing Harris is pretty unlikely - and even if a vacancy were to arise on the SC (again unlikely), elevating Harris, just to free up the VP slot, would look very odd, and do nothing for her credibility as a justice on the court.
Keep on coloring me skeptical. HOWEVER, the VEEP > SCOTUS route is perhaps an very outside possibility.
BUT question whether KP's current status as President of Senate would help OR hurt her chances of confirmation as Justice?
PLUS fact that, if she DID move to the Court, then her place as next-in-line in presidential succession would be taken by . . . wait for it . . . Kevin McCarthy. Unless and until POTUS nominated and US Senate confirmed an appointed Veep.
If a Vice President resigns in office, then both the House and Senate must approve the replacement.
I stand corrected - first time for everything!
Incidentally I've checked and Garner was a candidate at the 1940 Democratic Convention, although he came third.
It's not that surprising he didn't bother to attend - nor did Roosevelt.
2) Butthurt, he alleges vote rigging and runs as an independent;
3) DeSantis quits as Governor of Florida to focus on being nominee;
4) Biden selects Whitmer, Ossoff or Buttigieg as his VP;
5) Biden wins in an absolute landslide, due to the split vote, consigning both Trump and DeSantis to the outer darkness;
6) Biden then retires for undisclosed health reasons, leaving a capable President in charge;
7) A sane Republican nominee - Haley, perhaps? - emerges in 2028 and wins easily.
4 and 6 are not essential, but they would be optimal.
I think point 4 - maybe not necessarily one of those, but a VP who is sensible, competent and doesn't drive away swing voters - is actually essential. If Biden does that he's going to win by a landslide that even the paranoid would see couldn't be overturned.
The problem is, the VP role is occupied by someone who doesn't necessarily fulfil any of those three requirements. And who was the last POTUS to jettison their VP before their re-election bid?
Ford, and before that, Roosevelt (twice, although on the first occasion the Veep had opposed him at the convention).
I have to say with all due respect to Biden I still think it was a real error by Obama not to bring forward a younger VP in 2012. Clinton would never have bothered to stand in that case and Trump would never happened.
1. Gerald Ford's Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, being the only VP in US history who was NOT elected on ticket with POTUS, but instead was appointed after Spiro Agnew resigned. So outside usual parameters of vice presidential re-nomination.
Ummmm...I think you'll find there was a second Vice President who was not elected on a ticket with POTUS. Bloke named Gerald Ford.
(Also, strictly speaking Adams, Jefferson and arguably Burr were all elected in actual opposition to POTUS, except insofar as Adams did not actually seek the Presidency against Washington.)
I agree incidentally that Harris won't be removed. And oddly from what I've seen of her I think she might actually make a rather good president, as long as she inherited the office rather than campaigned for it.
Although she seems pretty second-rate Biden cant afford to alienate black or women voters unless he can find a better like-for-like which seems unlikely. She stays on the ticket.
For @MarqueeMark Mr Yousless may yet surprise on the upside - which is the only way he can. Today's Telegraph, Scottish edition, has a picture of Humza talking with Simon Forrest of Nova International, a tidal energy company. Nothing else, just the picture, but there could be a confluence of interests …
Stopped clocks...
Eh?
As in, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Yeah, I got that. Is the implication then that Yousless talks to lots of people so some of his interlocutors might inevitably be interesting?
2) Butthurt, he alleges vote rigging and runs as an independent;
3) DeSantis quits as Governor of Florida to focus on being nominee;
4) Biden selects Whitmer, Ossoff or Buttigieg as his VP;
5) Biden wins in an absolute landslide, due to the split vote, consigning both Trump and DeSantis to the outer darkness;
6) Biden then retires for undisclosed health reasons, leaving a capable President in charge;
7) A sane Republican nominee - Haley, perhaps? - emerges in 2028 and wins easily.
4 and 6 are not essential, but they would be optimal.
I think point 4 - maybe not necessarily one of those, but a VP who is sensible, competent and doesn't drive away swing voters - is actually essential. If Biden does that he's going to win by a landslide that even the paranoid would see couldn't be overturned.
The problem is, the VP role is occupied by someone who doesn't necessarily fulfil any of those three requirements. And who was the last POTUS to jettison their VP before their re-election bid?
Ford, and before that, Roosevelt (twice, although on the first occasion the Veep had opposed him at the convention).
I have to say with all due respect to Biden I still think it was a real error by Obama not to bring forward a younger VP in 2012. Clinton would never have bothered to stand in that case and Trump would never happened.
1. Gerald Ford's Vice President, Nelson Rockefeller, being the only VP in US history who was NOT elected on ticket with POTUS, but instead was appointed after Spiro Agnew resigned. So outside usual parameters of vice presidential re-nomination.
Ummmm...I think you'll find there was a second Vice President who was not elected on a ticket with POTUS. Bloke named Gerald Ford.
(Also, strictly speaking Adams, Jefferson and arguably Burr were all elected in actual opposition to POTUS, except insofar as Adams did not actually seek the Presidency against Washington.)
I agree incidentally that Harris won't be removed. And oddly from what I've seen of her I think she might actually make a rather good president, as long as she inherited the office rather than campaigned for it.
Although she seems pretty second-rate Biden cant afford to alienate black or women voters unless he can find a better like-for-like which seems unlikely. She stays on the ticket.
I don't think she's second rate. Rather, I think she's bad at presentational politics. A bit like Sunak.
Comments
“Fucker Carlson is a semi-literate primitive monkey“
True. But harsh on monkeys, though.
And this is their warning at the end:
"We strongly believe that guardrails must be put in place to prevent this
type of potential dual-use of large language models. We call for the AI
community to engage in prioritizing safety of these powerful models.
We call upon OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Meta, Deepmind, Anthropic,
and all the other major players to push the strongest possible efforts on
safety of their LLMs. We call upon the physical sciences community
to be engaged with the players involved in developing LLMs to assist them
in developing those guardrails"
They're not holding back, are they?
Oh yes absolutely, because I am so connected into the US Justice system that I am given the exact truthful details of why they release prisoners...of course I don't and, even if I did have 100% proof, you would not accept it because you do not want to - you would just shout "Trumpist conspiracy BS".
You mention that it was heavily edited but, to throw back the question at you, do you have any evidence that it was and more so than the footage that was originally shown? Looking at that footage, it does not look manipulated or tampered with and, it clearly shows what it does - namely the Shaman going around in a peaceful manner with police officers not feeling the need to restrain him.
I think you are clutching at straws here with the whole "oh look, it's Tucker Carlson!" Everyone can see the footage and it is fairly clear what it shows.
I didn't say the Carlson footage was "manipulated or tampered with". I said it was heavily edited. It was.
Don’t Sale still share with Stockport County ? EDIT - they now share with Salford Reds
That is one reason why he is so loathed - and feared. He's highly capable
Sale used to share with Stockport County, but now share with Salford rugby league (in a stadium neither of them want, but that's another story).
Sale's original ground in Sale itself is now home to a phoenix club (Sale FC - which is the original name of the club) which started when Sale turned professional, and after a couple of successful decades is now the third-highest placed rugby union club in the North West (after the club whose ashes it sprang from, and Caldy) - but it shares the ground with Swinton RLFC. So Swinton now play in Sale and Sale Sharks play in Swinton. (Actually, they don't, the AJ Bell Stadium is between Irlam and Eccles, but for the purposes of this anecdote it will have to do.)
That's about 7 degrees below the average for the time of year. UGH
Maybe a better way of framing the question is to say "Do we think the explanation of why Chansley was released early is credible in the circumstances, namely that evidence was released showing a different explanation as to what the prosecution claimed". Dubious is my answer given the explanations and what normally happens.
No, Sale haven't shared with County for years, thank god. They now share with Salford RL.
YUK
Personally I preferred it when Sale shared with Stockport (where I went occasionally) to them sharing with Salford (where I never go). I rather like Edgeley Park; the AJ Bell seems a bit soulless (to me).
😊
Yep.
2. Franklin Roosevelt's first Vice President, John Nance Garner, did NOT oppose FDR at 1940 Democratic National Convention, which he did not even attend. Instead, he'd already broken with Roosevelt (in private but only semi-publically) long before, over course of New Deal in general, and court-packing AND third-term in particular.
The former Roosevelt loyalist who DID oppose FDR at 1940 DNC, as declared candidate to replace him, was his former campaign manager and cabinet secretary as US Postmaster General, James Farley.
3. Last time an incumbent POTUS ended up with a new VP running mate, replacing his old, elected-in-normal-way Veep, was FDR, when Henry Wallace got dumped (with Roosevelt's connivance) for Harry Truman.
1944 being a special case, because
> wide-spread concern among Roosevelt's inner circle and other top Democrats re: his deteriorating health as WWII was about to reach it's crescendo, and prospect that his (next) VP might well end up becoming his successor before their term was up.
> the "Guru Letters" scandal against Henry Wallace, that Republicans had threatened to use against FDR in 1940, but were stymied when Dems countered by threatening to publicize sex scandal against Wendell Willkie; however, by 1944 WW was clearly NOT gonna be GOP nominee, whereas HW and his Guru Letters will still around.
4. Since Franklin Roosevelt, other POTUS are known to have considered doing so, most notably Nixon, who would have preferred John Connolly to Spiro Agnew. HOWEVER, actually defenestrating ones own chosen VP is an exercise that is politically FRAUGHT WITH PERIL.
5. Thus notion that Obama could have just chucked Biden over the side, and gotten a new & improved running mate, is about 99.46% nonsense. Seeing as how the known pain of such an operation - calling into question a president's "first" big decision (picking the old VP) as well as their entire administration on a basic, or at least optical, level.
6. Same applies to Biden viz-a-viz Harris today, and next year.
7. Finally, do NOT overrate the electoral impact of vice presidential nominee for ANY incumbent president, or any presidential nominee for that matter. Even in very close elections the vote-winning AND vote-loosing contribution of POTUS nominee's side-kick is highly debatable.
Which is in fact one reason for NOT second-guessing the first choice for second banana.
Also a liar and the rest. But talent is talent
Tho it is meant to get warm in about a week. Finally
Early release decisions are not meant to be made based on new evidence. If there is new evidence, an appeal can be sought. Early release decisions are very different to appeals, because early release generally requires the defendant to acknowledge their guilt.
So, you have no evidence, and you are postulating something that is antithetical to how the justice system works.
Which strangely enough, did NOT include the "smoking gun" that ended up pulling the trigger on his presidency.
I agree with you that replacing Harris is pretty unlikely - and even if a vacancy were to arise on the SC (again unlikely), elevating Harris, just to free up the VP slot, would look very odd, and do nothing for her credibility as a justice on the court.
eg I can appreciate the talents of people on the left with whom I utterly disagree. Stewart Lee on form is a genius, yet I generally abhor his politics. Owen Jones can write very skilfully, even if he annoys the heck out of me, and even tho he lies
Ditto politicians. Salmond was bloody good in his pomp, yet he wanted to break up my beloved country.
Trump is also good in his own weird way. He knows how to wind his opponents up til they lose it - which benefits him (Boris has a bit of this too)
That's what makes Trump so dangerous. Not because he's useless, it's because he has weird but definite skill
Can't he learn an instrument or something?
However, the medium term forecast is a lot better - starting early next week. At last. Lots of sun and even warm temps. Inshallah
However one slices this salami, odds on Kamala Harris being the next Hannibal Hamlin are quite slim.
Who could have foreseen that you need to be able to overcome doubters and resisters in order to do things?
Easter being a moveable feast plays tricks on us. It’s early this year and the weather has been changeable to say the least. But then April is the month for showers, hinting at an increase in westerlys and increased convection from the stronger sunshine. Give it a week or two and a decent sunny day will see temps into the high teens.
Neither is particularly coherent in actual argument.
As far as my reaction is concerned, I think if you're immune to the manipulation, then you find it more than a little repulsive to watch.
Mr Yousless may yet surprise on the upside - which is the only way he can.
Today's Telegraph, Scottish edition, has a picture of Humza talking with Simon Forrest of Nova International, a tidal energy company. Nothing else, just the picture, but there could be a confluence of interests …
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-actual-and-anomaly-maps
Spring is still in progress, but just looking at March, it was both warmer and (in the east of the UK) drier than normal.
And it's wet *now*, but the first weekend of April was lovely, and last week was pretty nice.
Basically, it's been at least as nice as normal for the time of year. Properly nice weather before May is not unknown but is at best a bit sporadic.
BUT question whether KP's current status as President of Senate would help OR hurt her chances of confirmation as Justice?
PLUS fact that, if she DID move to the Court, then her place as next-in-line in presidential succession would be taken by . . . wait for it . . . Kevin McCarthy. Unless and until POTUS nominated and US Senate confirmed an appointed Veep.
"Last month was the wettest March since 1981, figures show - and among the dullest thanks to less-than-average sunshine"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11926667/Last-month-wettest-March-1981-figures-show.html
https://www.lynnnews.co.uk/news/wettest-march-for-england-in-40-years-9306477/
We did have these people before social media, but we didn't have quite so many of them.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-electron-is-so-round-that-its-ruling-out-new-particles-20230410/
...The experiments are now so sensitive that if an electron were the size of Earth, they could detect a bump on the North Pole the height of a single sugar molecule.
The latest results are in: The electron is rounder than that...
Yes, looking at the right map, it has indeed been jolly wet. But no colder than normal.
EDIT: I'm tickled that the Mail (presumably) tells us it has been the dullest thanks to less than average sunshine. That's what dull means. Perhaps the article then goes on to speculate that it has been wet because of all the rain, or that the wind has been caused by air moving quickly from one place to another.
EDIT2: My gut reaction that it hadn't been that wet was partially due to me reflecting over the last few times I've been out and about on the firm ground and surprising lack of puddles. Perhaps the ground was still quite parched leading up to it.
Sky reporting Sadio Mane punched Leroy Sane in the face following Bayern Munich's 3- 0 defeat to Man City last night. !!!!
Also it has been cold, wet and miserable here in Llandudno with sleet and no doubt snow in the mountains
This is why he is feared and hated. If he was crap, no one would give a toss. Or watch him
Whereas, in fact, he has the most watched Cable News show in the USA
https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/these-are-the-top-rated-cable-news-shows-for-march-2023/527004/
(Also, strictly speaking Adams, Jefferson and arguably Burr were all elected in actual opposition to POTUS, except insofar as Adams did not actually seek the Presidency against Washington.)
I agree incidentally that Harris won't be removed. And oddly from what I've seen of her I think she might actually make a rather good president, as long as she inherited the office rather than campaigned for it.
Apart from that, good point
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/12/tory-peer-warsi-accuses-suella-braverman-racist-rhetoric-grooming-gangs
Who was notably chosen as William McKinley's 2nd VP running mate, after the 1st died in office during first term.
Picked partly to bolster WMcK's electoral chances in pivotal New York State, but even more at urging of NY GOP leader Tom Platt aka "the Easy Boss". Who wanted to kick Teddy, then Governor of NY State, out of Albany were he was messing with the Republican power structure & status quo.
Idea was to send TR to the presumed political nullity, obscurity & oblivion of the vice presidency.
Which it did . . .until that fateful, fatal day in Buffalo . . .
I hope that is clear, and no offence need be taken by either side, and we can draw a line
https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/webcams/snowdonia_united-kingdom_2637568
Anyway let us look forward. This time next week in London it is meant to be 19C with cloudless skies. YAY
I’m pleased to be Italy-bound early next week.
It's not that surprising he didn't bother to attend - nor did Roosevelt.