One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
Greene King is the place to go, just download their Greene King Sport app, play their football prediction game and you get 20% off drinks. In my local that equates to £3.20 for a pint of Fosters/San Miquel/Abbott. Only Wetherspoons is cheaper but Greene King have Sky/BT and Amazon on numerous TVs.
If Greene King is the answer, I really don't want to know the question. Horrible stuff.
Presumably the question is “Where’s the cheapest pub, in an expensive town, that is showing the match?”
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.
States' rights.
LOL but true.
But you are forgetting the Supreme Court. And if Trump is elected, he will have hardcore MAGA running all the agencies.
There are Federal laws protecting Federal law enforcement from detention by State officials (IIRC) - see Civil Rights era with local cops vs FBI.
If Trump is in charge of the executive branch, he orders that he be made a Federal agent. The the Supreme Court "discovers" that Feds have a super secret double probation kind of "immunity" to state laws.
Even the current Supreme Court would probably (Alito and Thomas excepted) baulk at that. But yes, if the GOP are determined to overthrow the Constitution, and get a majority in both Houses and the presidency, they could probably do so.
But I doubt a majority the US electorate would get behind that prospectus.
Maybe - but Trump would try and turn it into Feds vs State. And rule one of the Federal government is that it is supreme.
I think it would get very, very nasty. I'm talking physical standoff between State and Federal government personnel.
Really? I thought it was the other way around in the US. That is, the Federal government has powers delegated to it by the states.
For those interested, an update on the trial of Lucy Letby (which of course is still subject to all the rules of sub judice), the jury went out on July 10th, a majority direction was given on 8th August, and the jury continues deliberating today.
Lots of counts, so possibly majority verdicts in only some.
Possibly, or there simply isn't enough evidence to find her guilty.
I know little about the case other than what I have read from the trial reports. However the shadow of other cases hangs over this - where statistics plays a large part rather than direct evidence. See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
Yes, it's a tricky one. Feel for the people who got selected to be on the jury for this.
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
Weirdly, wine is now sometimes the cheaper option - in terms of alcohol per £ (and sometimes tastier too, as wine options have improved)
I had this experience in a pub in Borough the other day. Wine better value
For those interested, an update on the trial of Lucy Letby (which of course is still subject to all the rules of sub judice), the jury went out on July 10th, a majority direction was given on 8th August, and the jury continues deliberating today.
Lots of counts, so possibly majority verdicts in only some.
Possibly, or there simply isn't enough evidence to find her guilty.
I know little about the case other than what I have read from the trial reports. However the shadow of other cases hangs over this - where statistics plays a large part rather than direct evidence. See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
Yes, it's a tricky one. Feel for the people who got selected to be on the jury for this.
It’s been going for nearly ten months already. An horrific case for the jury, given the nature of the offences on trial.
This is fantastic. I hope Trump wins the nomination and the White House. The US needs to go through another revolution and what better way than having a lunatic like Trump in charge to actually galvanise the less insane members of the population into action is there?
Be careful what you wish for. Lets think about what a Trump win does: Serious threat to NATO Serious risk of war in the middle east Emboldened Putin taking back ex-Soviet states Dismantling of democratic institutions and processes in America Potential for widespread boycotts and embargoes in a global trade war America as a pariah state
America's allies are already considering what a Trump win would mean for their alliances and its not good.
Project Fear is back I see,
We had all the above in 2016 and none of it happened.
Biden is doing a lot of the above anyway and nobody seems that worried.
Are you a Trump supporter or an apologist? Or maybe just a contrarian?
Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.
The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.
The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
The Trump has affair has exposed the huge flaw in the US system whee the loser gets to stay in office for over two months after the election, with full executive powers. As much as I dislike the UK system, the fact the losing government is kicked out the following morning is a definite plus.
Didn't happen in 2010. Brown clung on.
Please - you're a lawyer. The Prime Minister remains so until a replacement is called to the palace. The senior civil servants *including* from the palace instructed Brown that his duty was to remain in office.
So if he "clung on" as part of a conspiracy to prevent Cameron from becoming PM, HMQ was an accessory...
Sigh.
This is a sterile debate, largely because everyone forgets the actual position. For many, including O'Donnell who revealed himself as maladroit in political theory as he was in economics, it may be convenient.
The position is a Prime Minister remains the Prime Minister as long as s/he commands the confidence of the Commons. When they no longer do so, they must resign.
In 1924 and February 1974 it was not clear that that was the case, so the Government tried to hang on, for around 48 hours in Heath's case, until the King's Speech in Baldwin's. In 1929 it was clear and the Government resigned at once.
In 2010 it was also clear that Brown had lost the confidence of the House and there was no realistic way to regain it. He was however wrongly advised that that wasn't the necessary criteria and he should hang on until or unless an alternative government was available.
In doing so, incidentally, he went against his own - quite correct - statement in 1992 that a government which loses control of the House should resign at once.
Ironically, this did far more damage to the Labour Party and indeed the Liberal Democrats than resigning and letting a minority Tory government take power for twelve months would have done.
I think O'Donnell does privately realise he called it wrong, as the Cabinet Manual he wrote makes some rather different statements on what should happen next if this scenario occurs again - to the extent, also ironically, that Labour thought in the event of the Tories not getting an overall majority again they could use it to force the government out without a vote in the Commons. But he'll never admit it in public.
The so-called "rainbow coalition" was never on in hindsight. Not enough votes to be stable, not nearly enough. So yes, a change of government was the most likely option. But it wasn't the *only* option, and you can't say that Brown had lost the confidence of the House.
Lets play the scenario. The LD / Tory negotiation breaks down. The Tories are less generous with ructions from the back benches and grandees at what Cameron was asking them for, the LD parliamentary party refuses to play and there is No Deal.
Meanwhile Labour are offering the moon on a stick - including PR and Brown's exit that autumn. Clegg is forced into a confidence and supply arrangement to steamroller through as much as possible before the inevitable autumn election.
I've read several books covering all sides on the aftermath of 2010 - all of this was very possible, and Cameron believed that unless he got Clegg and the LDs to back him then he would never be PM.
So the only people convinced Brown was "squatting" were a few newspaper editors and Mr Hindsight. At the time, staying in office was constitutional. As soon as Brown realised that the Con/LD deal was *likely* to go through (though not yet confirmed) he forced Clegg's hand and resigned as PM.
None of that was possible. All other considerations and assumptions aside, Labour were far more split on most of those matters than the Tories.
Labour were split. Senior voices saying "we lost". But had Clegg given them a path to keep the Tories out even the doubters would have found it hard to abstain or vote against.
You say "none of that was possible". But *Cameron* thought it was possible and has said so openly.
Then they torpedoed themselves in the talks with the Lib Dems.
This is fantastic. I hope Trump wins the nomination and the White House. The US needs to go through another revolution and what better way than having a lunatic like Trump in charge to actually galvanise the less insane members of the population into action is there?
Be careful what you wish for. Lets think about what a Trump win does: Serious threat to NATO Serious risk of war in the middle east Emboldened Putin taking back ex-Soviet states Dismantling of democratic institutions and processes in America Potential for widespread boycotts and embargoes in a global trade war America as a pariah state
America's allies are already considering what a Trump win would mean for their alliances and its not good.
Project Fear is back I see,
We had all the above in 2016 and none of it happened.
Biden is doing a lot of the above anyway and nobody seems that worried.
How we laugh when we look back at 2016. Those Project Fear idiots warned the upcoming decade would be pretty sh1t, and yet here we are basking in the sunlit uplands.
Ah still suffering from Brexit doldrums even though we are talking about the US. Im sure youll get over it some time.
For those interested, an update on the trial of Lucy Letby (which of course is still subject to all the rules of sub judice), the jury went out on July 10th, a majority direction was given on 8th August, and the jury continues deliberating today.
Lots of counts, so possibly majority verdicts in only some.
Possibly, or there simply isn't enough evidence to find her guilty.
I know little about the case other than what I have read from the trial reports. However the shadow of other cases hangs over this - where statistics plays a large part rather than direct evidence. See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
Yes, it's a tricky one. Feel for the people who got selected to be on the jury for this.
It’s been going for nearly ten months already. An horrific case for the jury, given the nature of the offences on trial.
Yes - the MAGA types will harass anyone near this trial for years. And by harass, I don't mean rude words.
What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.
States' rights.
LOL but true.
But you are forgetting the Supreme Court. And if Trump is elected, he will have hardcore MAGA running all the agencies.
There are Federal laws protecting Federal law enforcement from detention by State officials (IIRC) - see Civil Rights era with local cops vs FBI.
If Trump is in charge of the executive branch, he orders that he be made a Federal agent. The the Supreme Court "discovers" that Feds have a super secret double probation kind of "immunity" to state laws.
Even the current Supreme Court would probably (Alito and Thomas excepted) baulk at that. But yes, if the GOP are determined to overthrow the Constitution, and get a majority in both Houses and the presidency, they could probably do so.
But I doubt a majority the US electorate would get behind that prospectus.
Maybe - but Trump would try and turn it into Feds vs State. And rule one of the Federal government is that it is supreme.
I think it would get very, very nasty. I'm talking physical standoff between State and Federal government personnel.
That is completely at odds with the conservatism of GOP-appointed Supreme Court justices, who emphasise state rights.
I think you grossly overestimate the personal loyalty to Trump of Supreme Court judges. Kavanagh, Barrett and Gorsuch have their jobs for life (and Roberts, of course, who long predates them). They don't give a stuff about helping Donald out, and indeed would almost certainly prefer a different conservative President.
The GOP/Democrat split in the Supreme Court may be 6/3, but the broadly sane/absolutely crackers split remains 7/2.
For those interested, an update on the trial of Lucy Letby (which of course is still subject to all the rules of sub judice), the jury went out on July 10th, a majority direction was given on 8th August, and the jury continues deliberating today.
Lots of counts, so possibly majority verdicts in only some.
Possibly, or there simply isn't enough evidence to find her guilty.
I know little about the case other than what I have read from the trial reports. However the shadow of other cases hangs over this - where statistics plays a large part rather than direct evidence. See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
Yes, it's a tricky one. Feel for the people who got selected to be on the jury for this.
It’s been going for nearly ten months already. An horrific case for the jury, given the nature of the offences on trial.
Yes - the MAGA types will harass anyone near this trial for years. And by harass, I don't mean rude words.
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.
States' rights.
LOL but true.
But you are forgetting the Supreme Court. And if Trump is elected, he will have hardcore MAGA running all the agencies.
There are Federal laws protecting Federal law enforcement from detention by State officials (IIRC) - see Civil Rights era with local cops vs FBI.
If Trump is in charge of the executive branch, he orders that he be made a Federal agent. The the Supreme Court "discovers" that Feds have a super secret double probation kind of "immunity" to state laws.
Even the current Supreme Court would probably (Alito and Thomas excepted) baulk at that. But yes, if the GOP are determined to overthrow the Constitution, and get a majority in both Houses and the presidency, they could probably do so.
But I doubt a majority the US electorate would get behind that prospectus.
Maybe - but Trump would try and turn it into Feds vs State. And rule one of the Federal government is that it is supreme.
I think it would get very, very nasty. I'm talking physical standoff between State and Federal government personnel.
Really? I thought it was the other way around in the US. That is, the Federal government has powers delegated to it by the states.
The Constitution which grants the federal government power was ratified by the states. That's not delegation, for one thing because the power the federal government has in respect of the states were not possessed by the states in respect of each other.
Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.
The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.
The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
You seem to be assuming that Trump will be stopped by being in jail. I am not so sure.
If Trump is in Georgia jail and elected President I find it hard to conceive of him remaining in jail. The pressure on the parole board to pardon him would be immense and besides, if he wanted to walk out with the power of the Federal government behind him, would the State prison guards really stand in his way?
It would, of course, be extremely damaging to the rule of law in the US, but by that point a huge number of voters would have said they didn't value the rule of law, and it only survives as long as it is supported.
If Trump could not even beat Biden when he was not a convicted criminal he certainly isn't going to do so if he is a convicted criminal.
Trump has a chance of beating Biden if he is not convicted, if he is convicted Biden will almost certainly be re elected. Independents would overwhelmingly vote for Biden if Trump were convicted and jailed and still able to be GOP nominee. While Trump supporters would stay home if he was replaced as GOP nominee by Pence or DeSantis
This is fantastic. I hope Trump wins the nomination and the White House. The US needs to go through another revolution and what better way than having a lunatic like Trump in charge to actually galvanise the less insane members of the population into action is there?
Be careful what you wish for. Lets think about what a Trump win does: Serious threat to NATO Serious risk of war in the middle east Emboldened Putin taking back ex-Soviet states Dismantling of democratic institutions and processes in America Potential for widespread boycotts and embargoes in a global trade war America as a pariah state
America's allies are already considering what a Trump win would mean for their alliances and its not good.
Project Fear is back I see,
We had all the above in 2016 and none of it happened.
Biden is doing a lot of the above anyway and nobody seems that worried.
Are you a Trump supporter or an apologist? Or maybe just a contrarian?
Ive said quite clearly I dont want to see a Biden Trump run off. Theyre both shit candidates, 7 out of 10 Americans dont want them as the choice, and both make US divisions deeper which is bad for all of us.
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
Weirdly, wine is now sometimes the cheaper option - in terms of alcohol per £ (and sometimes tastier too, as wine options have improved)
I had this experience in a pub in Borough the other day. Wine better value
Most pubs charging £6:80 for a pint are charging around £22 for a basic, drinkable white wine. Which is still multiple of the off license value.
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
Greene King is the place to go, just download their Greene King Sport app, play their football prediction game and you get 20% off drinks. In my local that equates to £3.20 for a pint of Fosters/San Miquel/Abbott. Only Wetherspoons is cheaper but Greene King have Sky/BT and Amazon on numerous TVs.
If Greene King is the answer, I really don't want to know the question. Horrible stuff.
I much prefer independent breweries, but Greene King does actually have some very good real ales alongside the nats piss it serves for those that don't know any better.
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
Alanbrooke isn't a loon. He's just trolling again.
This is fantastic. I hope Trump wins the nomination and the White House. The US needs to go through another revolution and what better way than having a lunatic like Trump in charge to actually galvanise the less insane members of the population into action is there?
Be careful what you wish for. Lets think about what a Trump win does: Serious threat to NATO Serious risk of war in the middle east Emboldened Putin taking back ex-Soviet states Dismantling of democratic institutions and processes in America Potential for widespread boycotts and embargoes in a global trade war America as a pariah state
America's allies are already considering what a Trump win would mean for their alliances and its not good.
Leaving aside the quite valid Marxist accelerationist perspective a Trump win would be top bantz and more entertaining than that time Johnson got Covid.
Biden is just a straightforward hegemonist and slave to capital so when you get down to it, he's not that different from DJT just infinitely more boring.
For those interested, an update on the trial of Lucy Letby (which of course is still subject to all the rules of sub judice), the jury went out on July 10th, a majority direction was given on 8th August, and the jury continues deliberating today.
Lots of counts, so possibly majority verdicts in only some.
Possibly, or there simply isn't enough evidence to find her guilty.
I know little about the case other than what I have read from the trial reports. However the shadow of other cases hangs over this - where statistics plays a large part rather than direct evidence. See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
Yes, it's a tricky one. Feel for the people who got selected to be on the jury for this.
It’s been going for nearly ten months already. An horrific case for the jury, given the nature of the offences on trial.
People are sometimes cynical about juries, but this one is clearly taking its responsibility seriously. More than a month deliberating after such a long trial already.
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.
In the federal cases, there are multiple possibilities and SCOTUS would have to decide:
a) The president can't pardon themselves because you can't be the judge in your own case b) The president can pardon themselves, because the constitution gives them pretty broad powers and it doesn't specifically say you can't c) The president can't pardon themselves, but they can declare themselves unable to fulfill their presidenting duties, hand over to the VP, get pardoned, then resume presidenting again
I am assuming though that the rules could be changed back again - and the Republicans control both Houses in the Georgia State Assembly.
Incorrect. It would require a state constitutional amendment, which has to be ratified by a plebiscite.
Fair enough. But who gets to decide to set up the amendment - the Governor or the Assembly?
This is fantastic. I hope Trump wins the nomination and the White House. The US needs to go through another revolution and what better way than having a lunatic like Trump in charge to actually galvanise the less insane members of the population into action is there?
Be careful what you wish for. Lets think about what a Trump win does: Serious threat to NATO Serious risk of war in the middle east Emboldened Putin taking back ex-Soviet states Dismantling of democratic institutions and processes in America Potential for widespread boycotts and embargoes in a global trade war America as a pariah state
America's allies are already considering what a Trump win would mean for their alliances and its not good.
Not really. There are plenty of reasons not to like Trump, in particular his staggering incompetence, corruption, unpredictability and narcissism and his utter lack of understanding of politics, economics, diplomacy, or anything else that a government does. But:
- Trump was the first President for decades who DIDN'T go to war in the Middle East, and actually negotiated the end to one. I don't agree with his Afghan deal, but he did it. There are currently four major wars raging there, none of which have anything to do with Trump. - Putin was emboldened to take back ex-Soviet states under Bush, Obama and Biden, not Trump - American institutions are too robust for him to dismantle, as we're currently seeing - the trade war is happening anyway under Biden and his idiotic industrial policies - America is too important to the free world to be a pariah
I don't want a second Trump term, but we must be realistic about what will actually happen.
This is fantastic. I hope Trump wins the nomination and the White House. The US needs to go through another revolution and what better way than having a lunatic like Trump in charge to actually galvanise the less insane members of the population into action is there?
Be careful what you wish for. Lets think about what a Trump win does: Serious threat to NATO Serious risk of war in the middle east Emboldened Putin taking back ex-Soviet states Dismantling of democratic institutions and processes in America Potential for widespread boycotts and embargoes in a global trade war America as a pariah state
America's allies are already considering what a Trump win would mean for their alliances and its not good.
Leaving aside the quite valid Marxist accelerationist perspective a Trump win would be top bantz and more entertaining than that time Johnson got Covid.
Biden is just a straightforward hegemonist and slave to capital so when you get down to it, he's not that different from DJT just infinitely more boring.
From the perspective of this seeking the overthrow, violent or otherwise, of western democracy, Trump is naturally preferable.
And there's no one more capitalist than a car trader.
This is fantastic. I hope Trump wins the nomination and the White House. The US needs to go through another revolution and what better way than having a lunatic like Trump in charge to actually galvanise the less insane members of the population into action is there?
Be careful what you wish for. Lets think about what a Trump win does: Serious threat to NATO Serious risk of war in the middle east Emboldened Putin taking back ex-Soviet states Dismantling of democratic institutions and processes in America Potential for widespread boycotts and embargoes in a global trade war America as a pariah state
America's allies are already considering what a Trump win would mean for their alliances and its not good.
Project Fear is back I see,
We had all the above in 2016 and none of it happened.
Biden is doing a lot of the above anyway and nobody seems that worried.
Are you a Trump supporter or an apologist? Or maybe just a contrarian?
Ive said quite clearly I dont want to see a Biden Trump run off. Theyre both shit candidates, 7 out of 10 Americans dont want them as the choice, and both make US divisions deeper which is bad for all of us.
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
Alanbrooke isn't a loon. He's just trolling again.
In this case not. The police screwed up thats all there is to it. An insurrection requires planning and organisation and Trump cant do either of those. The Dems are simply using the matter to get at Trump. If Trump had done all the things he;s accused of he would have been in jail two years ago,
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
Weirdly, wine is now sometimes the cheaper option - in terms of alcohol per £ (and sometimes tastier too, as wine options have improved)
I had this experience in a pub in Borough the other day. Wine better value
That's incredible.
I remember drinking in a pub in Nottinghamshire 20-odd years ago with my then girlfriend and some others - as she often did, she ordered a glass of white wine, which was served warm, because they hadn't served wine in a while and they'd had to open a new bottle. Undeterred, half an hour later, I bought her another glass of wine: this time the wine had chilled a bit, having been put in the fridge, but they weren't able to serve it until she'd brought her glass back, because they only had one wine glass.
THAT is how wine should be served in pubs.
(It was also the smokiest pub I have ever been in. But it did a very nice quiz, and if the darts team were playing at home, chip butties were given out. After the smoking ban it got redone and turned into, for me personally, a very nice pub indeed; comfortable, clean, seven or eight very well kept real ales, more than one wine glass. But a completely different clientele, and no darts team. I often wondered where all the old customers went.)
Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.
The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.
The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
You seem to be assuming that Trump will be stopped by being in jail. I am not so sure.
If Trump is in Georgia jail and elected President I find it hard to conceive of him remaining in jail. The pressure on the parole board to pardon him would be immense and besides, if he wanted to walk out with the power of the Federal government behind him, would the State prison guards really stand in his way?
It would, of course, be extremely damaging to the rule of law in the US, but by that point a huge number of voters would have said they didn't value the rule of law, and it only survives as long as it is supported.
If Trump could not even beat Biden when he was not a convicted criminal he certainly isn't going to do so if he is a convicted criminal.
Trump has a chance of beating Biden if he is not convicted, if he is convicted Biden will almost certainly be re elected. Independents would overwhelmingly vote for Biden if Trump were convicted and jailed and still able to be GOP nominee. While Trump supporters would stay home if he was replaced as GOP nominee by Pence or DeSantis
I'm inclined to agree, and yet. This is Trump. He's defied logic all the way through.
He convinced enough people that he didn't lose the last election. Convincing people his conviction was illegitimate and part of a witch hunt would probably be easier.
And, just generally, the right in the US seems to have the ability to make Biden stumbling over his words seem worse than Trump attempting to coerce the Ukrainians into inventing evidence to smear a political opponent. They have this strange grip on the narrative and the Overton window.
This is fantastic. I hope Trump wins the nomination and the White House. The US needs to go through another revolution and what better way than having a lunatic like Trump in charge to actually galvanise the less insane members of the population into action is there?
Be careful what you wish for. Lets think about what a Trump win does: Serious threat to NATO Serious risk of war in the middle east Emboldened Putin taking back ex-Soviet states Dismantling of democratic institutions and processes in America Potential for widespread boycotts and embargoes in a global trade war America as a pariah state
America's allies are already considering what a Trump win would mean for their alliances and its not good.
Project Fear is back I see,
We had all the above in 2016 and none of it happened.
Biden is doing a lot of the above anyway and nobody seems that worried.
Are you a Trump supporter or an apologist? Or maybe just a contrarian?
Ive said quite clearly I dont want to see a Biden Trump run off. Theyre both shit candidates, 7 out of 10 Americans dont want them as the choice, and both make US divisions deeper which is bad for all of us.
Just apologist, then.
No I can view the guy objectively he has plus and minus points like all POTUS including Biden. You just want to say everything is bad and evil which is not a balanced approach.
This is fantastic. I hope Trump wins the nomination and the White House. The US needs to go through another revolution and what better way than having a lunatic like Trump in charge to actually galvanise the less insane members of the population into action is there?
Be careful what you wish for. Lets think about what a Trump win does: Serious threat to NATO Serious risk of war in the middle east Emboldened Putin taking back ex-Soviet states Dismantling of democratic institutions and processes in America Potential for widespread boycotts and embargoes in a global trade war America as a pariah state
America's allies are already considering what a Trump win would mean for their alliances and its not good.
Leaving aside the quite valid Marxist accelerationist perspective a Trump win would be top bantz and more entertaining than that time Johnson got Covid.
Biden is just a straightforward hegemonist and slave to capital so when you get down to it, he's not that different from DJT just infinitely more boring.
America is knackered, we're all knackered and it needs a shake up. Trump 2:Grift Harder would be very, very messy but might be the catalyst the saner yanks need to do something about where they're headed.
For those interested, an update on the trial of Lucy Letby (which of course is still subject to all the rules of sub judice), the jury went out on July 10th, a majority direction was given on 8th August, and the jury continues deliberating today.
Lots of counts, so possibly majority verdicts in only some.
Possibly, or there simply isn't enough evidence to find her guilty.
I know little about the case other than what I have read from the trial reports. However the shadow of other cases hangs over this - where statistics plays a large part rather than direct evidence. See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
Harriet Harman's finest hour was barring Roy Meadow from prosecution work. I was less happy that Meadow was struck off. The problem was trials based on flawed statistics because lawyers and doctors don't do numbers, and not just the innumeracy of one bad apple.
What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.
In the federal cases, there are multiple possibilities and SCOTUS would have to decide:
a) The president can't pardon themselves because you can't be the judge in your own case b) The president can pardon themselves, because the constitution gives them pretty broad powers and it doesn't specifically say you can't c) The president can't pardon themselves, but they can declare themselves unable to fulfill their presidenting duties, hand over to the VP, get pardoned, then resume presidenting again
I am assuming though that the rules could be changed back again - and the Republicans control both Houses in the Georgia State Assembly.
Incorrect. It would require a state constitutional amendment, which has to be ratified by a plebiscite.
Fair enough. But who gets to decide to set up the amendment - the Governor or the Assembly?
A constitutional amendment needs a 2/3rds majority of both houses of the state legislature in Georgia to make it to a referendum, which the GOP doesn't have. Even then, it might well not get on the ballot next November, in which case it would have to wait for November 2026, to take effect 1st January 2027 if passed.
This is fantastic. I hope Trump wins the nomination and the White House. The US needs to go through another revolution and what better way than having a lunatic like Trump in charge to actually galvanise the less insane members of the population into action is there?
Be careful what you wish for. Lets think about what a Trump win does: Serious threat to NATO Serious risk of war in the middle east Emboldened Putin taking back ex-Soviet states Dismantling of democratic institutions and processes in America Potential for widespread boycotts and embargoes in a global trade war America as a pariah state
America's allies are already considering what a Trump win would mean for their alliances and its not good.
Leaving aside the quite valid Marxist accelerationist perspective a Trump win would be top bantz and more entertaining than that time Johnson got Covid.
Biden is just a straightforward hegemonist and slave to capital so when you get down to it, he's not that different from DJT just infinitely more boring.
You mean, you are stupid as the Red Banner in Germany, in 1929 - "The Nazis will pull the system down!"
...things certain since Social Progress began. That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire, And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
They didn't call for the death of anyone. They sat around smoking weed. Do you think Otis Ferry et al breaking into the Houses of Parliament shouting the odds about foxhunting was "an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent"?
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
I know I am in a minority here and frontloading is a thing especially with youngsters, but I don't get it, I guess because I don't go out to get drunk. I go out to drink beer because I like the taste of beer and bitter from a handpump is nicer than from a bottle and I like pubs.
For me I really enjoy the first and second pint best and wouldn't want to spoil that by frontloading.
For anyone in my neck of the woods, Shere Drop is a lovely pint. Easily my favourite beer.
I also have to like Adnams as it is all you can get in Southwold; the bitter in the summer and Broadside in the winter.
What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.
In the federal cases, there are multiple possibilities and SCOTUS would have to decide:
a) The president can't pardon themselves because you can't be the judge in your own case b) The president can pardon themselves, because the constitution gives them pretty broad powers and it doesn't specifically say you can't c) The president can't pardon themselves, but they can declare themselves unable to fulfill their presidenting duties, hand over to the VP, get pardoned, then resume presidenting again
I am assuming though that the rules could be changed back again - and the Republicans control both Houses in the Georgia State Assembly.
Incorrect. It would require a state constitutional amendment, which has to be ratified by a plebiscite.
Fair enough. But who gets to decide to set up the amendment - the Governor or the Assembly?
The Assembly. But each house would need to vote to put it to referendum by a two-thirds majority. The Republicans do not have a two-thirds majority in either house
If Trump survives these legal attacks and somehow contrives to win, then he will make sure he is immune forever and he will want vengeance to boot
Truly perilous times for the USA. It’s arguably another step towards actual civil conflict. And as with other civil wars each step towards the war makes logical sense in itself, may indeed be completely justifiable (here is probably an example of that) yet the sense of an impending explosion only grows
A classic example of 'you reap what you sow'. @Alanbrooke is right - we were promised all these things in 2016 and which never happened. The correct response to Trump being elected in 2016 should have been just to ignore his bluster and let the system do its work - either out in 2020 or 2024. But no. Because Clinton couldn't accept she had lost her chance to be the first female President and Obama hated Trump with a passion, it all became about getting rid of him at all costs.
If you believe the man is the Devil, as many on here and on the Democrat side do, then any - and I mean any - means to stop him seems justifiable. And, before you say, 'he's a crook' and 'he should be tried for his crimes', we all know the practice doesn't match the theory in that the authorities turn a blind eye when circumstances dictate. We have the 'not in the public interest' test here for exactly these reasons.
What will happen is as clear as daylight. Even if Trump does go down, whoever is the Republican GOP candidate will only get the nomination - and the turnout - if they promise to go after the Democrat side. Old Joe's payoffs (and, for fuck's sake, who really believes this idea you have to show direct payments to Biden? Nobody in any political position where records are open to disclosure etc), Obama and Clinton et al all under investigation if the GOP wins.
There is a good chance the US is heading towards a potential internal armed conflict within the next 24-36 months.
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
I know I am in a minority here and frontloading is a thing especially with youngsters, but I don't get it, I guess because I don't go out to get drunk. I go out to drink beer because I like the taste of beer and bitter from a handpump is nicer than from a bottle and I like pubs.
For me I really enjoy the first and second pint best and wouldn't want to spoil that by frontloading.
For anyone in my neck of the woods, Shere Drop is a lovely pint. Easily my favourite beer.
I also have to like Adnams as it is all you can get in Southwold; the bitter in the summer and Broadside in the winter.
In my defence, I'm a quality-only frontloader - frontloading would be done in company, and in someone's house or garden with a better quality beer (I also rather like Broadside). And I might feel differently were there any really top drawer pubs where I live. But there aren't. There are some ok pubs with ok beer, but nothing to give a massive edge over yer mate's shed.
But only now, momentarily: lots of catching up to do with the inflation accumulated over the last 2-3 years. An instantaneous differential rate is one thing: what hits people in the pocket is the integral.
Edit: and real wages *still* going down, even on your figure.
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
Weirdly, wine is now sometimes the cheaper option - in terms of alcohol per £ (and sometimes tastier too, as wine options have improved)
I had this experience in a pub in Borough the other day. Wine better value
Most pubs charging £6:80 for a pint are charging around £22 for a basic, drinkable white wine. Which is still multiple of the off license value.
You’re talking £22 for a bottle
I said “alcohol per £”
I had a large GLASS of white wine the other day for £12. Very pleasant. A pint was about £7 or more
Per alcohol unit the wine was slightly cheaper I think
If Trump survives these legal attacks and somehow contrives to win, then he will make sure he is immune forever and he will want vengeance to boot
Truly perilous times for the USA. It’s arguably another step towards actual civil conflict. And as with other civil wars each step towards the war makes logical sense in itself, may indeed be completely justifiable (here is probably an example of that) yet the sense of an impending explosion only grows
A classic example of 'you reap what you sow'. @Alanbrooke is right - we were promised all these things in 2016 and which never happened. The correct response to Trump being elected in 2016 should have been just to ignore his bluster and let the system do its work - either out in 2020 or 2024. But no. Because Clinton couldn't accept she had lost her chance to be the first female President and Obama hated Trump with a passion, it all became about getting rid of him at all costs.
If you believe the man is the Devil, as many on here and on the Democrat side do, then any - and I mean any - means to stop him seems justifiable. And, before you say, 'he's a crook' and 'he should be tried for his crimes', we all know the practice doesn't match the theory in that the authorities turn a blind eye when circumstances dictate. We have the 'not in the public interest' test here for exactly these reasons.
What will happen is as clear as daylight. Even if Trump does go down, whoever is the Republican GOP candidate will only get the nomination - and the turnout - if they promise to go after the Democrat side. Old Joe's payoffs (and, for fuck's sake, who really believes this idea you have to show direct payments to Biden? Nobody in any political position where records are open to disclosure etc), Obama and Clinton et al all under investigation if the GOP wins.
There is a good chance the US is heading towards a potential internal armed conflict within the next 24-36 months.
The system did do its job. He was voted out for having failed as president.
The issue became that he then repeatedly tried to overthrow the system to stay in power.
Whatever her many and egregious shortcomings, that was hardly the fault of Hilary Clinton.
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
They didn't call for the death of anyone. They sat around smoking weed. Do you think Otis Ferry et al breaking into the Houses of Parliament shouting the odds about foxhunting was "an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent"?
If the Capitol had been attacked by 2,000 black antifa supporters to prevent the election of a Republican president, there would have been hundreds of people dead.
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
Weirdly, wine is now sometimes the cheaper option - in terms of alcohol per £ (and sometimes tastier too, as wine options have improved)
I had this experience in a pub in Borough the other day. Wine better value
Most pubs charging £6:80 for a pint are charging around £22 for a basic, drinkable white wine. Which is still multiple of the off license value.
You’re talking £22 for a bottle
I said “alcohol per £”
I had a large white wine the other day for £12. Very pleasant. A pint was about £7 or more
Per alcohol unit the wine was slightly cheaper I think
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
Weirdly, wine is now sometimes the cheaper option - in terms of alcohol per £ (and sometimes tastier too, as wine options have improved)
I had this experience in a pub in Borough the other day. Wine better value
Most pubs charging £6:80 for a pint are charging around £22 for a basic, drinkable white wine. Which is still multiple of the off license value.
You’re talking £22 for a bottle
I said “alcohol per £”
I had a large white wine the other day for £12. Very pleasant. A pint was about £7 or more
Per alcohol unit the wine was slightly cheaper I think
Same thing - a bottle is either 5 good glasses, or 6 slightly mean ones.
Interestingly, most places like that try and charge a premium per glass. So you buy three glasses, you've bought the bottle.
What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.
In the federal cases, there are multiple possibilities and SCOTUS would have to decide:
a) The president can't pardon themselves because you can't be the judge in your own case b) The president can pardon themselves, because the constitution gives them pretty broad powers and it doesn't specifically say you can't c) The president can't pardon themselves, but they can declare themselves unable to fulfill their presidenting duties, hand over to the VP, get pardoned, then resume presidenting again
I am assuming though that the rules could be changed back again - and the Republicans control both Houses in the Georgia State Assembly.
No, it's in the state constitution so you'd need a supermajority or a referendum or something.
See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
coughcoughassumingindependencecoughcough
Equation 1: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B) if B is independent of A
Equation 2: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B|A) if B is not independent of A
Roy Meadow thought that the second cot death (B) was independent of the first cot death (A), so he used the first equation. But apparently they aren't and he should have used the second equation instead
But only now, momentarily: lots of catching up to do with the inflation accumulated over the last 2-3 years. An instantaneous differential rate is one thing: what hits people in the pocket is the integral.
Edit: and real wages *still* going down, even on your figure.
Mortgages going up, loan and credit card rates going up. House prices starting a downward trajectory, food inflation still out of control, rent hikes, energy prices high despite record profits from the energy companies and a drop in wholesale prices....but wages have gone up a bit so we're all good!
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
Weirdly, wine is now sometimes the cheaper option - in terms of alcohol per £ (and sometimes tastier too, as wine options have improved)
I had this experience in a pub in Borough the other day. Wine better value
Most pubs charging £6:80 for a pint are charging around £22 for a basic, drinkable white wine. Which is still multiple of the off license value.
You’re talking £22 for a bottle
I said “alcohol per £”
I had a large white wine the other day for £12. Very pleasant. A pint was about £7 or more
Per alcohol unit the wine was slightly cheaper I think
Do you always take a calculator to the pub?
If you aren't especially rich, you need one, these days.
And I drink with people who are not well off - it's very easy to end up pushing them into spending they can't really afford. So you need to watch out.
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
Weirdly, wine is now sometimes the cheaper option - in terms of alcohol per £ (and sometimes tastier too, as wine options have improved)
I had this experience in a pub in Borough the other day. Wine better value
Most pubs charging £6:80 for a pint are charging around £22 for a basic, drinkable white wine. Which is still multiple of the off license value.
You’re talking £22 for a bottle
I said “alcohol per £”
I had a large white wine the other day for £12. Very pleasant. A pint was about £7 or more
Per alcohol unit the wine was slightly cheaper I think
What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.
In the federal cases, there are multiple possibilities and SCOTUS would have to decide:
a) The president can't pardon themselves because you can't be the judge in your own case b) The president can pardon themselves, because the constitution gives them pretty broad powers and it doesn't specifically say you can't c) The president can't pardon themselves, but they can declare themselves unable to fulfill their presidenting duties, hand over to the VP, get pardoned, then resume presidenting again
I am assuming though that the rules could be changed back again - and the Republicans control both Houses in the Georgia State Assembly.
No, it's in the state constitution so you'd need a supermajority or a referendum or something.
Both, as it happens. A supermajority *then* a referendum.
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
Weirdly, wine is now sometimes the cheaper option - in terms of alcohol per £ (and sometimes tastier too, as wine options have improved)
I had this experience in a pub in Borough the other day. Wine better value
Most pubs charging £6:80 for a pint are charging around £22 for a basic, drinkable white wine. Which is still multiple of the off license value.
You’re talking £22 for a bottle
I said “alcohol per £”
I had a large white wine the other day for £12. Very pleasant. A pint was about £7 or more
Per alcohol unit the wine was slightly cheaper I think
Do you always take a calculator to the pub?
If you aren't especially rich, you need one, these days.
And I drink with people who are not well off - it's very easy to end up pushing them into spending they can't really afford. So you need to watch out.
I meant the calculation of units/£. But £7 pints have arrived in Edinburgh .
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
I know I am in a minority here and frontloading is a thing especially with youngsters, but I don't get it, I guess because I don't go out to get drunk. I go out to drink beer because I like the taste of beer and bitter from a handpump is nicer than from a bottle and I like pubs.
For me I really enjoy the first and second pint best and wouldn't want to spoil that by frontloading.
For anyone in my neck of the woods, Shere Drop is a lovely pint. Easily my favourite beer.
I also have to like Adnams as it is all you can get in Southwold; the bitter in the summer and Broadside in the winter.
In my defence, I'm a quality-only frontloader - frontloading would be done in company, and in someone's house or garden with a better quality beer (I also rather like Broadside). And I might feel differently were there any really top drawer pubs where I live. But there aren't. There are some ok pubs with ok beer, but nothing to give a massive edge over yer mate's shed.
That reminds me, my mate has politely asked me to ask you to please stop breaking into his shed, or at least take the empty cans of Eight Ace home with you when you leave.
If Trump survives these legal attacks and somehow contrives to win, then he will make sure he is immune forever and he will want vengeance to boot
Truly perilous times for the USA. It’s arguably another step towards actual civil conflict. And as with other civil wars each step towards the war makes logical sense in itself, may indeed be completely justifiable (here is probably an example of that) yet the sense of an impending explosion only grows
A classic example of 'you reap what you sow'. @Alanbrooke is right - we were promised all these things in 2016 and which never happened. The correct response to Trump being elected in 2016 should have been just to ignore his bluster and let the system do its work - either out in 2020 or 2024. But no. Because Clinton couldn't accept she had lost her chance to be the first female President and Obama hated Trump with a passion, it all became about getting rid of him at all costs.
If you believe the man is the Devil, as many on here and on the Democrat side do, then any - and I mean any - means to stop him seems justifiable. And, before you say, 'he's a crook' and 'he should be tried for his crimes', we all know the practice doesn't match the theory in that the authorities turn a blind eye when circumstances dictate. We have the 'not in the public interest' test here for exactly these reasons.
What will happen is as clear as daylight. Even if Trump does go down, whoever is the Republican GOP candidate will only get the nomination - and the turnout - if they promise to go after the Democrat side. Old Joe's payoffs (and, for fuck's sake, who really believes this idea you have to show direct payments to Biden? Nobody in any political position where records are open to disclosure etc), Obama and Clinton et al all under investigation if the GOP wins.
There is a good chance the US is heading towards a potential internal armed conflict within the next 24-36 months.
Indeed. Someone in the US needs to take a step back from the hyper-polarisation, before a genuine conflict emerges. I don’t think it will be a hot civil war, but it will definitely be violent in places, as we’ve seen sporadically in the past few years.
The biggest problem is that the polarisation is popular; it sells newspapers and cable news eyeballs, it brings in donations and brings out voters. The actual Trump in power, was nothing like the rhetoric from either his own side or his opponents.
Trying to jail your political opponents, for actions committed while they were in office, is possibly the worst example of this polarisation in practice. It doesn’t help that the amount of money in politics, means that almost no-one who’s been around Washington for any length of time is properly clean, so the incentives are there to continue trying to prosecute opppenents whenever there’s a change of government.
There really needs to be an expansion of both term limits and maximum ages. A President or Senator shouldn’t be older than 70 on election, and both limited to two terms. Reps should be limited to five terms, a decade in the House, and not older than the federal retirement age.
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
They didn't call for the death of anyone. They sat around smoking weed. Do you think Otis Ferry et al breaking into the Houses of Parliament shouting the odds about foxhunting was "an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent"?
If the Capitol had been attacked by 2,000 black antifa supporters to prevent the election of a Republican president, there would have been hundreds of people dead.
The restraint of the police was remarkable.
Yes - in all those "Attack ON America" movies and series, the bad guys fucked up.
They didn't need fifty ex-SEALs, inside agents in the Secret Service and a God level genius hacker.
Wage element means another large triple lock rise next year. Presumably other benefits to follow. Pensions set to exceed defence, policing and education spend combined.
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
Alanbrooke isn't a loon. He's just trolling again.
In this case not. The police screwed up thats all there is to it. An insurrection requires planning and organisation and Trump cant do either of those. The Dems are simply using the matter to get at Trump. If Trump had done all the things he;s accused of he would have been in jail two years ago,
A remarkable display of ignorance, wilful or otherwise.
Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.
Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.
Or the UK
Salmond and Sturgeon would both disagree with you...
If Trump survives these legal attacks and somehow contrives to win, then he will make sure he is immune forever and he will want vengeance to boot
Truly perilous times for the USA. It’s arguably another step towards actual civil conflict. And as with other civil wars each step towards the war makes logical sense in itself, may indeed be completely justifiable (here is probably an example of that) yet the sense of an impending explosion only grows
A classic example of 'you reap what you sow'. @Alanbrooke is right - we were promised all these things in 2016 and which never happened. The correct response to Trump being elected in 2016 should have been just to ignore his bluster and let the system do its work - either out in 2020 or 2024. But no. Because Clinton couldn't accept she had lost her chance to be the first female President and Obama hated Trump with a passion, it all became about getting rid of him at all costs.
If you believe the man is the Devil, as many on here and on the Democrat side do, then any - and I mean any - means to stop him seems justifiable. And, before you say, 'he's a crook' and 'he should be tried for his crimes', we all know the practice doesn't match the theory in that the authorities turn a blind eye when circumstances dictate. We have the 'not in the public interest' test here for exactly these reasons.
What will happen is as clear as daylight. Even if Trump does go down, whoever is the Republican GOP candidate will only get the nomination - and the turnout - if they promise to go after the Democrat side. Old Joe's payoffs (and, for fuck's sake, who really believes this idea you have to show direct payments to Biden? Nobody in any political position where records are open to disclosure etc), Obama and Clinton et al all under investigation if the GOP wins.
There is a good chance the US is heading towards a potential internal armed conflict within the next 24-36 months.
The system did do its job. He was voted out for having failed as president.
The issue became that he then repeatedly tried to overthrow the system to stay in power.
Whatever her many and egregious shortcomings, that was hardly the fault of Hilary Clinton.
As @Sandpit has pointed out, American politicians on both sides are so immersed in the system, there are plenty of things which you could investigate.
Clinton and classified government documentation on her personal e-mail servers? Tick
Biden and the payments to his family? Tick
Obama's failure to stop Biden's activities as VP and whether he therefore allowed foreign countries to influence US policy? Tick
What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.
The banged-up mobster still running 'the operation' (aka the USA) from his jail cell. Donald Trump has taken us to some absurd places but that is surely a Bridger too far.
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
Alanbrooke isn't a loon. He's just trolling again.
In this case not. The police screwed up thats all there is to it. An insurrection requires planning and organisation and Trump cant do either of those. The Dems are simply using the matter to get at Trump. If Trump had done all the things he;s accused of he would have been in jail two years ago,
Have you read the indictment for the Jan 6 case? Which part specifically do you think he didn't do?
Generally white-collar stuff seems to take quite a long time to bring to trial in the US. There's a lot of evidence (internal emails etc) they had to get other suspects, much of it in other investigations. They definitely wouldn't want to bring a half-baked case.
If Trump survives these legal attacks and somehow contrives to win, then he will make sure he is immune forever and he will want vengeance to boot
Truly perilous times for the USA. It’s arguably another step towards actual civil conflict. And as with other civil wars each step towards the war makes logical sense in itself, may indeed be completely justifiable (here is probably an example of that) yet the sense of an impending explosion only grows
A classic example of 'you reap what you sow'. @Alanbrooke is right - we were promised all these things in 2016 and which never happened. The correct response to Trump being elected in 2016 should have been just to ignore his bluster and let the system do its work - either out in 2020 or 2024. But no. Because Clinton couldn't accept she had lost her chance to be the first female President and Obama hated Trump with a passion, it all became about getting rid of him at all costs.
If you believe the man is the Devil, as many on here and on the Democrat side do, then any - and I mean any - means to stop him seems justifiable. And, before you say, 'he's a crook' and 'he should be tried for his crimes', we all know the practice doesn't match the theory in that the authorities turn a blind eye when circumstances dictate. We have the 'not in the public interest' test here for exactly these reasons.
What will happen is as clear as daylight. Even if Trump does go down, whoever is the Republican GOP candidate will only get the nomination - and the turnout - if they promise to go after the Democrat side. Old Joe's payoffs (and, for fuck's sake, who really believes this idea you have to show direct payments to Biden? Nobody in any political position where records are open to disclosure etc), Obama and Clinton et al all under investigation if the GOP wins.
There is a good chance the US is heading towards a potential internal armed conflict within the next 24-36 months.
Indeed. Someone in the US needs to take a step back from the hyper-polarisation, before a genuine conflict emerges. I don’t think it will be a hot civil war, but it will definitely be violent in places, as we’ve seen sporadically in the past few years.
The biggest problem is that the polarisation is popular; it sells newspapers and cable news eyeballs, it brings in donations and brings out voters. The actual Trump in power, was nothing like the rhetoric from either his own side or his opponents.
Trying to jail your political opponents, for actions committed while they were in office, is possibly the worst example of this polarisation in practice. It doesn’t help that the amount of money in politics, means that almost no-one who’s been around Washington for any length of time is properly clean, so the incentives are there to continue trying to prosecute opppenents whenever there’s a change of government.
There really needs to be an expansion of both term limits and maximum ages. A President or Senator shouldn’t be older than 70 on election, and both limited to two terms. Reps should be limited to five terms, a decade in the House, and not older than the federal retirement age.
I would agree on all this. I think the one thing that is missing is the personal element. I put a lot of the blame on Obama. He so personally detested Trump - and you only have to see the look in his eyes when he dropped the mic to see how much he hated the man with a passion - that he encouraged the Democrats to go after Trump. I do think Clinton was miffed but she had little real influence post-her defeat and, in any event, I am sure Bill would have been advising her not to rock the boat.
If Trump survives these legal attacks and somehow contrives to win, then he will make sure he is immune forever and he will want vengeance to boot
Truly perilous times for the USA. It’s arguably another step towards actual civil conflict. And as with other civil wars each step towards the war makes logical sense in itself, may indeed be completely justifiable (here is probably an example of that) yet the sense of an impending explosion only grows
A classic example of 'you reap what you sow'. @Alanbrooke is right - we were promised all these things in 2016 and which never happened. The correct response to Trump being elected in 2016 should have been just to ignore his bluster and let the system do its work - either out in 2020 or 2024. But no. Because Clinton couldn't accept she had lost her chance to be the first female President and Obama hated Trump with a passion, it all became about getting rid of him at all costs.
If you believe the man is the Devil, as many on here and on the Democrat side do, then any - and I mean any - means to stop him seems justifiable. And, before you say, 'he's a crook' and 'he should be tried for his crimes', we all know the practice doesn't match the theory in that the authorities turn a blind eye when circumstances dictate. We have the 'not in the public interest' test here for exactly these reasons.
What will happen is as clear as daylight. Even if Trump does go down, whoever is the Republican GOP candidate will only get the nomination - and the turnout - if they promise to go after the Democrat side. Old Joe's payoffs (and, for fuck's sake, who really believes this idea you have to show direct payments to Biden? Nobody in any political position where records are open to disclosure etc), Obama and Clinton et al all under investigation if the GOP wins.
There is a good chance the US is heading towards a potential internal armed conflict within the next 24-36 months.
The system did do its job. He was voted out for having failed as president.
The issue became that he then repeatedly tried to overthrow the system to stay in power.
Whatever her many and egregious shortcomings, that was hardly the fault of Hilary Clinton.
As @Sandpit has pointed out, American politicians on both sides are so immersed in the system, there are plenty of things which you could investigate.
Clinton and classified government documentation on her personal e-mail servers? Tick
Biden and the payments to his family? Tick
Obama's failure to stop Biden's activities as VP and whether he therefore allowed foreign countries to influence US policy? Tick
Nancy Pelosi and her share deals? Tick
Once you start down this route, there is no end.
And, in case you hadn't noticed, they all have been investigated.
Just as Trump's record is:
1) Attempted to rig a vote? Tick 2) Tried to falsify election returns? Tick 3) Attempted to prevent the certifying of the election? Tick
I mean, there's whataboutery, there's one eyed bias and then there's sheer lunacy.
What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.
The banged-up mobster still running 'the operation' (aka the USA) from his jail cell. Donald Trump has taken us to some absurd places but that is surely a Bridger too far.
See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
coughcoughassumingindependencecoughcough
Equation 1: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B) if B is independent of A
Equation 2: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B|A) if B is not independent of A
Roy Meadow thought that the second cot death (B) was independent of the first cot death (A), so he used the first equation. But apparently they aren't and he should have used the second equation instead
That is still very poor probability maths for the situation.
While for any specific individual the probability of two unlikely things happening together is small, in a large enough population the probability that it will happen to someone will be a lot higher, and you shouldn't prosecute that someone simply for being unlucky.
But only now, momentarily: lots of catching up to do with the inflation accumulated over the last 2-3 years. An instantaneous differential rate is one thing: what hits people in the pocket is the integral.
Edit: and real wages *still* going down, even on your figure.
Inflation fallen from 10% to under 8%, if you had your way we would have an inflationary wage spiral and inflation rising from 10% not falling
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
They didn't call for the death of anyone. They sat around smoking weed. Do you think Otis Ferry et al breaking into the Houses of Parliament shouting the odds about foxhunting was "an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent"?
If the Capitol had been attacked by 2,000 black antifa supporters to prevent the election of a Republican president, there would have been hundreds of people dead.
The restraint of the police was remarkable.
They managed to avoid killing anyone when various state capitols were stormed this year.
See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
coughcoughassumingindependencecoughcough
Equation 1: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B) if B is independent of A
Equation 2: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B|A) if B is not independent of A
Roy Meadow thought that the second cot death (B) was independent of the first cot death (A), so he used the first equation. But apparently they aren't and he should have used the second equation instead
That is still very poor probability maths for the situation.
While for any specific individual the probability of two unlikely things happening together is small, in a large enough population the probability that it will happen to someone will be a lot higher, and you shouldn't prosecute that someone simply for being unlucky.
If Trump survives these legal attacks and somehow contrives to win, then he will make sure he is immune forever and he will want vengeance to boot
Truly perilous times for the USA. It’s arguably another step towards actual civil conflict. And as with other civil wars each step towards the war makes logical sense in itself, may indeed be completely justifiable (here is probably an example of that) yet the sense of an impending explosion only grows
A classic example of 'you reap what you sow'. @Alanbrooke is right - we were promised all these things in 2016 and which never happened. The correct response to Trump being elected in 2016 should have been just to ignore his bluster and let the system do its work - either out in 2020 or 2024. But no. Because Clinton couldn't accept she had lost her chance to be the first female President and Obama hated Trump with a passion, it all became about getting rid of him at all costs.
If you believe the man is the Devil, as many on here and on the Democrat side do, then any - and I mean any - means to stop him seems justifiable. And, before you say, 'he's a crook' and 'he should be tried for his crimes', we all know the practice doesn't match the theory in that the authorities turn a blind eye when circumstances dictate. We have the 'not in the public interest' test here for exactly these reasons.
What will happen is as clear as daylight. Even if Trump does go down, whoever is the Republican GOP candidate will only get the nomination - and the turnout - if they promise to go after the Democrat side. Old Joe's payoffs (and, for fuck's sake, who really believes this idea you have to show direct payments to Biden? Nobody in any political position where records are open to disclosure etc), Obama and Clinton et al all under investigation if the GOP wins.
There is a good chance the US is heading towards a potential internal armed conflict within the next 24-36 months.
The system did do its job. He was voted out for having failed as president.
The issue became that he then repeatedly tried to overthrow the system to stay in power.
Whatever her many and egregious shortcomings, that was hardly the fault of Hilary Clinton.
As @Sandpit has pointed out, American politicians on both sides are so immersed in the system, there are plenty of things which you could investigate.
Clinton and classified government documentation on her personal e-mail servers? Tick
Biden and the payments to his family? Tick
Obama's failure to stop Biden's activities as VP and whether he therefore allowed foreign countries to influence US policy? Tick
Nancy Pelosi and her share deals? Tick
Once you start down this route, there is no end.
Clinton was investigated regarding classified documents. She cooperated with the investigation (unlike Trump), and the matter is closed.
Hunter Biden has been investigated for the last five years - by a Trump appointee - and the investigation continued under Biden's presidency. It's impossible to imagine the converse happening under Trump.
If Trump survives these legal attacks and somehow contrives to win, then he will make sure he is immune forever and he will want vengeance to boot
Truly perilous times for the USA. It’s arguably another step towards actual civil conflict. And as with other civil wars each step towards the war makes logical sense in itself, may indeed be completely justifiable (here is probably an example of that) yet the sense of an impending explosion only grows
A classic example of 'you reap what you sow'. @Alanbrooke is right - we were promised all these things in 2016 and which never happened. The correct response to Trump being elected in 2016 should have been just to ignore his bluster and let the system do its work - either out in 2020 or 2024. But no. Because Clinton couldn't accept she had lost her chance to be the first female President and Obama hated Trump with a passion, it all became about getting rid of him at all costs.
If you believe the man is the Devil, as many on here and on the Democrat side do, then any - and I mean any - means to stop him seems justifiable. And, before you say, 'he's a crook' and 'he should be tried for his crimes', we all know the practice doesn't match the theory in that the authorities turn a blind eye when circumstances dictate. We have the 'not in the public interest' test here for exactly these reasons.
What will happen is as clear as daylight. Even if Trump does go down, whoever is the Republican GOP candidate will only get the nomination - and the turnout - if they promise to go after the Democrat side. Old Joe's payoffs (and, for fuck's sake, who really believes this idea you have to show direct payments to Biden? Nobody in any political position where records are open to disclosure etc), Obama and Clinton et al all under investigation if the GOP wins.
There is a good chance the US is heading towards a potential internal armed conflict within the next 24-36 months.
The system did do its job. He was voted out for having failed as president.
The issue became that he then repeatedly tried to overthrow the system to stay in power.
Whatever her many and egregious shortcomings, that was hardly the fault of Hilary Clinton.
As @Sandpit has pointed out, American politicians on both sides are so immersed in the system, there are plenty of things which you could investigate.
Clinton and classified government documentation on her personal e-mail servers? Tick
Biden and the payments to his family? Tick
Obama's failure to stop Biden's activities as VP and whether he therefore allowed foreign countries to influence US policy? Tick
Nancy Pelosi and her share deals? Tick
Once you start down this route, there is no end.
And, in case you hadn't noticed, they all have been investigated.
Just as Trump's record is:
1) Attempted to rig a vote? Tick 2) Tried to falsify election returns? Tick 3) Attempted to prevent the certifying of the election? Tick
I mean, there's whataboutery, there's one eyed bias and then there's sheer lunacy.
They haven't really - and, indeed I am old enough to remember that if you even made the mention of Hunter Biden's name, you were a fully paid up loon who supported Russian disinformation. Who is the loon now? *
* I don't think you are a loon, I think you have extreme one-eyed bias. If it came out to ban the GOP, you would probably argue the case for it (actually, I think you already did at one point).
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
Alanbrooke isn't a loon. He's just trolling again.
In this case not. The police screwed up thats all there is to it. An insurrection requires planning and organisation and Trump cant do either of those. The Dems are simply using the matter to get at Trump. If Trump had done all the things he;s accused of he would have been in jail two years ago,
A remarkable display of ignorance, wilful or otherwise.
So why is he not in jail ?
Why are all the indictments coming out in the middle of an election ?
If Trump survives these legal attacks and somehow contrives to win, then he will make sure he is immune forever and he will want vengeance to boot
Truly perilous times for the USA. It’s arguably another step towards actual civil conflict. And as with other civil wars each step towards the war makes logical sense in itself, may indeed be completely justifiable (here is probably an example of that) yet the sense of an impending explosion only grows
A classic example of 'you reap what you sow'. @Alanbrooke is right - we were promised all these things in 2016 and which never happened. The correct response to Trump being elected in 2016 should have been just to ignore his bluster and let the system do its work - either out in 2020 or 2024. But no. Because Clinton couldn't accept she had lost her chance to be the first female President and Obama hated Trump with a passion, it all became about getting rid of him at all costs.
If you believe the man is the Devil, as many on here and on the Democrat side do, then any - and I mean any - means to stop him seems justifiable. And, before you say, 'he's a crook' and 'he should be tried for his crimes', we all know the practice doesn't match the theory in that the authorities turn a blind eye when circumstances dictate. We have the 'not in the public interest' test here for exactly these reasons.
What will happen is as clear as daylight. Even if Trump does go down, whoever is the Republican GOP candidate will only get the nomination - and the turnout - if they promise to go after the Democrat side. Old Joe's payoffs (and, for fuck's sake, who really believes this idea you have to show direct payments to Biden? Nobody in any political position where records are open to disclosure etc), Obama and Clinton et al all under investigation if the GOP wins.
There is a good chance the US is heading towards a potential internal armed conflict within the next 24-36 months.
The system did do its job. He was voted out for having failed as president.
The issue became that he then repeatedly tried to overthrow the system to stay in power.
Whatever her many and egregious shortcomings, that was hardly the fault of Hilary Clinton.
As @Sandpit has pointed out, American politicians on both sides are so immersed in the system, there are plenty of things which you could investigate.
Clinton and classified government documentation on her personal e-mail servers? Tick
Biden and the payments to his family? Tick
Obama's failure to stop Biden's activities as VP and whether he therefore allowed foreign countries to influence US policy? Tick
Nancy Pelosi and her share deals? Tick
Once you start down this route, there is no end.
Follow that logic to its conclusion, and nobody gets prosecuted for anything because we are all guilty of something.
What is the reason that Trump will be unable to pardon himself if convicted and then elected, and has that been legally tested? I suspect that quite a few anti-Trump Americans might feel that if it came to it, they wouldn't really want America governed for four years from prison.
The banged-up mobster still running 'the operation' (aka the USA) from his jail cell. Donald Trump has taken us to some absurd places but that is surely a Bridger too far.
...they began to operate what they called 'The Operation'... They would select a victim and then threaten to beat him up if he paid the so-called protection money. Four months later they started another operation which the called 'The Other Operation'. In this racket they selected another victim and threatened not to beat him up if he didn't pay them. One month later they hit upon 'The Other Other Operation'. In this the victim was threatened that if he didn't pay them, they would beat him up. This for the Piranha brothers was the turning point.
See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
coughcoughassumingindependencecoughcough
Equation 1: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B) if B is independent of A
Equation 2: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B|A) if B is not independent of A
Roy Meadow thought that the second cot death (B) was independent of the first cot death (A), so he used the first equation. But apparently they aren't and he should have used the second equation instead
That is still very poor probability maths for the situation.
While for any specific individual the probability of two unlikely things happening together is small, in a large enough population the probability that it will happen to someone will be a lot higher, and you shouldn't prosecute that someone simply for being unlucky.
1 in 73 million was his number 140 million births a year, says the internet. So ignoring slight fiddling needed to count only second or subsequent births, it's a twice a year occurrence even on his numbers.
Disappointing that neither the defence nor the judge saw and questioned the fishiness in the statistics. Meadows was a paediatrician not a statistician.
See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
coughcoughassumingindependencecoughcough
Equation 1: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B) if B is independent of A
Equation 2: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B|A) if B is not independent of A
Roy Meadow thought that the second cot death (B) was independent of the first cot death (A), so he used the first equation. But apparently they aren't and he should have used the second equation instead
That is still very poor probability maths for the situation.
While for any specific individual the probability of two unlikely things happening together is small, in a large enough population the probability that it will happen to someone will be a lot higher, and you shouldn't prosecute that someone simply for being unlucky.
Wasn't this a problem with early DNA matching that nobody wanted to talk about?
If you have reason to test your suspect and you get a match, fine. If you trawl a database of x million people and get a match, not so good.
Telegraph and the Bank of England appear to be seriously upset at wages going up.
“Mortgage holders are braced for more pain as spiralling wage growth fuelled predictions that the Bank of England will be forced to further crank up interest rates.
“The surprise jump prompted traders to ramp up bets that the Bank of England will press ahead with a further interest rate rise to 5.5pc in September before going further to 5.75pc by the end of the year.
“Soaring wages also inched up predictions for the peak of inflation. The City of London now expects the Bank of England’s base rate to peak as high as 6pc in March 2023. This is up from expectations of 5.75pc on Monday.
Telegraph and the Bank of England appear to be seriously upset at wages going up.
“Mortgage holders are braced for more pain as spiralling wage growth fuelled predictions that the Bank of England will be forced to further crank up interest rates.
“The surprise jump prompted traders to ramp up bets that the Bank of England will press ahead with a further interest rate rise to 5.5pc in September before going further to 5.75pc by the end of the year.
“Soaring wages also inched up predictions for the peak of inflation. The City of London now expects the Bank of England’s base rate to peak as high as 6pc in March 2023. This is up from expectations of 5.75pc on Monday.
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
Alanbrooke isn't a loon. He's just trolling again.
In this case not. The police screwed up thats all there is to it. An insurrection requires planning and organisation and Trump cant do either of those. The Dems are simply using the matter to get at Trump. If Trump had done all the things he;s accused of he would have been in jail two years ago,
Have you read the indictment for the Jan 6 case? Which part specifically do you think he didn't do?
Generally white-collar stuff seems to take quite a long time to bring to trial in the US. There's a lot of evidence (internal emails etc) they had to get other suspects, much of it in other investigations. They definitely wouldn't want to bring a half-baked case.
That's what I mean by wilful ignorance. The investigation has, for obvious reasons, taken years to gather evidence.
See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
coughcoughassumingindependencecoughcough
Equation 1: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B) if B is independent of A
Equation 2: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B|A) if B is not independent of A
Roy Meadow thought that the second cot death (B) was independent of the first cot death (A), so he used the first equation. But apparently they aren't and he should have used the second equation instead
That is still very poor probability maths for the situation.
While for any specific individual the probability of two unlikely things happening together is small, in a large enough population the probability that it will happen to someone will be a lot higher, and you shouldn't prosecute that someone simply for being unlucky.
Wasn't this a problem with early DNA matching that nobody wanted to talk about?
If you have reason to test your suspect and you get a match, fine. If you trawl a database of x million people and get a match, not so good.
More that early DNA testing used a cheap, quick method for a "match" which wasn't actually matching DNA. More that one sample was fairly like the other. The probability of a "match" was quite low.
See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
coughcoughassumingindependencecoughcough
Equation 1: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B) if B is independent of A
Equation 2: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B|A) if B is not independent of A
Roy Meadow thought that the second cot death (B) was independent of the first cot death (A), so he used the first equation. But apparently they aren't and he should have used the second equation instead
That is still very poor probability maths for the situation.
While for any specific individual the probability of two unlikely things happening together is small, in a large enough population the probability that it will happen to someone will be a lot higher, and you shouldn't prosecute that someone simply for being unlucky.
See also winning the jackpot on the national lottery...
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
Alanbrooke isn't a loon. He's just trolling again.
In this case not. The police screwed up thats all there is to it. An insurrection requires planning and organisation and Trump cant do either of those. The Dems are simply using the matter to get at Trump. If Trump had done all the things he;s accused of he would have been in jail two years ago,
It appears the man tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power to the new President. Just ask Mike Pence. Or John Bolton
'The Federal indictment against Donald Trump unsealed this afternoon is stunning and persuasive, but there should be no celebrating. This is a dark day for our country: an elected president, while in office, is alleged to have violated his sworn constitutional obligations. But it will be even darker if Trump can postpone the trial of these charges until after November 2024. He complains the charges should have been filed long ago, and if he were innocent he would want a speedy trial. Without that, or if he is acquitted, he may well be elected president again.'
See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
coughcoughassumingindependencecoughcough
Equation 1: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B) if B is independent of A
Equation 2: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B|A) if B is not independent of A
Roy Meadow thought that the second cot death (B) was independent of the first cot death (A), so he used the first equation. But apparently they aren't and he should have used the second equation instead
That is still very poor probability maths for the situation.
While for any specific individual the probability of two unlikely things happening together is small, in a large enough population the probability that it will happen to someone will be a lot higher, and you shouldn't prosecute that someone simply for being unlucky.
1 in 73 million was his number 140 million births a year, says the internet. So ignoring slight fiddling needed to count only second or subsequent births, it's a twice a year occurrence even on his numbers.
Disappointing that neither the defence nor the judge saw and questioned the fishiness in the statistics. Meadows was a paediatrician not a statistician.
A classic case of an 'expert' not being an expert out of their field of experience.
See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
coughcoughassumingindependencecoughcough
Equation 1: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B) if B is independent of A
Equation 2: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B|A) if B is not independent of A
Roy Meadow thought that the second cot death (B) was independent of the first cot death (A), so he used the first equation. But apparently they aren't and he should have used the second equation instead
That is still very poor probability maths for the situation.
While for any specific individual the probability of two unlikely things happening together is small, in a large enough population the probability that it will happen to someone will be a lot higher, and you shouldn't prosecute that someone simply for being unlucky.
1 in 73 million was his number 140 million births a year, says the internet. So ignoring slight fiddling needed to count only second or subsequent births, it's a twice a year occurrence even on his numbers.
Disappointing that neither the defence nor the judge saw and questioned the fishiness in the statistics. Meadows was a paediatrician not a statistician.
A classic case of an 'expert' not being an expert out of their field of experience.
Mr. Brooke, in 2016 Trump seemed less bonkers than now.
The storming of the Capitol was a less than edifying spectacle.
J6 was a fk up where the police lost control of a crowd. The correct response is to sack the police chief and put better measures in place for next time,
They broke into the Capitol you loon! This is like people running amok through the Houses of Parliament calling for the execution of key government ministers or members of the Royal Family. It was not "police losing control of a crowd". It was an insurrectionist riot with murderous intent ffs. Nothing less.
Alanbrooke isn't a loon. He's just trolling again.
In this case not. The police screwed up thats all there is to it. An insurrection requires planning and organisation and Trump cant do either of those. The Dems are simply using the matter to get at Trump. If Trump had done all the things he;s accused of he would have been in jail two years ago,
It appears the man tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power to the new President. Just ask Mike Pence. Or John Bolton
'The Federal indictment against Donald Trump unsealed this afternoon is stunning and persuasive, but there should be no celebrating. This is a dark day for our country: an elected president, while in office, is alleged to have violated his sworn constitutional obligations. But it will be even darker if Trump can postpone the trial of these charges until after November 2024. He complains the charges should have been filed long ago, and if he were innocent he would want a speedy trial. Without that, or if he is acquitted, he may well be elected president again.'
That would be the Jon Bolton who Trump sacked and who has sulked ever since ?
See for instance the Sally Clark case, where the infamous Roy Meadow opined on the chance of two cot deaths in one family, without understanding statistics (Bayes theory, for @Miklosvar ).
coughcoughassumingindependencecoughcough
Equation 1: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B) if B is independent of A
Equation 2: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B|A) if B is not independent of A
Roy Meadow thought that the second cot death (B) was independent of the first cot death (A), so he used the first equation. But apparently they aren't and he should have used the second equation instead
That is still very poor probability maths for the situation.
While for any specific individual the probability of two unlikely things happening together is small, in a large enough population the probability that it will happen to someone will be a lot higher, and you shouldn't prosecute that someone simply for being unlucky.
See also winning the jackpot on the national lottery...
But only now, momentarily: lots of catching up to do with the inflation accumulated over the last 2-3 years. An instantaneous differential rate is one thing: what hits people in the pocket is the integral.
Edit: and real wages *still* going down, even on your figure.
Inflation fallen from 10% to under 8%, if you had your way we would have an inflationary wage spiral and inflation rising from 10% not falling
Surely, at bottom, all we want is wages rising faster than prices? If wages are rising lest fast than prices, this is bad news. The fact that wages rising above the increase in prices may, down the line, lead to prices rising is not a reason to celebrate prices rising faster than wages. Now we probably all agree than this is most easily achieved in a low-inflation scenario. But that's a secondary issue.
If Trump survives these legal attacks and somehow contrives to win, then he will make sure he is immune forever and he will want vengeance to boot
Truly perilous times for the USA. It’s arguably another step towards actual civil conflict. And as with other civil wars each step towards the war makes logical sense in itself, may indeed be completely justifiable (here is probably an example of that) yet the sense of an impending explosion only grows
A classic example of 'you reap what you sow'. @Alanbrooke is right - we were promised all these things in 2016 and which never happened. The correct response to Trump being elected in 2016 should have been just to ignore his bluster and let the system do its work - either out in 2020 or 2024. But no. Because Clinton couldn't accept she had lost her chance to be the first female President and Obama hated Trump with a passion, it all became about getting rid of him at all costs.
If you believe the man is the Devil, as many on here and on the Democrat side do, then any - and I mean any - means to stop him seems justifiable. And, before you say, 'he's a crook' and 'he should be tried for his crimes', we all know the practice doesn't match the theory in that the authorities turn a blind eye when circumstances dictate. We have the 'not in the public interest' test here for exactly these reasons.
What will happen is as clear as daylight. Even if Trump does go down, whoever is the Republican GOP candidate will only get the nomination - and the turnout - if they promise to go after the Democrat side. Old Joe's payoffs (and, for fuck's sake, who really believes this idea you have to show direct payments to Biden? Nobody in any political position where records are open to disclosure etc), Obama and Clinton et al all under investigation if the GOP wins.
There is a good chance the US is heading towards a potential internal armed conflict within the next 24-36 months.
Indeed. Someone in the US needs to take a step back from the hyper-polarisation, before a genuine conflict emerges. I don’t think it will be a hot civil war, but it will definitely be violent in places, as we’ve seen sporadically in the past few years.
The biggest problem is that the polarisation is popular; it sells newspapers and cable news eyeballs, it brings in donations and brings out voters. The actual Trump in power, was nothing like the rhetoric from either his own side or his opponents.
Trying to jail your political opponents, for actions committed while they were in office, is possibly the worst example of this polarisation in practice. It doesn’t help that the amount of money in politics, means that almost no-one who’s been around Washington for any length of time is properly clean, so the incentives are there to continue trying to prosecute opppenents whenever there’s a change of government.
There really needs to be an expansion of both term limits and maximum ages. A President or Senator shouldn’t be older than 70 on election, and both limited to two terms. Reps should be limited to five terms, a decade in the House, and not older than the federal retirement age.
I would agree on all this. I think the one thing that is missing is the personal element. I put a lot of the blame on Obama. He so personally detested Trump - and you only have to see the look in his eyes when he dropped the mic to see how much he hated the man with a passion - that he encouraged the Democrats to go after Trump. I do think Clinton was miffed but she had little real influence post-her defeat and, in any event, I am sure Bill would have been advising her not to rock the boat.
Obama really does have a lot to answer for.
What exactly did Obama do? I mean I get he disliked the racist birther-promoting Trump, but what did he actually do?
Trump's indictment may be a matter of much interest, comment and amusement, but it also reflects well on the USofA. Inconceivable for the like to happen in Russia, China or Iran.
The indictment matters much less than the convictions, which we do not have yet.
The US *appears* to have very narrowly dodged a bullet. I don't expect them to learn any lessons from this, and there will soon be other charlatans - perhaps cleverer than Trump - playing similar games. Which would be bad for the USA and the world.
You seem to be assuming that Trump will be stopped by being in jail. I am not so sure.
One of the younger rowers at my club commented that pubs are for rich people now. With £7 pints, that doesn't seem an exaggeration.
Pubs which serve £7 pints are definitely for rich people!
But even a night out at you local suburban adequate pub is bafflingly expensive nowadays. I'm a middle aged man - and even I find myself, on the rare occasions I go out drinking, frontloading. I'd say 30 years ago the difference between drinking equivalent-quality beer out as opposed to at home was about 40% - now it's well over 100%.
Weirdly, wine is now sometimes the cheaper option - in terms of alcohol per £ (and sometimes tastier too, as wine options have improved)
I had this experience in a pub in Borough the other day. Wine better value
Most pubs charging £6:80 for a pint are charging around £22 for a basic, drinkable white wine. Which is still multiple of the off license value.
You’re talking £22 for a bottle
I said “alcohol per £”
I had a large white wine the other day for £12. Very pleasant. A pint was about £7 or more
Per alcohol unit the wine was slightly cheaper I think
Same thing - a bottle is either 5 good glasses, or 6 slightly mean ones.
Interestingly, most places like that try and charge a premium per glass. So you buy three glasses, you've bought the bottle.
Comments
I had this experience in a pub in Borough the other day. Wine better value
I think you grossly overestimate the personal loyalty to Trump of Supreme Court judges. Kavanagh, Barrett and Gorsuch have their jobs for life (and Roberts, of course, who long predates them). They don't give a stuff about helping Donald out, and indeed would almost certainly prefer a different conservative President.
The GOP/Democrat split in the Supreme Court may be 6/3, but the broadly sane/absolutely crackers split remains 7/2.
That's not delegation, for one thing because the power the federal government has in respect of the states were not possessed by the states in respect of each other.
Trump has a chance of beating Biden if he is not convicted, if he is convicted Biden will almost certainly be re elected. Independents would overwhelmingly vote for Biden if Trump were convicted and jailed and still able to be GOP nominee. While Trump supporters would stay home if he was replaced as GOP nominee by Pence or DeSantis
He's just trolling again.
Biden is just a straightforward hegemonist and slave to capital so when you get down to it, he's not that different from DJT just infinitely more boring.
- Trump was the first President for decades who DIDN'T go to war in the Middle East, and actually negotiated the end to one. I don't agree with his Afghan deal, but he did it. There are currently four major wars raging there, none of which have anything to do with Trump.
- Putin was emboldened to take back ex-Soviet states under Bush, Obama and Biden, not Trump
- American institutions are too robust for him to dismantle, as we're currently seeing
- the trade war is happening anyway under Biden and his idiotic industrial policies
- America is too important to the free world to be a pariah
I don't want a second Trump term, but we must be realistic about what will actually happen.
And there's no one more capitalist than a car trader.
I remember drinking in a pub in Nottinghamshire 20-odd years ago with my then girlfriend and some others - as she often did, she ordered a glass of white wine, which was served warm, because they hadn't served wine in a while and they'd had to open a new bottle. Undeterred, half an hour later, I bought her another glass of wine: this time the wine had chilled a bit, having been put in the fridge, but they weren't able to serve it until she'd brought her glass back, because they only had one wine glass.
THAT is how wine should be served in pubs.
(It was also the smokiest pub I have ever been in. But it did a very nice quiz, and if the darts team were playing at home, chip butties were given out. After the smoking ban it got redone and turned into, for me personally, a very nice pub indeed; comfortable, clean, seven or eight very well kept real ales, more than one wine glass. But a completely different clientele, and no darts team. I often wondered where all the old customers went.)
He convinced enough people that he didn't lose the last election. Convincing people his conviction was illegitimate and part of a witch hunt would probably be easier.
And, just generally, the right in the US seems to have the ability to make Biden stumbling over his words seem worse than Trump attempting to coerce the Ukrainians into inventing evidence to smear a political opponent. They have this strange grip on the narrative and the Overton window.
...things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
For me I really enjoy the first and second pint best and wouldn't want to spoil that by frontloading.
For anyone in my neck of the woods, Shere Drop is a lovely pint. Easily my favourite beer.
I also have to like Adnams as it is all you can get in Southwold; the bitter in the summer and Broadside in the winter.
If you believe the man is the Devil, as many on here and on the Democrat side do, then any - and I mean any - means to stop him seems justifiable. And, before you say, 'he's a crook' and 'he should be tried for his crimes', we all know the practice doesn't match the theory in that the authorities turn a blind eye when circumstances dictate. We have the 'not in the public interest' test here for exactly these reasons.
What will happen is as clear as daylight. Even if Trump does go down, whoever is the Republican GOP candidate will only get the nomination - and the turnout - if they promise to go after the Democrat side. Old Joe's payoffs (and, for fuck's sake, who really believes this idea you have to show direct payments to Biden? Nobody in any political position where records are open to disclosure etc), Obama and Clinton et al all under investigation if the GOP wins.
There is a good chance the US is heading towards a potential internal armed conflict within the next 24-36 months.
Wage growth highest for quite some time.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2023/aug/15/uk-basic-wage-growth-russia-china-central-bank-interest-rates-business-live
And I might feel differently were there any really top drawer pubs where I live. But there aren't. There are some ok pubs with ok beer, but nothing to give a massive edge over yer mate's shed.
Edit: and real wages *still* going down, even on your figure.
I said “alcohol per £”
I had a large GLASS of white wine the other day for £12. Very pleasant. A pint was about £7 or more
Per alcohol unit the wine was slightly cheaper I think
The issue became that he then repeatedly tried to overthrow the system to stay in power.
Whatever her many and egregious shortcomings, that was hardly the fault of Hilary Clinton.
The restraint of the police was remarkable.
Interestingly, most places like that try and charge a premium per glass. So you buy three glasses, you've bought the bottle.
- Equation 1: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B) if B is independent of A
- Equation 2: P(A and B ) = P(A) x P(B|A) if B is not independent of A
Roy Meadow thought that the second cot death (B) was independent of the first cot death (A), so he used the first equation. But apparently they aren't and he should have used the second equation insteadAnd I drink with people who are not well off - it's very easy to end up pushing them into spending they can't really afford. So you need to watch out.
The biggest problem is that the polarisation is popular; it sells newspapers and cable news eyeballs, it brings in donations and brings out voters. The actual Trump in power, was nothing like the rhetoric from either his own side or his opponents.
Trying to jail your political opponents, for actions committed while they were in office, is possibly the worst example of this polarisation in practice. It doesn’t help that the amount of money in politics, means that almost no-one who’s been around Washington for any length of time is properly clean, so the incentives are there to continue trying to prosecute opppenents whenever there’s a change of government.
There really needs to be an expansion of both term limits and maximum ages. A President or Senator shouldn’t be older than 70 on election, and both limited to two terms. Reps should be limited to five terms, a decade in the House, and not older than the federal retirement age.
They didn't need fifty ex-SEALs, inside agents in the Secret Service and a God level genius hacker.
What they needed was a Jamiroquai tribute band.
Pensions set to exceed defence, policing and education spend combined.
Will my much-mocked, longstanding and consistent contention that neither Biden nor Trump will run come to pass?
I’ll be sure to remind PBers if I’m proved right.
Clinton and classified government documentation on her personal e-mail servers? Tick
Biden and the payments to his family? Tick
Obama's failure to stop Biden's activities as VP and whether he therefore allowed foreign countries to influence US policy? Tick
Nancy Pelosi and her share deals? Tick
Once you start down this route, there is no end.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/08/01/indictment-document-trump-jan-6-pdf/
Generally white-collar stuff seems to take quite a long time to bring to trial in the US. There's a lot of evidence (internal emails etc) they had to get other suspects, much of it in other investigations. They definitely wouldn't want to bring a half-baked case.
Obama really does have a lot to answer for.
Just as Trump's record is:
1) Attempted to rig a vote? Tick
2) Tried to falsify election returns? Tick
3) Attempted to prevent the certifying of the election? Tick
I mean, there's whataboutery, there's one eyed bias and then there's sheer lunacy.
While for any specific individual the probability of two unlikely things happening together is small, in a large enough population the probability that it will happen to someone will be a lot higher, and you shouldn't prosecute that someone simply for being unlucky.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/three-democrat-state-lawmakers-join-protesters-invading-tennessee-state-capitol
She cooperated with the investigation (unlike Trump), and the matter is closed.
Hunter Biden has been investigated for the last five years - by a Trump appointee - and the investigation continued under Biden's presidency.
It's impossible to imagine the converse happening under Trump.
* I don't think you are a loon, I think you have extreme one-eyed bias. If it came out to ban the GOP, you would probably argue the case for it (actually, I think you already did at one point).
Why are all the indictments coming out in the middle of an election ?
...they began to operate what they called 'The Operation'... They would select a victim and then threaten to beat him up if he paid the so-called protection money. Four months later they started another operation which the called 'The Other Operation'. In this racket they selected another victim and threatened not to beat him up if he didn't pay them. One month later they hit upon 'The Other Other Operation'. In this the victim was threatened that if he didn't pay them, they would beat him up. This for the Piranha brothers was the turning point.
140 million births a year, says the internet. So ignoring slight fiddling needed to count only second or subsequent births, it's a twice a year occurrence even on his numbers.
Disappointing that neither the defence nor the judge saw and questioned the fishiness in the statistics. Meadows was a paediatrician not a statistician.
If you have reason to test your suspect and you get a match, fine. If you trawl a database of x million people and get a match, not so good.
“Mortgage holders are braced for more pain as spiralling wage growth fuelled predictions that the Bank of England will be forced to further crank up interest rates.
“The surprise jump prompted traders to ramp up bets that the Bank of England will press ahead with a further interest rate rise to 5.5pc in September before going further to 5.75pc by the end of the year.
“Soaring wages also inched up predictions for the peak of inflation. The City of London now expects the Bank of England’s base rate to peak as high as 6pc in March 2023. This is up from expectations of 5.75pc on Monday.
“Figures from the Office for National Statistics show workers in the private sector were handed pay rises averaging 8.2pc when excluding bonuses, the largest on record outside of the pandemic.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/08/15/ftse-100-market-news-wage-growth-inflation-bank-england/
The investigation has, for obvious reasons, taken years to gather evidence.
Likewise, it's impossible to read the Georgia indictment, and claim that all Jan 6 was about was poor policing.
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000189-f730-dc32-ab89-f7fc1f760000
'The Federal indictment against Donald Trump unsealed this afternoon is stunning and persuasive, but there should be no celebrating. This is a dark day for our country: an elected president, while in office, is alleged to have violated his sworn constitutional obligations. But it will be even darker if Trump can postpone the trial of these charges until after November 2024. He complains the charges should have been filed long ago, and if he were innocent he would want a speedy trial. Without that, or if he is acquitted, he may well be elected president again.'
America is always "in the middle of an election" and the indictments are coming out when the investigations concluded.
Now we probably all agree than this is most easily achieved in a low-inflation scenario. But that's a secondary issue.
He is not going to be Potus from prison.
Enough of the gratuitous bedwetting.