I don't much like Biden. But I like the look of any of those other candidates even less.
Do you remember 2008 (I think) - Obama against McCain? That was American doing politics well. Two decent candidates, neither of whom were mad in any obvious way. Why can't we do that any more?
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · Jul 8 The (compelling!) logic of this December 2019 article suggests that even if Biden is not going to run again, he’d say for now that he’s running. I figure early October for the big one-term reveal.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · Jul 8 The (compelling!) logic of this December 2019 article suggests that even if Biden is not going to run again, he’d say for now that he’s running. I figure early October for the big one-term reveal.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · Jul 8 The (compelling!) logic of this December 2019 article suggests that even if Biden is not going to run again, he’d say for now that he’s running. I figure early October for the big one-term reveal.
"n Orikhiv a community center, Zaporizhzhia region, Unbreakabke point shelter, where @WCKitchen has been helping with food and water,was destroyed by a Russian missile,🥴Russia keeps killing civilians….4 at least died…"
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · Jul 8 The (compelling!) logic of this December 2019 article suggests that even if Biden is not going to run again, he’d say for now that he’s running. I figure early October for the big one-term reveal.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · Jul 8 The (compelling!) logic of this December 2019 article suggests that even if Biden is not going to run again, he’d say for now that he’s running. I figure early October for the big one-term reveal.
Yes, per the betting Biden is now no more likely than Trump to be the nominee. I disagree with this. I think he's by far the more likely of the 2 to get it - but this is more that Trump is too short rather than Biden too long imo.
I suppose the real issue with Biden not running is there's still no very obvious alternative. Harris has not cemented her advantages. Buttigieg and Ossoff are still junior. Whitmer is still more or less focussed on Michigan. Newsom is a twat.
And unless Haley somehow comes through the middle in the primaries, the Democrats will be facing a Republican Party none of they, the US nor the planet can afford to have anywhere near power. Whichever the candidate is of Trump or De Santis they will be so avowedly Fascist they might as well rename themselves the Franco party.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · Jul 8 The (compelling!) logic of this December 2019 article suggests that even if Biden is not going to run again, he’d say for now that he’s running. I figure early October for the big one-term reveal.
"n Orikhiv a community center, Zaporizhzhia region, Unbreakabke point shelter, where @WCKitchen has been helping with food and water,was destroyed by a Russian missile,🥴Russia keeps killing civilians….4 at least died…"
Why is the unidentified BBC presenter sexual predator story getting so much more coverage than the one about the unidentified MP accused of rape being allowed to stand as a candidate for the Tories at the next general election? I genuinely don’t get it. Both seem equally bad and to be of equal public interest.
Tories obviously have better control of the media
Tories suspended their bloke pretty swiftly. Also, BBC presenters are more interesting than backbench Tories. I used to know which tory it was but I have forgotten.
Are BBC presenters more interesting? Lots of people here are saying they don't watch the BBC!
For those who engage in gossip etc, probably yes.
That doesn't include me. I don't watch the BBC, I couldn't care less what happened on Eastenders, and I don't try to keep up with the Kardashians. But many people do and they probably care more about such celebrity gossip than the ins and outs of politics.
The key is to have choice. Let those who watch the BBC and want its programming choose to fund it.
The pool of people who are willing to pay the TV licence are slowly dying out or deciding they don't need it. As I've said before, my lads will never pay the TV licence. Not because they hate the BBC, but because they don't consume its content and its format isn't something they can understand- sitting down, at a certain time to watch a soap or reality show every week? Why?
You need to pay the license fee if you so much as watch four seconds of Wimbledon in a year. My TV has no aerial. I do actually pay the license fee because I watch stuff on iplayer. Anyone with an aerial or who turns iplayer on for 5 or 6 seconds is required to pay the license fee. I reckon most people who don't think they need it (Not saying this is you btw !) do actually need it even if it's just happening to have ITV say (It doesn't need to be the BBC remember) on their smart TV as they turn it on to click the Netflix menu on their remote.
Also this story is clearly going to keep going for longer than it otherwise would have done because everyone loves a good game of "Guess Who" and amatuer jigsaw identification via social media. The UK's libel laws mean everyone can tell their mates who it is too but nary a nod or wink toward Presenter X on social media means you're skating on thin ice..
Having a TV aerial categorically does not require a TV Licence. Having it plugged into a setup that would receive and decode the signal doesnt require a TV Licence, but would be hard to argue if Capita knocked on your door and you let them in. I don't watch any TV in amy format that requires a TV licence, but as you say, watching anything live broadcast by a company that is recognisably a TV broadcaster requires a Licence, and many people will be watching illegally but not realising they're risking a fine.
Also the reality is Capita have no real legal powers upon a visit.
We don't have a TV licence and regularly watch Eastenders. All letters go in the bin. All Capita drones are told to fuck off.
Paying for it is completely voluntary (and a beta cuck move).
I'm genuinely interested - what happens when they come to the door? Do they try to peer in doors and windows to see a TV? I have lived without a TV in the past, and license inspectors were very reluctant to believe me. They'd have a good peer, but couldn't see the telly because it wasn't there. But if I tried that now there is a window at the front of my house through which they could look and see a telly. What happens?
They are not allowed to be peering through windows etc. They are on your property and that is snooping.
They are supposed to just knock on the door & try to engage in a discussion over if you need a licence. And if you say no, they are to go away.
But how does that work in practice in the circumstance that it is perfectly obvious you are watching the telly? Basically, what I'm fishing for is a story in which Dura_Ace - who in this story lives in a house whose front door is in the lounge and opens straight onto the street - opens the door to an inspector, who asks him if he has a TV License, to which he replies no, he doesn't have a TV, despite the fact that there is one clearly visible or audible behind him on which Eastenders is playing. There is then a brief impasse, and then the inspector goes away feeling sad.
That's how I want it to go, anyway.
Before I lived at Anarchy Acres, where I can snipe a member of the Capita Volkssturm hundred of meters before they reach the house, this situation more or less eventuated at my house in Yeovil. I was watching the darts one afternoon when An Inspector Called. It might have been BBC not Capita in those days. I told him to fuck off. Richie ''The Prince of Wales" Burnett did a 150 check out at this point and the crowd went wild so the arsehole could hear. He threatened to come back with a warrant and the cops so I said, "Fine, fucking go on then. Get them." Nothing ever happened. They are softcocks who prey on weak and vulnerable targets.
I'm amazed that people have been called on by inspectors. I haven't had a TV licence for years, and have never been called on. Admittedly I don't throw the letters in the bin, but make the declaration that I don't need one (which I don't). They are so incompetent that sometimes they need to be told two or three times, but that has been the end of it.
Making a declaration only stops the letters for a short while before they come back.
I've got a good collection of about 60 letters in my harassment file (I ignored them all), but for some reason they've stopped now.
I did have a visit at which I told them to sod off, and also a suspicious looking person asking if I have Sky TV who was intercepted in the driveway. I'm guessing it was an "inspector" going off piste and trying a bit of entrapment.
The whole business is a disgrace.
Exactly what I have found, telling the letters stop then restart a short while later and why I refuse to do anything anymore. I am now getting envelopes in bright red envelopes threatening to send an enforcement officer to visit me from guildford. Fine let them waste time and money. My answer will always be "Go away you aren't coming in to check unless you show me a warrant". Half hoping they will try and get one as it will be an even greater waste of their time and money.
The no debate thing is in my mind the most interesting, intellectually. It is shouted down by many because you must have debate about everything, right? But what if, and bear with me here, someone on PB said they supported Manchester United. But before they could officially support them everyone else on PB had to agree and confirm that they actually did support Manchester United and they couldn't until that time be an official Manchester United Supporter.
That I believe is what trans people are referring to when they say "no debate".
But that's a false analogy.
Saying you support Manchester United and saying you are a Manchester United player, are two completely different propositions.
I can say that I support women's rights, that's reasonable. I can't say that I have women's rights, because I'm not a woman. If I say I am a woman, I'm no more correct in saying so than if I say I am a Manchester United (or LFC) player.
Nothing to do with being a player (did I mention players?). It is you saying you are a Manchester United supporter and me saying you are not allowed to until @TSE, @HYUFD and @rcs1000 say you are.
Anyone is allowed to be a supporter.
Anyone can support women's rights.
Anyone can support black, trans or any other rights too.
And anyone can be a woman.
Glad we agree.
No.
I can say I support Liverpool Football Club.
I can't say that I am Liverpool Football Club.
Don't you see the difference?
You are not understanding, which is not like you.
We are back to the definition of what is a woman (the famous Ben Shapiro line in all those clips). You are able to tell me what you think a woman is and I'm sure it will involve having a womb and being able to give birth.
Just as if you'd asked in the 17th century what a witch is the @BartholomewRoberts of the time would have looked you in the eye and told you that a witch was someone who floated if you threw them into the river.
Times change. The point is that the definition of a woman might easily be changing. From someone born with a womb, say, to something else. Times and attitudes change. In fact one of the few instances where they don't change is in religion. And I know you are not the biggest fan in that department.
Times may be changing, but that is done via and a matter for debate.
You were defending the premise of "no debate" and that is never appropriate. It wasn't right for 17th century puritans to insist they knew the truth and would brook no debate, and its no better in the 21st century either.
My point is that trans people object to having gatekeepers to their own identity.
Coming back to my analogy - it holds. You identify as a Liverpool fan. There is nothing that can objectively be required for you to be a Liverpool fan other than you believe you are one. The analogy is that there need to be two doctors and a psychiatrist (or PB en masse) to confirm that you are indeed a Liverpool fan. You could rightly ask how dare other people need to be involved just for you to say you are a Liverpool fan.
That, as I said, is what the trans people refer to when they say "no debate". I think it is often misunderstood.
“Must a name mean something?” Alice asks Humpty Dumpty, only to get this answer: “When I use a word… it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
Humpty Dumpty might have added "no debate".
But you can see that this approach leads to chaos. Babel.
I don't much like Biden. But I like the look of any of those other candidates even less.
Do you remember 2008 (I think) - Obama against McCain? That was American doing politics well. Two decent candidates, neither of whom were mad in any obvious way. Why can't we do that any more?
John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.
He had a lot going for him, but it was a pretty reckless move.
Biden already IS facing a challenge. His primary opponent is hardly unknown either but the son of Democratic royalty, the late Senator Robert Kennedy.
RFK jnr is picking up support from anti NATO, pro wealth tax, anti vax types in particular, many of whom backed Bernie Sanders against Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · Jul 8 The (compelling!) logic of this December 2019 article suggests that even if Biden is not going to run again, he’d say for now that he’s running. I figure early October for the big one-term reveal.
De Santis is more anti LGBT and more anti abortion than Trump is, Pence even more so.
The former a strict Roman Catholic, the latter a strict evangelical. Trump's religion is certainly not strict and while he did appoint the judges who reversed Roe v Wade he has always personally been a social liberal from New York city (who let us remember was a Democrat in the Clinton era)
A perfect example of how not every bad person is entirely bad to their core, no matter how much we might like to think otherwise for simplicities sake.
It doesn't change my overall view of, or opposition to, Trump one bit but it does please me that he shows a small amount of humanity and understanding of people.
It does reconfirm what an utter scumbag DeSantis is though.
I don't much like Biden. But I like the look of any of those other candidates even less.
Do you remember 2008 (I think) - Obama against McCain? That was American doing politics well. Two decent candidates, neither of whom were mad in any obvious way. Why can't we do that any more?
Obama v Romney 2. However US voters rejected both Romney and McCain so Trump saw his chance and said to Republican voters, why not pick me, a right wing populist, rather than another centrist establishment loser?
Indeed 2 out of 3 of the GOP nominees before McCain, Bush 41 and Dole were also establishment centrists. Even George W Bush came from an establishment family
Biden already IS facing a challenge. His primary opponent is hardly unknown either but the son of Democratic royalty, the late Senator Robert Kennedy.
RFK jnr is picking up support from anti NATO, pro wealth tax, anti vax types in particular
That's just not a serious challenge and I'd not back RFK Jnr at any odds. The NATO and vax views you mention are just so out of line with the Democratic primary electorate that there is zero chance of him emerging as nominee.
Sure, he gets a % in the teens in polls from a mix of name recognition and some "anyone but Biden" Democrats, but there is a very hard, low ceiling on his potential support, and you'd need to be a fool to give his candidacy any credence at all.
A perfect example of how not every bad person is entirely bad to their core, no matter how much we might like to think otherwise for simplicities sake.
It doesn't change my overall view of, or opposition to, Trump one bit but it does please me that he shows a small amount of humanity and understanding of people.
It does reconfirm what an utter scumbag DeSantis is though.
The US is a strange and disturbing place if those are attack ads from an opponent
Biden already IS facing a challenge. His primary opponent is hardly unknown either but the son of Democratic royalty, the late Senator Robert Kennedy.
RFK jnr is picking up support from anti NATO, pro wealth tax, anti vax types in particular
That's just not a serious challenge and I'd not back RFK Jnr at any odds. The NATO and vax views you mention are just so out of line with the Democratic primary electorate that there is zero chance of him emerging as nominee.
Sure, he gets a % in the teens in polls from a mix of name recognition and some "anyone but Biden" Democrats, but there is a very hard, low ceiling on his potential support, and you'd need to be a fool to give his candidacy any credence at all.
Depends, he will get the hardline former Bernie Sanders supporters and the anyone but Biden Democrat voters too if nobody else joins the Democratic primary race
De Santis is more anti LGBT and more anti abortion than Trump is, Pence even more so.
The former a strict Roman Catholic, the latter a strict evangelical. Trump's religion is certainly not strict and while he did appoint the judges who reversed Roe v Wade he has always personally been a social liberal from New York city (who let us remember was a Democrat in the Clinton era)
As on many issues, I doubt Trump has any really strong personal conviction either way - like a twice-reduced consommé of Boris he will say whatever will get him the most power and money.
De Santis on the other hand looks like the sort of devout Catholic who has an elaborate sex dungeon in his basement.
Biden already IS facing a challenge. His primary opponent is hardly unknown either but the son of Democratic royalty, the late Senator Robert Kennedy.
RFK jnr is picking up support from anti NATO, pro wealth tax, anti vax types in particular
What, both of them?
James Dyson is one?
ETA: I don't know his views on NATO, but he dislikes some international organisations such as the EU, is presumably pro-[his ]wealth and, one would imagine, at best ambivalent about Vax
"n Orikhiv a community center, Zaporizhzhia region, Unbreakabke point shelter, where @WCKitchen has been helping with food and water,was destroyed by a Russian missile,🥴Russia keeps killing civilians….4 at least died…"
A perfect example of how not every bad person is entirely bad to their core, no matter how much we might like to think otherwise for simplicities sake.
It doesn't change my overall view of, or opposition to, Trump one bit but it does please me that he shows a small amount of humanity and understanding of people.
It does reconfirm what an utter scumbag DeSantis is though.
The US is a strange and disturbing place if those are attack ads from an opponent
Unsarcastically, we have a UK election next year. What's the odds that one GB party will launch an attack ad on another for being pro-trans? Either directly or via an intermediary.
A perfect example of how not every bad person is entirely bad to their core, no matter how much we might like to think otherwise for simplicities sake.
It doesn't change my overall view of, or opposition to, Trump one bit but it does please me that he shows a small amount of humanity and understanding of people.
It does reconfirm what an utter scumbag DeSantis is though.
The US is a strange and disturbing place if those are attack ads from an opponent
Unsarcastically, we have a UK election next year. What's the odds that one GB party will launch an attack ad on another for being pro-trans? Either directly or via an intermediary.
Nailed on, surely? Cons will try to paint Starmer as affirmative on trans, among other things. All part of the culture war.
E2TA: And I wasn't being sarcastic. If those leaflets are supposed to undermine Trump (and are successful) then the US is a strange and disturbing place.
Biden already IS facing a challenge. His primary opponent is hardly unknown either but the son of Democratic royalty, the late Senator Robert Kennedy.
RFK jnr is picking up support from anti NATO, pro wealth tax, anti vax types in particular
That's just not a serious challenge and I'd not back RFK Jnr at any odds. The NATO and vax views you mention are just so out of line with the Democratic primary electorate that there is zero chance of him emerging as nominee.
Sure, he gets a % in the teens in polls from a mix of name recognition and some "anyone but Biden" Democrats, but there is a very hard, low ceiling on his potential support, and you'd need to be a fool to give his candidacy any credence at all.
Depends, he will get the hardline former Bernie Sanders supporters and the anyone but Biden Democrat voters too if nobody else joins the Democratic primary race
In what possible world does that amount to a winning coalition for the primaries?
Sanders got around 25% of the vote in the 2020 primaries, is personally pretty close to Biden (despite being on a different wing of the party), and has wholeheartedly endorsed him for 2024 along with most key progressives. He also disagrees with RFK Jnr on most substantive issues, so why on Earth would you expect significant numbers of Sanders' 2020 supporters to go with RFK rather than Sanders' pick?
This is all irrelevant, fringe nonsense unless and until someone vaguely serious steps in. RFK Jnr is a million miles from that.
De Santis is more anti LGBT and more anti abortion than Trump is, Pence even more so.
The former a strict Roman Catholic, the latter a strict evangelical. Trump's religion is certainly not strict and while he did appoint the judges who reversed Roe v Wade he has always personally been a social liberal from New York city (who let us remember was a Democrat in the Clinton era)
As on many issues, I doubt Trump has any really strong personal conviction either way - like a twice-reduced consommé of Boris he will say whatever will get him the most power and money.
De Santis on the other hand looks like the sort of devout Catholic who has an elaborate sex dungeon in his basement.
It was me who tried to launch a meme of JRM having a dungeon with Special Drains so that he could hose off the remains. @Charles, formerly of this parish, got oddly offended: given his social stratum I think he may have known Mogg.
Incidentally, have our friendly pet Russian trolls appeared since the mutiny a few weeks ago? Perhaps we should put up some 'missing' posters around town...
A perfect example of how not every bad person is entirely bad to their core, no matter how much we might like to think otherwise for simplicities sake.
It doesn't change my overall view of, or opposition to, Trump one bit but it does please me that he shows a small amount of humanity and understanding of people.
It does reconfirm what an utter scumbag DeSantis is though.
The US is a strange and disturbing place if those are attack ads from an opponent
Unsarcastically, we have a UK election next year. What's the odds that one GB party will launch an attack ad on another for being pro-trans? Either directly or via an intermediary.
Nailed on, surely? Cons will try to paint Starmer as affirmative on trans, among other things. All part of the culture war.
E2TA: And I wasn't being sarcastic. If those leaflets are supposed to undermine Trump (and are successful) then the US is a strange and disturbing place.
Yes, I did suspect it was a QTWTAIY. No I wasn't accusing you of sarcasm: the "unsarcastically" was directed at me, not you. Apols if misunderstood
Biden already IS facing a challenge. His primary opponent is hardly unknown either but the son of Democratic royalty, the late Senator Robert Kennedy.
RFK jnr is picking up support from anti NATO, pro wealth tax, anti vax types in particular
That's just not a serious challenge and I'd not back RFK Jnr at any odds. The NATO and vax views you mention are just so out of line with the Democratic primary electorate that there is zero chance of him emerging as nominee.
Sure, he gets a % in the teens in polls from a mix of name recognition and some "anyone but Biden" Democrats, but there is a very hard, low ceiling on his potential support, and you'd need to be a fool to give his candidacy any credence at all.
Depends, he will get the hardline former Bernie Sanders supporters and the anyone but Biden Democrat voters too if nobody else joins the Democratic primary race
In what possible world does that amount to a winning coalition for the primaries?
Sanders got around 25% of the vote in the 2020 primaries, is personally pretty close to Biden (despite being on a different wing of the party), and has wholeheartedly endorsed him for 2024 along with most key progressives.
This is all irrelevant, fringe nonsense unless and until someone vaguely serious steps in. RFK Jnr is a million miles from that.
Tulsi Gabbard mused about running a few years back. Her betting price and true chances were similar to RFK's now. I expect she might pop up again in the future seeing as she's only 42.
Now I'm betting against Gavin Newsom in the markets but for all his faults and problems there's a chance I might be wrong about his chances. Robert Kennedy's chance is a hard zero. There might be universes where he is a 1% at most chance but that is not this one.
While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
ChatGPT is excellent at summarising / compacting prose, as you are very heavily "guiding" it via such a large input.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
Excellent, thank you.
One great trick for chatgpt i learned recently. Take an academic paper, turn it into an an image, use software to convert say equation to latex, ask chatgpt to code this in say python from latex.
Fairly sure I saw an announcement that Microsoft had some sort of Edge/Bing/ChatGPT cocktail that would summarise web pages. Possibly US or beta only though. Not sure.
The Microsoft Edge browser has incorporated Bing Chat and ChatGPT in such a way as to enable this in real time. I found out a few minutes ago. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4UD5OXSHWvM
At the weekend I was a bit bored and wrote a little script that loops over downloaded pdf's and gives you multiple summaries of each in different styles. So you can get a summary for a domain expert, an 'elevator pitch' summary, and easy-to-understand layperson summary - whatever. It was surprisingly easy to do with the OpenAI API's.
Biden already IS facing a challenge. His primary opponent is hardly unknown either but the son of Democratic royalty, the late Senator Robert Kennedy.
RFK jnr is picking up support from anti NATO, pro wealth tax, anti vax types in particular
That's just not a serious challenge and I'd not back RFK Jnr at any odds. The NATO and vax views you mention are just so out of line with the Democratic primary electorate that there is zero chance of him emerging as nominee.
Sure, he gets a % in the teens in polls from a mix of name recognition and some "anyone but Biden" Democrats, but there is a very hard, low ceiling on his potential support, and you'd need to be a fool to give his candidacy any credence at all.
Depends, he will get the hardline former Bernie Sanders supporters and the anyone but Biden Democrat voters too if nobody else joins the Democratic primary race
In what possible world does that amount to a winning coalition for the primaries?
Sanders got around 25% of the vote in the 2020 primaries, is personally pretty close to Biden (despite being on a different wing of the party), and has wholeheartedly endorsed him for 2024 along with most key progressives. He also disagrees with RFK Jnr on most substantive issues, so why on Earth would you expect significant numbers of Sanders' 2020 supporters to go with RFK rather than Sanders' pick?
This is all irrelevant, fringe nonsense unless and until someone vaguely serious steps in. RFK Jnr is a million miles from that.
Sanders 2020 supporters are much more anti vax, anti NATO and pro wealth tax than Biden 2020 supporters are whatever Sander's own position now on those.
Sanders of course got 26% in the 2020 Democratic primaries and won the New Hampshire primary and California primary and Nevada caucuses
A perfect example of how not every bad person is entirely bad to their core, no matter how much we might like to think otherwise for simplicities sake.
It doesn't change my overall view of, or opposition to, Trump one bit but it does please me that he shows a small amount of humanity and understanding of people.
It does reconfirm what an utter scumbag DeSantis is though.
I really dislike political literature that is flagrantly deceptive in nature. It shouldn't be allowed.
I've been laying Biden for a while and if he doesn't run then maybe Trump doesn't. If this holds, where is the value now for next president. DeSantis at 11?
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
RDS is the one person who would be even worse than Donald Trump, and that says something. However he's also hard to take seriously, as he's so out there and it seems so implausible he could win, but the same was once said about Donald Trump.
In a way between his exaggerated attempts to be evil, his dismissal of others like Trump for not going far enough, but also how foolish he seems, he reminds me of Doctor Evil.
You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're the margarine of evil. You're the Diet Coke of evil. Just one calorie, not evil enough.
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Harris would ensure the Republicans return to the White House, she will turn off the rustbelt swing states Biden won in 2020 as much as Hillary did in 2016
Biden already IS facing a challenge. His primary opponent is hardly unknown either but the son of Democratic royalty, the late Senator Robert Kennedy.
RFK jnr is picking up support from anti NATO, pro wealth tax, anti vax types in particular
That's just not a serious challenge and I'd not back RFK Jnr at any odds. The NATO and vax views you mention are just so out of line with the Democratic primary electorate that there is zero chance of him emerging as nominee.
Sure, he gets a % in the teens in polls from a mix of name recognition and some "anyone but Biden" Democrats, but there is a very hard, low ceiling on his potential support, and you'd need to be a fool to give his candidacy any credence at all.
Depends, he will get the hardline former Bernie Sanders supporters and the anyone but Biden Democrat voters too if nobody else joins the Democratic primary race
In what possible world does that amount to a winning coalition for the primaries?
Sanders got around 25% of the vote in the 2020 primaries, is personally pretty close to Biden (despite being on a different wing of the party), and has wholeheartedly endorsed him for 2024 along with most key progressives.
This is all irrelevant, fringe nonsense unless and until someone vaguely serious steps in. RFK Jnr is a million miles from that.
Tulsi Gabbard mused about running a few years back. Her betting price and true chances were similar to RFK's now. I expect she might pop up again in the future seeing as she's only 42.
Now I'm betting against Gavin Newsom in the markets but for all his faults and problems there's a chance I might be wrong about his chances. Robert Kennedy's chance is a hard zero. There might be universes where he is a 1% at most chance but that is not this one.
Again, totally lacking in seriousness as a contender and she'd be running for exposure and media bookings.
To take on a sitting President in any vaguely serious way in the Democratic primaries, you need views that sit within the Democratic mainstream, and a serious CV. Otherwise the ceiling of your vote is hopelessly low. Bet against all these sorts of people if and when they emerge from the woodwork.
Even if Biden became incapacitated during or after the primaries, these people would have no chance.
While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
ChatGPT is excellent at summarising / compacting prose, as you are very heavily "guiding" it via such a large input.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
Excellent, thank you.
One great trick for chatgpt i learned recently. Take an academic paper, turn it into an an image, use software to convert say equation to latex, ask chatgpt to code this in say python from latex.
Fairly sure I saw an announcement that Microsoft had some sort of Edge/Bing/ChatGPT cocktail that would summarise web pages. Possibly US or beta only though. Not sure.
The Microsoft Edge browser has incorporated Bing Chat and ChatGPT in such a way as to enable this in real time. I found out a few minutes ago. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4UD5OXSHWvM
At the weekend I was a bit bored and wrote a little script that loops over downloaded pdf's and gives you multiple summaries of each in different styles. So you can get a summary for a domain expert, an 'elevator pitch' summary, and easy-to-understand layperson summary - whatever. It was surprisingly easy to do with the OpenAI API's.
I'd ask you for the script, but I suspect I'm a few generations off comprehension. If I ever find myself in a position to use it, can I ask you for a copy?
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Both Trump's 'injecting disinfectant' remarks and his 'bright light into the body' remarks were actually fairly sound ideas as potential experimental treatments for Covid.
De Santis is more anti LGBT and more anti abortion than Trump is, Pence even more so.
The former a strict Roman Catholic, the latter a strict evangelical. Trump's religion is certainly not strict and while he did appoint the judges who reversed Roe v Wade he has always personally been a social liberal from New York city (who let us remember was a Democrat in the Clinton era)
But after Trump surely any GOP candidate will be regarded as moderate?
At the moment I'm thinking:
Trump vs Biden - Biden wins Any other GOP v Biden - GOP wins Any other GOP v Any other DEM - GOP wins
RDS is the one person who would be even worse than Donald Trump, and that says something. However he's also hard to take seriously, as he's so out there and it seems so implausible he could win, but the same was once said about Donald Trump.
In a way between his exaggerated attempts to be evil, his dismissal of others like Trump for not going far enough, but also how foolish he seems, he reminds me of Doctor Evil.
You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're the margarine of evil. You're the Diet Coke of evil. Just one calorie, not evil enough.
De Santis is more anti LGBT and more anti abortion than Trump is, Pence even more so.
The former a strict Roman Catholic, the latter a strict evangelical. Trump's religion is certainly not strict and while he did appoint the judges who reversed Roe v Wade he has always personally been a social liberal from New York city (who let us remember was a Democrat in the Clinton era)
But after Trump surely any GOP candidate will be regarded as moderate?
At the moment I'm thinking:
Trump vs Biden - Biden wins Any other GOP v Biden - GOP wins Any other GOP v Any other DEM - GOP wins
Trump would be a relative moderate on social issues certainly compared to De Santis and Pence, even if they would be more respectful of the law and Pence in particular more anti Putin than Trump
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Harris would ensure the Republicans return to the White House, she will turn off the rustbelt swing states Biden won in 2020 as much as Hillary did in 2016
Trump could easily f*** his campaign up, especially given Harris is a woman and a person of colour.
Biden already IS facing a challenge. His primary opponent is hardly unknown either but the son of Democratic royalty, the late Senator Robert Kennedy.
RFK jnr is picking up support from anti NATO, pro wealth tax, anti vax types in particular
That's just not a serious challenge and I'd not back RFK Jnr at any odds. The NATO and vax views you mention are just so out of line with the Democratic primary electorate that there is zero chance of him emerging as nominee.
Sure, he gets a % in the teens in polls from a mix of name recognition and some "anyone but Biden" Democrats, but there is a very hard, low ceiling on his potential support, and you'd need to be a fool to give his candidacy any credence at all.
Depends, he will get the hardline former Bernie Sanders supporters and the anyone but Biden Democrat voters too if nobody else joins the Democratic primary race
In what possible world does that amount to a winning coalition for the primaries?
Sanders got around 25% of the vote in the 2020 primaries, is personally pretty close to Biden (despite being on a different wing of the party), and has wholeheartedly endorsed him for 2024 along with most key progressives.
This is all irrelevant, fringe nonsense unless and until someone vaguely serious steps in. RFK Jnr is a million miles from that.
Tulsi Gabbard mused about running a few years back. Her betting price and true chances were similar to RFK's now. I expect she might pop up again in the future seeing as she's only 42.
Now I'm betting against Gavin Newsom in the markets but for all his faults and problems there's a chance I might be wrong about his chances. Robert Kennedy's chance is a hard zero. There might be universes where he is a 1% at most chance but that is not this one.
Again, totally lacking in seriousness as a contender and she'd be running for exposure and media bookings.
To take on a sitting President in any vaguely serious way in the Democratic primaries, you need views that sit within the Democratic mainstream, and a serious CV. Otherwise the ceiling of your vote is hopelessly low. Bet against all these sorts of people if and when they emerge from the woodwork.
Even if Biden became incapacitated during or after the primaries, these people would have no chance.
Who do you reckon would be in with a chance? Harris?
While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
ChatGPT is excellent at summarising / compacting prose, as you are very heavily "guiding" it via such a large input.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
Excellent, thank you.
One great trick for chatgpt i learned recently. Take an academic paper, turn it into an an image, use software to convert say equation to latex, ask chatgpt to code this in say python from latex.
Fairly sure I saw an announcement that Microsoft had some sort of Edge/Bing/ChatGPT cocktail that would summarise web pages. Possibly US or beta only though. Not sure.
The Microsoft Edge browser has incorporated Bing Chat and ChatGPT in such a way as to enable this in real time. I found out a few minutes ago. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4UD5OXSHWvM
At the weekend I was a bit bored and wrote a little script that loops over downloaded pdf's and gives you multiple summaries of each in different styles. So you can get a summary for a domain expert, an 'elevator pitch' summary, and easy-to-understand layperson summary - whatever. It was surprisingly easy to do with the OpenAI API's.
I'd ask you for the script, but I suspect I'm a few generations off comprehension. If I ever find myself in a position to use it, can I ask you for a copy?
Sure - it's a very simple script - honestly. Can I pop you a message with a link to it?
De Santis is more anti LGBT and more anti abortion than Trump is, Pence even more so.
The former a strict Roman Catholic, the latter a strict evangelical. Trump's religion is certainly not strict and while he did appoint the judges who reversed Roe v Wade he has always personally been a social liberal from New York city (who let us remember was a Democrat in the Clinton era)
Re abortion, DeSantis is not particularly anti. He stopped the Florida legislature enacting a strict ban, instead limiting abortions to 15/16 weeks and earlier.
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Harris would ensure the Republicans return to the White House, she will turn off the rustbelt swing states Biden won in 2020 as much as Hillary did in 2016
"Ensure" is a ludicrously strong word in these circumstances. Clinton lost in the rustbelt, but by less than 1% in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
I'm not saying Harris would be a strong candidate, and recognise the weakness you mention. But Clinton was a candidate who could and perhaps should have won with a couple of different calls regarding here campaign. Democrats weren't doomed simply by picking her - she narrowly lost a close election that could have gone the other way.
I've been laying Biden for a while and if he doesn't run then maybe Trump doesn't. If this holds, where is the value now for next president. DeSantis at 11?
I think that's correct. He is running and plausible.
The big negative for Desantis is he is currently being monstered by Trump in the polls. But if Trump were to not run for w/e reason he instantly goes to about 5-2 to win it all I think.
De Santis is more anti LGBT and more anti abortion than Trump is, Pence even more so.
The former a strict Roman Catholic, the latter a strict evangelical. Trump's religion is certainly not strict and while he did appoint the judges who reversed Roe v Wade he has always personally been a social liberal from New York city (who let us remember was a Democrat in the Clinton era)
You write as if Trump has some kind of principles or care for consistency across the decades or even for admitting he said or did this or that.
De Santis is more anti LGBT and more anti abortion than Trump is, Pence even more so.
The former a strict Roman Catholic, the latter a strict evangelical. Trump's religion is certainly not strict and while he did appoint the judges who reversed Roe v Wade he has always personally been a social liberal from New York city (who let us remember was a Democrat in the Clinton era)
Re abortion, DeSantis is not particularly anti. He stopped the Florida legislature enacting a strict ban, instead limiting abortions to 15/16 weeks and earlier.
Pence though wants a federal abortion ban which Trump considers a vote loser. DeSantis as mentioned is more hardline anti LGBT rights than Trump as per the Iowa anti Trump's pro LGBT actions ad earlier
Who do you reckon would be in with a chance? Harris?
If Biden dropped out before or very early in the primaries, it's an interesting race as a lot of people would go for it and Harris doesn't have great approval ratings and is not a shoo-in.
If he died on the eve of the convention (say), it's very hard to see past someone who would, in those circumstances, actually be the new President, and indeed with some public sympathy/rallying round that you get in that situation.
That's not to say she's an ideal candidate - she isn't. But she's not Spiro Agnew or Dan Quayle or someone like that - she's a serious figure with no significant scandal that we know of, and is entirely qualified for the role. I don't think Gavin Newsom or whoever saying at that point "ah but her approval rating isn't very good" is going to make much difference at that point.
SirNorfolkPassmore said: "John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.
He had a lot going for him, but it was a pretty reckless move."
Perhaps 1 percent of Americans would agree with me, but I think Noemie Emery had it right in 2008, when she said that both Obama and Palin had promise -- but that neither was ready to be president. (Sadly, the unfair treatment Palin received from much of our media seems to have stunted her growth. And Obama seems to have learned little from his failures.)
While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
ChatGPT is excellent at summarising / compacting prose, as you are very heavily "guiding" it via such a large input.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
Excellent, thank you.
One great trick for chatgpt i learned recently. Take an academic paper, turn it into an an image, use software to convert say equation to latex, ask chatgpt to code this in say python from latex.
Fairly sure I saw an announcement that Microsoft had some sort of Edge/Bing/ChatGPT cocktail that would summarise web pages. Possibly US or beta only though. Not sure.
The Microsoft Edge browser has incorporated Bing Chat and ChatGPT in such a way as to enable this in real time. I found out a few minutes ago. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4UD5OXSHWvM
At the weekend I was a bit bored and wrote a little script that loops over downloaded pdf's and gives you multiple summaries of each in different styles. So you can get a summary for a domain expert, an 'elevator pitch' summary, and easy-to-understand layperson summary - whatever. It was surprisingly easy to do with the OpenAI API's.
I'd ask you for the script, but I suspect I'm a few generations off comprehension. If I ever find myself in a position to use it, can I ask you for a copy?
Sure - it's a very simple script - honestly. Can I pop you a message with a link to it?
While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
ChatGPT is excellent at summarising / compacting prose, as you are very heavily "guiding" it via such a large input.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
Excellent, thank you.
One great trick for chatgpt i learned recently. Take an academic paper, turn it into an an image, use software to convert say equation to latex, ask chatgpt to code this in say python from latex.
Fairly sure I saw an announcement that Microsoft had some sort of Edge/Bing/ChatGPT cocktail that would summarise web pages. Possibly US or beta only though. Not sure.
The Microsoft Edge browser has incorporated Bing Chat and ChatGPT in such a way as to enable this in real time. I found out a few minutes ago. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4UD5OXSHWvM
At the weekend I was a bit bored and wrote a little script that loops over downloaded pdf's and gives you multiple summaries of each in different styles. So you can get a summary for a domain expert, an 'elevator pitch' summary, and easy-to-understand layperson summary - whatever. It was surprisingly easy to do with the OpenAI API's.
I'd ask you for the script, but I suspect I'm a few generations off comprehension. If I ever find myself in a position to use it, can I ask you for a copy?
Sure - it's a very simple script - honestly. Can I pop you a message with a link to it?
SirNorfolkPassmore said: "John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.
He had a lot going for him, but it was a pretty reckless move."
Perhaps 1 percent of Americans would agree with me, but I think Noemie Emery had it right in 2008, when she said that both Obama and Palin had promise -- but that neither was ready to be president. (Sadly, the unfair treatment Palin received from much of our media seems to have stunted her growth. And Obama seems to have learned little from his failures.)
I think you can argue Obama got it too early. But putting him in the same category as Palin, and saying the media coverage "stunted her growth" is crackers.
She was 48 years old when she ran for VP. She'd been a governor for six years. She was just a really bad candidate who had a poor grasp of the national issues and couldn't hack it, and McCain f***ed up the due diligence. Even after the campaign, she could've salvaged her reputation through a swift return to office, but choose to mess about on the media and a messy personal life, before botching her comeback last year, losing to a Democrat in a deep red state. Ultimately, she was and is a bit of a fool, rather than someone who simply should've been left to marinate for a few more years.
While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
ChatGPT is excellent at summarising / compacting prose, as you are very heavily "guiding" it via such a large input.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
Excellent, thank you.
One great trick for chatgpt i learned recently. Take an academic paper, turn it into an an image, use software to convert say equation to latex, ask chatgpt to code this in say python from latex.
Fairly sure I saw an announcement that Microsoft had some sort of Edge/Bing/ChatGPT cocktail that would summarise web pages. Possibly US or beta only though. Not sure.
The Microsoft Edge browser has incorporated Bing Chat and ChatGPT in such a way as to enable this in real time. I found out a few minutes ago. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4UD5OXSHWvM
At the weekend I was a bit bored and wrote a little script that loops over downloaded pdf's and gives you multiple summaries of each in different styles. So you can get a summary for a domain expert, an 'elevator pitch' summary, and easy-to-understand layperson summary - whatever. It was surprisingly easy to do with the OpenAI API's.
I'd ask you for the script, but I suspect I'm a few generations off comprehension. If I ever find myself in a position to use it, can I ask you for a copy?
Sure - it's a very simple script - honestly. Can I pop you a message with a link to it?
Could you send to me as well please?
Sent you a message with the link - hope the script works ok!
Incidentally, have our friendly pet Russian trolls appeared since the mutiny a few weeks ago? Perhaps we should put up some 'missing' posters around town...
Maybe our Saturday morning visitors, weren’t from Moscow, but were wankers wagners.
While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
ChatGPT is excellent at summarising / compacting prose, as you are very heavily "guiding" it via such a large input.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
Excellent, thank you.
One great trick for chatgpt i learned recently. Take an academic paper, turn it into an an image, use software to convert say equation to latex, ask chatgpt to code this in say python from latex.
Fairly sure I saw an announcement that Microsoft had some sort of Edge/Bing/ChatGPT cocktail that would summarise web pages. Possibly US or beta only though. Not sure.
The Microsoft Edge browser has incorporated Bing Chat and ChatGPT in such a way as to enable this in real time. I found out a few minutes ago. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4UD5OXSHWvM
At the weekend I was a bit bored and wrote a little script that loops over downloaded pdf's and gives you multiple summaries of each in different styles. So you can get a summary for a domain expert, an 'elevator pitch' summary, and easy-to-understand layperson summary - whatever. It was surprisingly easy to do with the OpenAI API's.
I'd ask you for the script, but I suspect I'm a few generations off comprehension. If I ever find myself in a position to use it, can I ask you for a copy?
Sure - it's a very simple script - honestly. Can I pop you a message with a link to it?
Why not stick it up on github or similar? I could imagine it being of more general interest than just a couple of PBers
It's on github - just didn't want to link to my profile.
While I'm here, may I ask the PB brains trust a question. I've just spent the best part of a week filleting down a 10K word article to about 3K, and I suspect it'll need further reduction. Is there a fancy dan AI or ChatGPT thing that can do it? Presumably I'll have to remove the equations and graphs first
ChatGPT is excellent at summarising / compacting prose, as you are very heavily "guiding" it via such a large input.
If its written in something like latex, just throw the latex code at it, it will sort it.
Excellent, thank you.
One great trick for chatgpt i learned recently. Take an academic paper, turn it into an an image, use software to convert say equation to latex, ask chatgpt to code this in say python from latex.
Fairly sure I saw an announcement that Microsoft had some sort of Edge/Bing/ChatGPT cocktail that would summarise web pages. Possibly US or beta only though. Not sure.
The Microsoft Edge browser has incorporated Bing Chat and ChatGPT in such a way as to enable this in real time. I found out a few minutes ago. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4UD5OXSHWvM
At the weekend I was a bit bored and wrote a little script that loops over downloaded pdf's and gives you multiple summaries of each in different styles. So you can get a summary for a domain expert, an 'elevator pitch' summary, and easy-to-understand layperson summary - whatever. It was surprisingly easy to do with the OpenAI API's.
I'd ask you for the script, but I suspect I'm a few generations off comprehension. If I ever find myself in a position to use it, can I ask you for a copy?
Sure - it's a very simple script - honestly. Can I pop you a message with a link to it?
Could you send to me as well please?
Sent you a message with the link - hope the script works ok!
Good news! The trailer for Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" is out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAZWXUkrjPc Bad news! It looks washed out, over color-corrected, the script appears clunky and Phoenix underplays him, which is [checks notes] bad. I have fond memories of Rod Steiger overacting in "Waterloo", and Phoenix is just wrong
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Both Trump's 'injecting disinfectant' remarks and his 'bright light into the body' remarks were actually fairly sound ideas as potential experimental treatments for Covid.
Disinfectant kills living cells indiscriminately [edit] by definition - basically like drinking bleach or arsenic or lye or ... Sure, it will kill covid infestation stone dead as well. Shame about the host.
My daughter is in States and has just opened a Revolut account I think for her pay to go into (I don't understand it). Not much money as she is at a summer camp.
De Santis is more anti LGBT and more anti abortion than Trump is, Pence even more so.
The former a strict Roman Catholic, the latter a strict evangelical. Trump's religion is certainly not strict and while he did appoint the judges who reversed Roe v Wade he has always personally been a social liberal from New York city (who let us remember was a Democrat in the Clinton era)
But after Trump surely any GOP candidate will be regarded as moderate?
At the moment I'm thinking:
Trump vs Biden - Biden wins Any other GOP v Biden - GOP wins Any other GOP v Any other DEM - GOP wins
Trump would be a relative moderate on social issues certainly compared to De Santis and Pence, even if they would be more respectful of the law and Pence in particular more anti Putin than Trump
Yes, if Trump wasn't clearly malign and generally horrible, I can see him being a reasonably moderate President compared with his rivals. It's not, on the whole, his policies that cause repulsion, it's him. By contrast, De Santis seems a reasonably agreeable chap who is unfortunately a hardline extremist.
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Both Trump's 'injecting disinfectant' remarks and his 'bright light into the body' remarks were actually fairly sound ideas as potential experimental treatments for Covid.
Experimental? Yes, certainly. Effecacious? No.
I'm pretty sure the Presidency is not the place for reckons.
To think I've seen people argue that all the criticism the Duke and Duchess of Sussex receive is nothing to do with racism.
Two British White supremacist have been found guilty of terrorism offences.
Christopher Gibbons and Tyrone Patten-Walsh called for Prince Archie to be put down and said Prince Harry a 'race traitor' who should be jailed because Meghan is mixed-race.
BREAKING: Rishi Sunak will not take part in the debate and potential vote on the Privilege Committee report suggesting seven of his MPs may have been in contempt of Parliament.
His spokesman declines to tell me what the PM's view is on the report or if he has even yet read it.
My daughter is in States and has just opened a Revolut account I think for her pay to go into (I don't understand it). Not much money as she is at a summer camp.
BREAKING: Rishi Sunak will not take part in the debate and potential vote on the Privilege Committee report suggesting seven of his MPs may have been in contempt of Parliament.
His spokesman declines to tell me what the PM's view is on the report or if he has even yet read it.
Former editor of the Sun Kelvin MacKenzie has been speaking to our radio colleagues over at Radio 4 this afternoon. He says the identity of the BBC presenter would've been revealed by the newspaper in years gone by.
"In the good old days there would have been absolutely no doubt that the name would have been there, and any pictures associated with the story would have been published," MacKenzie tells the World at One programme.
But he says the media landscape has "changed dramatically" and "the advertiser is undeniably more important than the reader or the increased sales".
"The tabloids are prepared to strike but they aren't prepared to wound - for reasons more commercial than legal," MacKenzie says.
BREAKING: Rishi Sunak will not take part in the debate and potential vote on the Privilege Committee report suggesting seven of his MPs may have been in contempt of Parliament.
His spokesman declines to tell me what the PM's view is on the report or if he has even yet read it.
The report is four and a half pages long plus an even shorter annex with details of the tweets, emails etc. Sunak also required Goldsmith to apologise over its contents (which he didn't and resigned).
So this obfuscation over whether the PM has read it is ludicrous - if he hasn't, he's got no excuse for it really.
De Santis is more anti LGBT and more anti abortion than Trump is, Pence even more so.
The former a strict Roman Catholic, the latter a strict evangelical. Trump's religion is certainly not strict and while he did appoint the judges who reversed Roe v Wade he has always personally been a social liberal from New York city (who let us remember was a Democrat in the Clinton era)
But after Trump surely any GOP candidate will be regarded as moderate?
At the moment I'm thinking:
Trump vs Biden - Biden wins Any other GOP v Biden - GOP wins Any other GOP v Any other DEM - GOP wins
Trump is a moderate, by Republican standards. So is Marjorie Taylor Greene.
The hardliners are people like Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz.
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Both Trump's 'injecting disinfectant' remarks and his 'bright light into the body' remarks were actually fairly sound ideas as potential experimental treatments for Covid.
Disinfectant kills living cells indiscriminately [edit] by definition - basically like drinking bleach or arsenic or lye or ... Sure, it will kill covid infestation stone dead as well. Shame about the host.
Not a helpful remark from the POTUS.
Leaving aside the fact that the above is the principle by which almost all medical interventions operate - being strong enough to kill or reverse the disease but not strong enough to kill the the patient (think chemotherapy), as Peck correctly recalled, Trump talked about *in-ject-ing* a disinfectant. An injection can only be given by a medical doctor - at the very least such a treatment could not be tried by someone eyeing up a bleach bottle. Those people (like Nicola Sturgeon) who accused him of saying 'ingesting' for their own mischievous reasons, were the ones who were actually putting the public in danger by falsely attributing that suggestion to him.
My daughter is in States and has just opened a Revolut account I think for her pay to go into (I don't understand it). Not much money as she is at a summer camp.
BREAKING: Rishi Sunak will not take part in the debate and potential vote on the Privilege Committee report suggesting seven of his MPs may have been in contempt of Parliament.
His spokesman declines to tell me what the PM's view is on the report or if he has even yet read it.
The report is four and a half pages long plus an even shorter annex with details of the tweets, emails etc. Sunak also required Goldsmith to apologise over its contents (which he didn't and resigned).
So this obfuscation over whether the PM has read it is ludicrous - if he hasn't, he's got no excuse for it really.
He should stand up and make clear it is bullshit. Politicians have a right to state their opposition to reports and actions by committees. Trying to sanction them for doing so is a massive infrignement of freedom of speech and sets an extremely denagerous precedent.
And I say that as someone who fully suported the committee over the Johnson report. I don't agree with those who campaigned against it but I certainly don't support the efforts to suppress their views.
Good news! The trailer for Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" is out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAZWXUkrjPc Bad news! It looks washed out, over color-corrected, the script appears clunky and Phoenix underplays him, which is [checks notes] bad. I have fond memories of Rod Steiger overacting in "Waterloo", and Phoenix is just wrong
On a happier note, the trailer for Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon is out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIH1FHykKRY . It looks a shit-ton better than Scott's and if we're lucky we may even get a good performance from "need to pay the alimony" era DeNiro.
A lot of classic directors are entering their last film period, where we are all praying they don't fuck it up. Hitchcock didn't do it well (was it Frenzy?), Spielberg didn't either (Fabelmans), Scott may misfire on Napoleon and I am really hoping for a good Megalopolis from Coppola, but hopefully - hopefully - end Scorsese will be good Scorsese.
The Case That Could Be Fox’s Next Dominion Tucker Carlson, before he was sidelined by Fox, repeatedly endorsed a conspiracy theory about an Arizona man, who may sue for defamation. Legal experts say it would be a viable case. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/10/business/media/fox-news-defamation-ray-epps-tucker-carlson.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare ...Of all the distortions and paranoia that Tucker Carlson promoted on his since-canceled Fox News program, one looms large: a conspiracy theory that an Arizona man working as a covert government agent incited the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol to sabotage and discredit former President Donald J. Trump and his political movement.
What’s known about the man — a two-time Trump voter named Ray Epps — is that he took part in demonstrations in Washington that day and the night before. He was captured on camera urging a crowd to march with him and enter the Capitol. But at other points, he pleads for calm once it becomes clear the situation is turning violent. He can be seen moving past a line of Capitol Police at the barricades, but never actually goes inside the Capitol.
Federal prosecutors have not charged Mr. Epps with a crime, focusing instead on the more than 1,000 other demonstrators who acted violently or were trespassing in the Capitol. The Justice Department’s sprawling investigation into the attack remains open, however, and Mr. Epps could still be indicted.
Yet for more than 18 months, Mr. Carlson insisted that the lack of charges against Mr. Epps could mean only one thing: that he was being protected because he was a secret government agent. There was “no rational explanation,” Mr. Carlson told his audience, why this “mysterious figure” who “helped stage-manage the insurrection” had not been charged.
He repeated Mr. Epps’s name over and over — in nearly 20 episodes — imprinting it on the minds of his viewers.
Mr. Epps was in the Marine Corps but said in his deposition before the Jan. 6 committee that he had otherwise never worked on behalf of any government agency. He and his wife, Robyn, have fled Arizona and are in hiding in another state, having sold their wedding venue business and ranch after receiving death threats from people who appeared to believe the conspiracy theory. And his legal jeopardy is far from over given that prosecutors are still unsealing new cases in connection with Jan. 6.
Now lawyers representing Mr. Epps and his wife are proceeding with plans to sue Fox News for defamation...
Good news! The trailer for Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" is out! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAZWXUkrjPc Bad news! It looks washed out, over color-corrected, the script appears clunky and Phoenix underplays him, which is [checks notes] bad. I have fond memories of Rod Steiger overacting in "Waterloo", and Phoenix is just wrong
On a happier note, the trailer for Scorsese's Killers of the Flower Moon is out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIH1FHykKRY . It looks a shit-ton better than Scott's and if we're lucky we may even get a good performance from "need to pay the alimony" era DeNiro.
A lot of classic directors are entering their last film period, where we are all praying they don't fuck it up. Hitchcock didn't do it well (was it Frenzy?), Spielberg didn't either (Fabelmans), Scott may misfire on Napoleon and I am really hoping for a good Megalopolis from Coppola, but hopefully - hopefully - end Scorsese will be good Scorsese.
Is Fableman's Spielbrg's last film?
The good news of course is that there are plenty of younger Directors already well established to replace the old guard. Wes Anderson and Denis Villeneuve being two examples.
My daughter is in States and has just opened a Revolut account I think for her pay to go into (I don't understand it). Not much money as she is at a summer camp.
SirNorfolkPassmore - Here's a correction for you: "Palin was elected to the Wasilla city council in 1992 and became mayor of Wasilla in 1996. In 2003, after an unsuccessful run for lieutenant governor, she was appointed chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, responsible for overseeing the state's oil and gas fields for safety and efficiency. In 2006, at age 42, she became the youngest person and the first woman to be elected governor of Alaska.[1] Immense legal fees incurred by both Palin and the state of Alaska from her fights against ethics investigations led to her resignation in 2009." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
So she had been governor a little less than two years when McCain chose her, not six years, as you said. Of course she still had significantly more executive experience than Obama had, when he became president.
A perfect example of how not every bad person is entirely bad to their core, no matter how much we might like to think otherwise for simplicities sake.
It doesn't change my overall view of, or opposition to, Trump one bit but it does please me that he shows a small amount of humanity and understanding of people.
It does reconfirm what an utter scumbag DeSantis is though.
I really dislike political literature that is flagrantly deceptive in nature. It shouldn't be allowed.
Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
BREAKING: Rishi Sunak will not take part in the debate and potential vote on the Privilege Committee report suggesting seven of his MPs may have been in contempt of Parliament.
His spokesman declines to tell me what the PM's view is on the report or if he has even yet read it.
The report is four and a half pages long plus an even shorter annex with details of the tweets, emails etc. Sunak also required Goldsmith to apologise over its contents (which he didn't and resigned).
So this obfuscation over whether the PM has read it is ludicrous - if he hasn't, he's got no excuse for it really.
He should stand up and make clear it is bullshit. Politicians have a right to state their opposition to reports and actions by committees. Trying to sanction them for doing so is a massive infrignement of freedom of speech and sets an extremely denagerous precedent.
And I say that as someone who fully suported the committee over the Johnson report. I don't agree with those who campaigned against it but I certainly don't support the efforts to suppress their views.
Don't think I agree (it was a live case and MPs were effectively the jury), and something similar goes for Sunak here; "I've read the report but want to hear what MPs have to say first" would be sort of legit. Except for two things.
One is that Rishi is developing Macavity tendencies, and if he never tries to deal with awkwardness he will never get any good at it.
The other (bigger) one is that Rishi knows enough about what went on to demand that Zac Goldsmith apologise or resign. So the "I/He hasn't read it" line doesn't really hold.
Remember when the plan was to make the PM's Spokesman's breifings public and televised? What were they thinking?
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Both Trump's 'injecting disinfectant' remarks and his 'bright light into the body' remarks were actually fairly sound ideas as potential experimental treatments for Covid.
Disinfectant kills living cells indiscriminately [edit] by definition - basically like drinking bleach or arsenic or lye or ... Sure, it will kill covid infestation stone dead as well. Shame about the host.
Not a helpful remark from the POTUS.
Leaving aside the fact that the above is the principle by which almost all medical interventions operate - being strong enough to kill or reverse the disease but not strong enough to kill the the patient (think chemotherapy), as Peck correctly recalled, Trump talked about *in-ject-ing* a disinfectant. An injection can only be given by a medical doctor - at the very least such a treatment could not be tried by someone eyeing up a bleach bottle. Those people (like Nicola Sturgeon) who accused him of saying 'ingesting' for their own mischievous reasons, were the ones who were actually putting the public in danger by falsely attributing that suggestion to him.
You'rse confounding specific drugs and vaccines with unspecific disinfectants which kill everything. And Trump said "disinfectant", as you yourself remark.
And it doesn't matter if folk misheard inject as ingest. Whether one drinks or injects an unspecific disinfectant such as battery acid or bleach, the result is just the same.
I have a bottle of isopropyl alcohol in the shed which is great for disinfecting covid at 70%, as well as all its other uses such as wiping down greasy surfaces. Would I ingest it? No. Would I inject it? No.
I believe that both Biden and Trump will be the nominees, unless ill-health intervenes.
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate. Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
Maybe it'll be Trump vs RFK.
Where will Fauci run to if it is - Mexico or Canada? Trump went on about injecting disinfectant, but what RFKJr says about Big Pharma is of a very different quality. Personally I don't see him winning even the Dem nomination. Is it even certain the K family will back him for it? All the bets will be off (metaphorically) if it's Trump vs RFK, because anything could happen and I'll be carefully watching the price of "neither of the above".
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
Both Trump's 'injecting disinfectant' remarks and his 'bright light into the body' remarks were actually fairly sound ideas as potential experimental treatments for Covid.
Disinfectant kills living cells indiscriminately [edit] by definition - basically like drinking bleach or arsenic or lye or ... Sure, it will kill covid infestation stone dead as well. Shame about the host.
Not a helpful remark from the POTUS.
Leaving aside the fact that the above is the principle by which almost all medical interventions operate - being strong enough to kill or reverse the disease but not strong enough to kill the the patient (think chemotherapy), as Peck correctly recalled, Trump talked about *in-ject-ing* a disinfectant. An injection can only be given by a medical doctor - at the very least such a treatment could not be tried by someone eyeing up a bleach bottle. Those people (like Nicola Sturgeon) who accused him of saying 'ingesting' for their own mischievous reasons, were the ones who were actually putting the public in danger by falsely attributing that suggestion to him.
You'rse confounding specific drugs and vaccines with unspecific disinfectants which kill everything. And Trump said "disinfectant", as you yourself remark.
And it doesn't matter if folk misheard inject as ingest. Whether one drinks or injects an unspecific disinfectant such as battery acid or bleach, the result is just the same.
I have a bottle of isopropyl alcohol in the shed which is great for disinfecting covid at 70%, as well as all its other uses such as wiping down greasy surfaces. Would I ingest it? No. Would I inject it? No.
Having ingested a big swallow of it by accident at a party I can confirm it probably wont kill you if its only a swallow.
...An injection can only be given by a medical doctor...
Type I diabetes injections are (or at least before that fancy-dan thing) self-administered. And blood thinners.
But (in the case of diabetes) administered via sealed cartridges - you can't fill your diabetes pen with bleach and have at it. You can however drink bleach if you're desperate and in a compromised state of mind, which is why it was unconscionable for someone like Sturgeon to put those words in Trump's mouth for the sake of appearing holier-than-thou on TV.
Comments
Do you remember 2008 (I think) - Obama against McCain? That was American doing politics well. Two decent candidates, neither of whom were mad in any obvious way. Why can't we do that any more?
Harmless medical conditions I *don't* want to get: green hairy tongue:
https://arstechnica.com/health/2023/07/rare-case-of-green-hairy-tongue-is-pure-nightmare-fuel/
And for those with strong stomachs, a picture (sfw, not sf stomachs):
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/nejmicm2300789_f1.jpeg
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
Jul 8
The (compelling!) logic of this December 2019 article suggests that even if Biden is not going to run again, he’d say for now that he’s running. I figure early October for the big one-term reveal.
https://twitter.com/BillKristol
Don't think I have seen him suggest anyone else other than Biden who could do that, but I may have missed it.
https://twitter.com/chefjoseandres/status/1678365261223673859
Apparently a 'guided' missile. Which means that it's effing deliberate - if anyone had any doubts.
And unless Haley somehow comes through the middle in the primaries, the Democrats will be facing a Republican Party none of they, the US nor the planet can afford to have anywhere near power. Whichever the candidate is of Trump or De Santis they will be so avowedly Fascist they might as well rename themselves the Franco party.
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1678260001675284480
Humpty Dumpty might have added "no debate".
But you can see that this approach leads to chaos. Babel.
He had a lot going for him, but it was a pretty reckless move.
RFK jnr is picking up support from anti NATO, pro wealth tax, anti vax types in particular, many of whom backed Bernie Sanders against Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020
The former a strict Roman Catholic, the latter a strict evangelical. Trump's religion is certainly not strict and while he did appoint the judges who reversed Roe v Wade he has always personally been a social liberal from New York city (who let us remember was a Democrat in the Clinton era)
However I suspect there will be a spoiler independent candidate.
Could be RFK, or Liz Cheney or Mitt Romney as a "Real Republican".
It doesn't change my overall view of, or opposition to, Trump one bit but it does please me that he shows a small amount of humanity and understanding of people.
It does reconfirm what an utter scumbag DeSantis is though.
Indeed 2 out of 3 of the GOP nominees before McCain, Bush 41 and Dole were also establishment centrists. Even George W Bush came from an establishment family
Sure, he gets a % in the teens in polls from a mix of name recognition and some "anyone but Biden" Democrats, but there is a very hard, low ceiling on his potential support, and you'd need to be a fool to give his candidacy any credence at all.
De Santis on the other hand looks like the sort of devout Catholic who has an elaborate sex dungeon in his basement.
ETA: I don't know his views on NATO, but he dislikes some international organisations such as the EU, is presumably pro-[his ]wealth and, one would imagine, at best ambivalent about Vax
Romney I could see running as an independent if it is Trump v Biden again
ETA: And he's vulnerable on it, from both sides, potentially https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-brief-history-of-sir-keir-starmers-flip-flopping-on-trans-rights/
E2TA: And I wasn't being sarcastic. If those leaflets are supposed to undermine Trump (and are successful) then the US is a strange and disturbing place.
Sanders got around 25% of the vote in the 2020 primaries, is personally pretty close to Biden (despite being on a different wing of the party), and has wholeheartedly endorsed him for 2024 along with most key progressives. He also disagrees with RFK Jnr on most substantive issues, so why on Earth would you expect significant numbers of Sanders' 2020 supporters to go with RFK rather than Sanders' pick?
This is all irrelevant, fringe nonsense unless and until someone vaguely serious steps in. RFK Jnr is a million miles from that.
Now I'm betting against Gavin Newsom in the markets but for all his faults and problems there's a chance I might be wrong about his chances.
Robert Kennedy's chance is a hard zero. There might be universes where he is a 1% at most chance but that is not this one.
Sanders of course got 26% in the 2020 Democratic primaries and won the New Hampshire primary and California primary and Nevada caucuses
Hunch says no re-election for Biden. Glad I bought Harris at 48.
In a way between his exaggerated attempts to be evil, his dismissal of others like Trump for not going far enough, but also how foolish he seems, he reminds me of Doctor Evil.
You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're the margarine of evil. You're the Diet Coke of evil. Just one calorie, not evil enough.
To take on a sitting President in any vaguely serious way in the Democratic primaries, you need views that sit within the Democratic mainstream, and a serious CV. Otherwise the ceiling of your vote is hopelessly low. Bet against all these sorts of people if and when they emerge from the woodwork.
Even if Biden became incapacitated during or after the primaries, these people would have no chance.
At the moment I'm thinking:
Trump vs Biden - Biden wins
Any other GOP v Biden - GOP wins
Any other GOP v Any other DEM - GOP wins
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12030389/Kemi-Badenoch-wins-backing-hardline-presidential-hopeful-Ron-DeSantis-war-woke.html
I'm not saying Harris would be a strong candidate, and recognise the weakness you mention. But Clinton was a candidate who could and perhaps should have won with a couple of different calls regarding here campaign. Democrats weren't doomed simply by picking her - she narrowly lost a close election that could have gone the other way.
The big negative for Desantis is he is currently being monstered by Trump in the polls. But if Trump were to not run for w/e reason he instantly goes to about 5-2 to win it all I think.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/19/donald-trump-federal-abortion-ban-stance
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jun/26/mike-pence-reiterates-support-abortion-restrictions
If he died on the eve of the convention (say), it's very hard to see past someone who would, in those circumstances, actually be the new President, and indeed with some public sympathy/rallying round that you get in that situation.
That's not to say she's an ideal candidate - she isn't. But she's not Spiro Agnew or Dan Quayle or someone like that - she's a serious figure with no significant scandal that we know of, and is entirely qualified for the role. I don't think Gavin Newsom or whoever saying at that point "ah but her approval rating isn't very good" is going to make much difference at that point.
He had a lot going for him, but it was a pretty reckless move."
Perhaps 1 percent of Americans would agree with me, but I think Noemie Emery had it right in 2008, when she said that both Obama and Palin had promise -- but that neither was ready to be president. (Sadly, the unfair treatment Palin received from much of our media seems to have stunted her growth. And Obama seems to have learned little from his failures.)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/noemie-emery
She was 48 years old when she ran for VP. She'd been a governor for six years. She was just a really bad candidate who had a poor grasp of the national issues and couldn't hack it, and McCain f***ed up the due diligence. Even after the campaign, she could've salvaged her reputation through a swift return to office, but choose to mess about on the media and a messy personal life, before botching her comeback last year, losing to a Democrat in a deep red state. Ultimately, she was and is a bit of a fool, rather than someone who simply should've been left to marinate for a few more years.
Bad news! It looks washed out, over color-corrected, the script appears clunky and Phoenix underplays him, which is [checks notes] bad. I have fond memories of Rod Steiger overacting in "Waterloo", and Phoenix is just wrong
Anyhoo, compare and contrast for y'sels:
Not a helpful remark from the POTUS.
I noticed a negative post on here earlier about Revolut @TheScreamingEagles
How worried should I be?
Effecacious? No.
I'm pretty sure the Presidency is not the place for reckons.
Two British White supremacist have been found guilty of terrorism offences.
Christopher Gibbons and Tyrone Patten-Walsh called for Prince Archie to be put down and said Prince Harry a 'race traitor' who should be jailed because Meghan is mixed-race.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/neo-nazis-who-called-archie-30416753
BREAKING: Rishi Sunak will not take part in the debate and potential vote on the Privilege Committee report suggesting seven of his MPs may have been in contempt of Parliament.
His spokesman declines to tell me what the PM's view is on the report or if he has even yet read it.
https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1678367059913179137
I wouldn't touch them with somebody else's ten foot barge pole.
...
"It was three pages."
TBF, this one might be slightly longer.
"In the good old days there would have been absolutely no doubt that the name would have been there, and any pictures associated with the story would have been published," MacKenzie tells the World at One programme.
But he says the media landscape has "changed dramatically" and "the advertiser is undeniably more important than the reader or the increased sales".
"The tabloids are prepared to strike but they aren't prepared to wound - for reasons more commercial than legal," MacKenzie says.
So this obfuscation over whether the PM has read it is ludicrous - if he hasn't, he's got no excuse for it really.
“By the end of this year, it will be over 1000,” senior company representatives said.
https://twitter.com/MalyasovDylan/status/1678381193119539209
Perun 20230709: How Wars End - Negotiations, Coercion & War Termination Theory
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnvJzup8i-c
The hardliners are people like Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz.
However it is not a bank and should not be relied upon to hold any significant funds.
And I say that as someone who fully suported the committee over the Johnson report. I don't agree with those who campaigned against it but I certainly don't support the efforts to suppress their views.
A lot of classic directors are entering their last film period, where we are all praying they don't fuck it up. Hitchcock didn't do it well (was it Frenzy?), Spielberg didn't either (Fabelmans), Scott may misfire on Napoleon and I am really hoping for a good Megalopolis from Coppola, but hopefully - hopefully - end Scorsese will be good Scorsese.
Tucker Carlson, before he was sidelined by Fox, repeatedly endorsed a conspiracy theory about an Arizona man, who may sue for defamation. Legal experts say it would be a viable case.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/10/business/media/fox-news-defamation-ray-epps-tucker-carlson.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
...Of all the distortions and paranoia that Tucker Carlson promoted on his since-canceled Fox News program, one looms large: a conspiracy theory that an Arizona man working as a covert government agent incited the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol to sabotage and discredit former President Donald J. Trump and his political movement.
What’s known about the man — a two-time Trump voter named Ray Epps — is that he took part in demonstrations in Washington that day and the night before. He was captured on camera urging a crowd to march with him and enter the Capitol. But at other points, he pleads for calm once it becomes clear the situation is turning violent. He can be seen moving past a line of Capitol Police at the barricades, but never actually goes inside the Capitol.
Federal prosecutors have not charged Mr. Epps with a crime, focusing instead on the more than 1,000 other demonstrators who acted violently or were trespassing in the Capitol. The Justice Department’s sprawling investigation into the attack remains open, however, and Mr. Epps could still be indicted.
Yet for more than 18 months, Mr. Carlson insisted that the lack of charges against Mr. Epps could mean only one thing: that he was being protected because he was a secret government agent. There was “no rational explanation,” Mr. Carlson told his audience, why this “mysterious figure” who “helped stage-manage the insurrection” had not been charged.
He repeated Mr. Epps’s name over and over — in nearly 20 episodes — imprinting it on the minds of his viewers.
Mr. Epps was in the Marine Corps but said in his deposition before the Jan. 6 committee that he had otherwise never worked on behalf of any government agency. He and his wife, Robyn, have fled Arizona and are in hiding in another state, having sold their wedding venue business and ranch after receiving death threats from people who appeared to believe the conspiracy theory. And his legal jeopardy is far from over given that prosecutors are still unsealing new cases in connection with Jan. 6.
Now lawyers representing Mr. Epps and his wife are proceeding with plans to sue Fox News for defamation...
The good news of course is that there are plenty of younger Directors already well established to replace the old guard. Wes Anderson and Denis Villeneuve being two examples.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin
So she had been governor a little less than two years when McCain chose her, not six years, as you said. Of course she still had significantly more executive experience than Obama had, when he became president.
Has it ever struck you, Dick, that ecclesiastical language has a most sinister sound? I knew some of the words, though not their meaning, but I knew that my audience would be just as ignorant. So I had a magnificent peroration. 'Will you men of Kilclavers,' I asked, 'endure to see a chasuble set up in your market-place? Will you have your daughters sold into simony? Will you have celibacy practised in the public streets?' Gad, I had them all on their feet bellowing 'Never!'"
One is that Rishi is developing Macavity tendencies, and if he never tries to deal with awkwardness he will never get any good at it.
The other (bigger) one is that Rishi knows enough about what went on to demand that Zac Goldsmith apologise or resign. So the "I/He hasn't read it" line doesn't really hold.
Remember when the plan was to make the PM's Spokesman's breifings public and televised? What were they thinking?
And it doesn't matter if folk misheard inject as ingest. Whether one drinks or injects an unspecific disinfectant such as battery acid or bleach, the result is just the same.
I have a bottle of isopropyl alcohol in the shed which is great for disinfecting covid at 70%, as well as all its other uses such as wiping down greasy surfaces. Would I ingest it? No. Would I inject it? No.