Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Agree. There will be other high-profile losses, other big swing defeats, and other unpopular MPs ousted but JRM is the only one likely to be in the centre of that particular Venn diagram, encapsulating the election night.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
Average odds of a male their age dying in the next year is around 5% - so there's nearly a one in ten chance - though factor in better medical care, and the fact that both are, as far as we know, not suffering from any life threatening conditions, and it's probably less than that.
But even so, a couple of orders of magnitudes more likely than your alien calculation*.
*I'd add another couple of orders on top of that, FWIW. Your 50% is a reasonable guess, but the other two not so much. Particularly for "in contact with" vs "We detected a very distant signal not consistent with natural origin".
Although if one adds "significant health event that does not result in death" (cancer, stroke, heart attack, etc.), then the number presumably moves up somewhat.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
Apparently, on that fateful night, when the Returning Officer told the candidates the figures he asked 'Ok, everybody happy?' To which Portillo replied 'Delirious.'
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
I don't think we'll get one.
If it's a very bad election for the Tories, which seems likely, they will of course lose some "names" and opponents will thoroughly enjoy it.
But Portillo was a class apart as he was the face of the Tory right back in 1997, and the heir presumptive who had (& if memory serves this is literally true) set up his campaign HQ for the leadership campaign that he and many others believed was his to lose.
Of the three you mention, neither Cleverly nor Mordaunt truly have the pantomime villain quality, and Rees-Mogg is yesterday's man (or at least he's not a serious leadership contender).
If heir apparent is a precondition then it needs to be Braverman or Badenoch. I think JRM would be more epoch-defining though. He is one of the faces of Brexit. Only Gove and Johnson (no longer an MP) and Farage (not an MP) are in the same category.
The thing is that Portillo was a surprise and showed just how bad it was going to be for the Tories in 1997. After 1992 when the polls were out there was a lot of scepticism about how bad it was going to be for them. This time around there's a lot more faith in the polls and the exit poll. people have more information to hand these days online too.
we should have a good handle nearer election night which seats are really up for a flip.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
Probably won't happen but Suella Braverman would be a delight.
Sir Christopher Chope would also be a treat.
Let's face it, there are almost no MPs currently serving on the Tory benches that it won't be nice to see losing.
TissuePrice perhaps the exception.
On a personal level, perhaps. And for standing up to the lying clown when it mattered.
But he’s gone along with most of the Tory nonsense ever since.
And the tax breaks for regular contributors to political discussion forums are a very long time in coming.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
Average odds of a male their age dying in the next year is around 5% - so there's nearly a one in ten chance - though factor in better medical care, and the fact that both are, as far as we know, not suffering from any life threatening conditions, and it's probably less than that.
But even so, a couple of orders of magnitudes more likely than your alien calculation*.
*I'd add another couple of orders on top of that, FWIW. Your 50% is a reasonable guess, but the other two not so much. Particularly for "in contact with" vs "We detected a very distant signal not consistent with natural origin".
Although if one adds "significant health event that does not result in death" (cancer, stroke, heart attack, etc.), then the number presumably moves up somewhat.
Yes, one or the other is the most likely 'surprise' event between now and the election.
And if it's in the Daily Mail, then it must be true!!!!!!
OK, this is me being mischievous:
If they leave Trump on the ballot, without clarifying that somehow attempting to overthrow the government isn't insurrection (worth noting Alexander Stephens was never accused of that, or at least, only of the Confederate government) they would be guilty of aiding insurrection.
And therefore, ineligible to serve on the Supreme Court, because they are assumed to be civil officers under the Constitution...
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
"A woman who used her car "as a weapon" to kill her fiance after a row at a party has been convicted of murder.
Alice Wood, 23, had denied murdering Ryan Watson, aged 24, near their home in Rode Heath, Cheshire. She drove at Mr Watson three times before he was dragged for up to 160m (525ft) underneath the car, after he "clicked" with another woman. And after a trial at Chester Crown Court, the jury found her unanimously guilty. In a statement read to the court, Mr Watson's family said they had finally got justice for their "beloved son"."
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
We're not talking about high-ranking judges, are we? We're talking about SCOTUS.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Maine is probably 1 electoral vote lost for Trump, if this happens - Maine splits its electoral votes.
The interesting bit will be any cases up coming in swing states
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
Apparently, on that fateful night, when the Returning Officer told the candidates the figures he asked 'Ok, everybody happy?' To which Portillo replied 'Delirious.'
Class.
Just think, in a decade’s time, JRM will be presenting some sort of cookery or travel or history programme on TV and we will all be thinking that he’s positively marvellous….
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
Apparently, on that fateful night, when the Returning Officer told the candidates the figures he asked 'Ok, everybody happy?' To which Portillo replied 'Delirious.'
Class.
Just think, in a decade’s time, JRM will be presenting some sort of cookery or travel or history programme on TV and we will all be thinking that he’s positively marvellous….
We really, really won't.
Just as I do not somehow now think Ed Balls is marvellous.
On all those Bone gags (and Pincher before him)...
Given the nominative determinism that seems to rife among Conservative MPs, you can't help but wonder if Richard "Dick" Holden, Chairman of the Party, might not be the next gift that keeps giving....
Next CUP chair = Lord Wangdoodle!?!
Formerly Percy Updyke Dick Wang-Doodle, aka "Pud" to fellow Bullingdonians.
This weather doesn’t seem worse than much that we get on the island during the winter, yet right now many of the ferry connections to North Island are suspended, leaving most of you almost cut off.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
Apparently, on that fateful night, when the Returning Officer told the candidates the figures he asked 'Ok, everybody happy?' To which Portillo replied 'Delirious.'
Class.
Just think, in a decade’s time, JRM will be presenting some sort of cookery or travel or history programme on TV and we will all be thinking that he’s positively marvellous….
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
The more strongly that is asserted, the more interesting the absence of evidence seems.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
We're not talking about high-ranking judges, are we? We're talking about SCOTUS.
And if it's in the Daily Mail, then it must be true!!!!!!
OK, this is me being mischievous:
If they leave Trump on the ballot, without clarifying that somehow attempting to overthrow the government isn't insurrection (worth noting Alexander Stephens was never accused of that, or at least, only of the Confederate government) they would be guilty of aiding insurrection.
And therefore, ineligible to serve on the Supreme Court, because they are assumed to be civil officers under the Constitution...
Though the only remedy for that, given they are judges in their own case, would be impeachment.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
The more strongly that is asserted, the more interesting the absence of evidence seems.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
The other factor is that, despite the millions of years they had, during which presumably natural selection did its best, the technological advances achieved by the dinosaurs seem to have been somewhat limited. The ability for a single species to break through into planetary dominance, and thereafter achieve the technology to reach out into space, is surely hugely less likely than the development of life in the first place.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
Apparently, on that fateful night, when the Returning Officer told the candidates the figures he asked 'Ok, everybody happy?' To which Portillo replied 'Delirious.'
Class.
Just think, in a decade’s time, JRM will be presenting some sort of cookery or travel or history programme on TV and we will all be thinking that he’s positively marvellous….
We really, really won't.
Just as I do not somehow now think Ed Balls is marvellous.
Or indeed, Michael Portillo.
Balls is a significantly better Breakfast TV presenter than he was a Treasury Minister.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Maine is probably 1 electoral vote lost for Trump, if this happens - Maine splits its electoral votes.
The interesting bit will be any cases up coming in swing states
Surely if SCOTUS rules that section 3 of the 14th applies to Trump, then he will automatically be banned from the ballot across all the states. It is they who are the federal court, interpreting the constitution to which all 50 states are bound.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
Apparently, on that fateful night, when the Returning Officer told the candidates the figures he asked 'Ok, everybody happy?' To which Portillo replied 'Delirious.'
Class.
Just think, in a decade’s time, JRM will be presenting some sort of cookery or travel or history programme on TV and we will all be thinking that he’s positively marvellous….
We really, really won't.
Just as I do not somehow now think Ed Balls is marvellous.
Or indeed, Michael Portillo.
Balls is a significantly better Breakfast TV presenter than he was a Treasury Minister.
Or indeed Education Secretary.
But...there's a famous phrase of mine regarding limbo dancing mice that springs to mind.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
Apparently, on that fateful night, when the Returning Officer told the candidates the figures he asked 'Ok, everybody happy?' To which Portillo replied 'Delirious.'
Class.
Just think, in a decade’s time, JRM will be presenting some sort of cookery or travel or history programme on TV and we will all be thinking that he’s positively marvellous….
We really, really won't.
Just as I do not somehow now think Ed Balls is marvellous.
Or indeed, Michael Portillo.
At the time of the Owen Patterson affair when he was trying to argue that he should be entitled to an appeal against the decision of the privileges committee Portillo was presenting on LBC and supporting Patterson.
I think that Portillo has now moved over to GB News?
Some good inflation news coming in the next few months, I've just had a preview of tech product prices that will launch in Q1 of this year and prices are down by abut 5-10% across the board compared to the same products released in 2023.
I'm beginning to think that the scope of deflation incoming is being seriously underestimated. If Samsung are cutting the price of their phones, TVs and other goods by up to 10% then I expect other companies will be dropping prices too and not just tech.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
It won't happen in a GE (if only there was a by-election), but look at these figures
C 37.8% L 27.8% LD 18.6%
There's also Reform (9.2%) and Green (5.7%)
If Lab and LibDem (plus Greens?) could come to some arrangement (maybe involving the other half of Fareham constituency, which will form part of the new Hamble Valley constituency) we could have a 'Portillo' moment involving none other than - Suella Braverman (ruling her out as the Tories new opposition leader)
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Maine is probably 1 electoral vote lost for Trump, if this happens - Maine splits its electoral votes.
The interesting bit will be any cases up coming in swing states
Or if big states like California, NY and Illinois try to block Trump from their ballots.
For even if they are blue states in the general election they carry a lot of delegates in the GOP primaries which would make it much more difficult for Trump to even get the GOP nomination in the Presidential election and impossible if most swing states also keep him off the ballot (even if he could still run 3rd party in red states and any swing states which kept him on the ballot)
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
It wasn't really the making of Portillo, though. One can't feel sorry for him - he's had a thoroughly nice and interesting life. But his dream was to be PM, not to serve time in some middling cabinet posts in a fag end Tory government, followed by making some amiable travel programmes like the bastard child of John Selwyn Gummer and Judith Chalmers.
You're right that he (and JRM would be similar) have enough about them to shake their opponent warmly by the hand, thank the returning officer, their campaign team, and their constituents for the honour of having been their MP. They aren't stupid enough to rant and rave like Mellor, storm off the stage like that tit in Tamworth, or blame their opponent and the dumb punters like the Chesham guy. But failure is failure.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
The more strongly that is asserted, the more interesting the absence of evidence seems.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
The "absence of evidence" is more explicable if that absence has been caused by governments unable to handle the consequences and so suppressing the evidence. What we are currently seeing is perhaps a lot of that "evidence" now being released along with a "we don't know what these things are or where they come from" narrative.
Which is a line that can't hold for long. Hence a need for the US President to make some sort of announcement to the population. And where I came in with my black swan.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
The more strongly that is asserted, the more interesting the absence of evidence seems.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
The other factor is that, despite the millions of years they had, during which presumably natural selection did its best, the technological advances achieved by the dinosaurs seem to have been somewhat limited. The ability for a single species to break through into planetary dominance, and thereafter achieve the technology to reach out into space, is surely hugely less likely than the development of life in the first place.
Including the evolution of the sort of capacity Einstein had to achieve insights of absolutely zero evolutionary value or advantage absolutely transcending our experience or any previous thought. Or the capacity to think about what reality would be like in our absence.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
The more strongly that is asserted, the more interesting the absence of evidence seems.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
The "absence of evidence" is more explicable if that absence has been caused by governments unable to handle the consequences and so suppressing the evidence. What we are currently seeing is perhaps a lot of that "evidence" now being released along with a "we don't know what these things are or where they come from" narrative.
Some good inflation news coming in the next few months, I've just had a preview of tech product prices that will launch in Q1 of this year and prices are down by abut 5-10% across the board compared to the same products released in 2023.
I'm beginning to think that the scope of deflation incoming is being seriously underestimated. If Samsung are cutting the price of their phones, TVs and other goods by up to 10% then I expect other companies will be dropping prices too and not just tech.
My inflation forecast for next November is one of the lowest, I think?
Meanwhile wasnt it you that recommended this Dune film? Does anything happen at all, during the second half?
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
David, this isn't really my specialist subject, so I ask you...
Would it not be reasonable for SCOTUS to decline making a judgement itself on whether he contributed to an insurrection, but to assert that any State might reasonably come that conclusion and bar him accordingly?
This would toss the problem back to the States. Presumably they would then tend to divide on Party lines, and he would therefoire be on the ballot in Red States.
On election night highlights, the tragedy is of course that Boris Johnson is no longer an MP. He would have been the scalp to savour above all others had he hung on in Uxbridge or got some other seat, only to lose it in GE 24. Shame.
And if it's in the Daily Mail, then it must be true!!!!!!
OK, this is me being mischievous:
If they leave Trump on the ballot, without clarifying that somehow attempting to overthrow the government isn't insurrection (worth noting Alexander Stephens was never accused of that, or at least, only of the Confederate government) they would be guilty of aiding insurrection.
And therefore, ineligible to serve on the Supreme Court, because they are assumed to be civil officers under the Constitution...
Though the only remedy for that, given they are judges in their own case, would be impeachment.
Fun indeed.
In any sane world, Clarence Thomas would have been impeached by now.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
So in effect Trump could stand and win but couldn’t be inaugurated?
That one would be the worst of all worlds. Probably the one with the greatest potential for civil unrest.
Some good inflation news coming in the next few months, I've just had a preview of tech product prices that will launch in Q1 of this year and prices are down by abut 5-10% across the board compared to the same products released in 2023.
I'm beginning to think that the scope of deflation incoming is being seriously underestimated. If Samsung are cutting the price of their phones, TVs and other goods by up to 10% then I expect other companies will be dropping prices too and not just tech.
Hmm.
Wonderful news for people whom the price of flatscreen samsung tellys is important, rather less good news for those whose mortgage repayments are still likely to double in the next year...
Strikes me as more of a return to the norm of the last decade, where the price of consumer goods has consistently dropped (remember how much more expensive such goods were a decade ago) which has kept headline inflation artificially low, all the while costs on essentials - putting a roof over your head, paying your gas bill - have spiralled. People spend between a third and a half of their income putting a roof over their head and more to heat it. Cheap samsung tellys are not much of a boon while mortgage and rental costs continue to rise.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
No, Hunt as Chancellor of the Exchequer (as Portillo was Defence Secretary) would be a far bigger Tory scalp than JRM who is not even in the Cabinet. Surrey SW has also always been Tory like Enfield Southgate had wheres JRM's seat was Labour in 1997 (albeit under slightly different boundaries). Hunt also has a much smaller majority than JRM and is also more likely to lose, as are Redwood or IDS who would also be bigger scalps on the Tory right than JRM, IDS or course being an ex party leader.
Shapps as current Defence Secretary in long shot Labour target Welwyn Hatfield would also be a big scalp, his seat was Labour too in 1997 like Mogg's
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
The more strongly that is asserted, the more interesting the absence of evidence seems.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
The other factor is that, despite the millions of years they had, during which presumably natural selection did its best, the technological advances achieved by the dinosaurs seem to have been somewhat limited. The ability for a single species to break through into planetary dominance, and thereafter achieve the technology to reach out into space, is surely hugely less likely than the development of life in the first place.
Including the evolution of the sort of capacity Einstein had to achieve insights of absolutely zero evolutionary value or advantage absolutely transcending our experience or any previous thought. Or the capacity to think about what reality would be like in our absence.
Yes, but from caveman (caveperson) to interplanetary explorer we’ve had, what, twenty thousand years, and the key building blocks for our progress, such as sophisticated language, probably don’t go back much further than that. Yet other species were around for hundreds of millions of years before us, and yet there’s not so much as a firework or longship or knife and fork to show for it?
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
If they were to opine that Trump engaged in insurrection, then that is as much a green light to state-level judges to make him ineligible to be on the ballot as if they had decided the candidate was not 35 years of age, not a natural born citizen, or had not lived in the United States for at least 14 years. It's a requirement of the US Constitution. Simples.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
In which case, though ?
I would agree with you in expecting them to throw out his absurdly broad claims of Presidential immunity (and double jeopardy) regarding the Jan 6 charges (which if allowed would literally allow incumbent presidents to murder their opponents, and face no remedy except for impeachment).
How they rule on the Colorado (and Maine) decision is more problematic, though. Even if they act as justices, rather than politicians sitting on the bench, there's no straightforward ruling which won't cause further problems.
Some good inflation news coming in the next few months, I've just had a preview of tech product prices that will launch in Q1 of this year and prices are down by abut 5-10% across the board compared to the same products released in 2023.
I'm beginning to think that the scope of deflation incoming is being seriously underestimated. If Samsung are cutting the price of their phones, TVs and other goods by up to 10% then I expect other companies will be dropping prices too and not just tech.
Any chance of my pub cutting the price of my extraordinarily expensive pint by 10%? Or the local Co-op doing the same with food essentials?
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
The more strongly that is asserted, the more interesting the absence of evidence seems.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
The "absence of evidence" is more explicable if that absence has been caused by governments unable to handle the consequences and so suppressing the evidence. What we are currently seeing is perhaps a lot of that "evidence" now being released along with a "we don't know what these things are or where they come from" narrative.
Which is a line that can't hold for long. Hence a need for the US President to make some sort of announcement to the population. And where I came in with my black swan.
Maybe. Occam's Razor suggests that in this general case other explanations for the absence of evidence may also be contenders.
If really decent evidence exists, it is unlikely to be single discrete particles of it that governments as a whole can control (and is unlikely to be confined to the USA or to our period of history). The desire to be the most famous scientist in the world, even more so than Einstein, and to write the most read ever paper must lurk in the hearts of enough physics folk to ensure that a journal like 'Nature' gets to publish some peer reviewed stuff. If such evidence exists.
Some good inflation news coming in the next few months, I've just had a preview of tech product prices that will launch in Q1 of this year and prices are down by abut 5-10% across the board compared to the same products released in 2023.
I'm beginning to think that the scope of deflation incoming is being seriously underestimated. If Samsung are cutting the price of their phones, TVs and other goods by up to 10% then I expect other companies will be dropping prices too and not just tech.
You are presumably debarred by Benpointer from the competition because of insider knowledge?
Some good inflation news coming in the next few months, I've just had a preview of tech product prices that will launch in Q1 of this year and prices are down by abut 5-10% across the board compared to the same products released in 2023.
I'm beginning to think that the scope of deflation incoming is being seriously underestimated. If Samsung are cutting the price of their phones, TVs and other goods by up to 10% then I expect other companies will be dropping prices too and not just tech.
Any chance of my pub cutting the price of my extraordinarily expensive pint by 10%? Or the local Co-op doing the same with food essentials?
You could shop at Aldi instead until it dawns on the Co-op it's the price keeping you away.
Some good inflation news coming in the next few months, I've just had a preview of tech product prices that will launch in Q1 of this year and prices are down by abut 5-10% across the board compared to the same products released in 2023.
I'm beginning to think that the scope of deflation incoming is being seriously underestimated. If Samsung are cutting the price of their phones, TVs and other goods by up to 10% then I expect other companies will be dropping prices too and not just tech.
One thing that would really help inflation is if people (And I do) just ordered their Chinese tat direct from Temu/AliExpress/AliBaba instead of purchasing the identical resold/dropshipped products on Amazon or other social media sites.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Maine is probably 1 electoral vote lost for Trump, if this happens - Maine splits its electoral votes.
The interesting bit will be any cases up coming in swing states
Surely if SCOTUS rules that section 3 of the 14th applies to Trump, then he will automatically be banned from the ballot across all the states. It is they who are the federal court, interpreting the constitution to which all 50 states are bound.
AIUI it's not completely clear, because it is state law that governs the mechanics of how the ballot and voting procedure works. So if scotus rule that Trump did not commit insurrection then that effectively clears him everywhere; but if they rule that he did, it then comes down to "what does each state's law say about whether ineligible candidates can be listed on the primary and general election ballots?".
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
The more strongly that is asserted, the more interesting the absence of evidence seems.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
The "absence of evidence" is more explicable if that absence has been caused by governments unable to handle the consequences and so suppressing the evidence. What we are currently seeing is perhaps a lot of that "evidence" now being released along with a "we don't know what these things are or where they come from" narrative.
Clearly, allowing incorrect statements to the challenged is a good thing, but that's going to rule out 99.9 percent of political communication.
Are notes on notes going to be the next step?
Does that depend on the definition of backlog?
If they has at least “reviewed” (whatever that means) all the pre June 2022 cases then you can argue the backlog has been cleared provided you are willing to accept that 18 months is a normal processing time (which it shouldn’t be)
I think it’s fair to ignore the 4000 difficult cases that they are still working on
The issue with “noting” is that it carries a an aura of authority but it could be written by someone partisan (the same with partisan “fact checking”)
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
In which case, though ?
I would agree with you in expecting them to throw out his absurdly broad claims of Presidential immunity (and double jeopardy) regarding the Jan 6 charges (which if allowed would literally allow incumbent presidents to murder their opponents, and face no remedy except for impeachment).
How they rule on the Colorado (and Maine) decision is more problematic, though. Even if they act as justices, rather than politicians sitting on the bench, there's no straightforward ruling which won't cause further problems.
Such as with SCOTUS's previous ruling in "Bush v Gore".
Where, for example, alleged "obiter dicta" is actually/effectively law of the land.
Certainly have heard it quoted as such on numerous occasions, by Republicans.
Amazingly, you can still get 1.03 on the lying clown not being Tory leader at the next election. Free money, for anyone with cash to spare that can’t for any reason be dropped into a 5% interest account.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
No, Hunt as Chancellor of the Exchequer (as Portillo was Defence Secretary) would be a far bigger Tory scalp than JRM who is not even in the Cabinet. Surrey SW has also always been Tory like Enfield Southgate had wheres JRM's seat was Labour in 1997 (albeit under slightly different boundaries). Hunt also has a much smaller majority than JRM and is also more likely to lose, as are Redwood or IDS who would also be bigger scalps on the Tory right than JRM, IDS or course being an ex party leader.
Shapps as current Defence Secretary in long shot Labour target Welwyn Hatfield would also be a big scalp, his seat was Labour too in 1997 like Mogg's
Is there a risk that he might suffer a split vote?
I mean, we know Michael Greene is always near him...
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
In terms of political reaction, I'd expect Trump to say "We need to arm ourselves to the teeth to fight off this invader threat!"
I'd then expect Biden to retort "They are so technologically advanced, it would just give them a good laugh if we tried to fight them off. My proposed course of action is dialogue - and bridging this technology gap through friendship."
Be interesting to see how it shook up politics. Especially with the Christian right.
There is nothing in the Bible saying God didn't also create aliens, indeed they might even see them as angels or demons
They would almost certainly doubt that God had also sent THEM his only son. Human exceptionalism to the fore....
On what grounds? He would still be his only human son (I mean they already believe Jesus was God, holy spirit and human son of God in one so it is not that much of a departure!)
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Maine is probably 1 electoral vote lost for Trump, if this happens - Maine splits its electoral votes.
The interesting bit will be any cases up coming in swing states
Surely if SCOTUS rules that section 3 of the 14th applies to Trump, then he will automatically be banned from the ballot across all the states. It is they who are the federal court, interpreting the constitution to which all 50 states are bound.
AIUI it's not completely clear, because it is state law that governs the mechanics of how the ballot and voting procedure works. So if scotus rule that Trump did not commit insurrection then that effectively clears him everywhere; but if they rule that he did, it then comes down to "what does each state's law say about whether ineligible candidates can be listed on the primary and general election ballots?".
Interesting. If it’s the case that it’s down to the states to administer though, are there states that allow ineligible candidates to be listed on the ballot? It seems to me to be a very weird thing to allow. Why allow someone ballot access if they ultimately cannot serve?
It would create another fine mess. From here, unless Haley pulls it out of the bag, it’s very hard to see how this doesn’t end up in some kind of constitutional crisis one way or another.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
It wasn't really the making of Portillo, though. One can't feel sorry for him - he's had a thoroughly nice and interesting life. But his dream was to be PM, not to serve time in some middling cabinet posts in a fag end Tory government, followed by making some amiable travel programmes like the bastard child of John Selwyn Gummer and Judith Chalmers.
You're right that he (and JRM would be similar) have enough about them to shake their opponent warmly by the hand, thank the returning officer, their campaign team, and their constituents for the honour of having been their MP. They aren't stupid enough to rant and rave like Mellor, storm off the stage like that tit in Tamworth, or blame their opponent and the dumb punters like the Chesham guy. But failure is failure.
In retrospect Portillo should have stood against Major in 1995 if he really wanted to be PM. Thatcher would have likely come out for him and he would have had a much better chance of winning a majority of Tory MPs then than Redwood did.
By the time his chance to be Tory leader came again in 2001 after he had been elected for the then still True Blue Kensington and Chelsea seat in the 1999 parliamentary by election there, he was far too much of a woolly, social liberal and too much like New Labour for most Tory MPs and members and most Thatcherites backed IDS instead
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
Truly enlightened life would realise that they had no right to go and bugger up another planet, and would stay put to repent at the prior wrongdoings of their species and accept their fate.
Should PB provide SCOTUS with the benefit of it's collective legal wisdom, by submitting an amicus curiae brief?
Based on quasi-learned commentary on here so far . . . hell no!
I'm not sure 'two thirds of you are lying c***s who f**k with the law to appease your paymasters and only care about your stupid ideology' would help them much anyway.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
In terms of political reaction, I'd expect Trump to say "We need to arm ourselves to the teeth to fight off this invader threat!"
I'd then expect Biden to retort "They are so technologically advanced, it would just give them a good laugh if we tried to fight them off. My proposed course of action is dialogue - and bridging this technology gap through friendship."
Be interesting to see how it shook up politics. Especially with the Christian right.
There is nothing in the Bible saying God didn't also create aliens, indeed they might even see them as angels or demons
They would almost certainly doubt that God had also sent THEM his only son. Human exceptionalism to the fore....
On what grounds? He would still be his only human son (I mean they already believe Jesus was God, holy spirit and human son of God in one so it is not that much of a departure!)
He probably has as many sons as your clownish hero, and sends them to all sorts of planets telling each that he’s the only one….
Anyhow, we already know that he can recycle them at will.
Might also help the Tories. They could select, say, a well known local councillor from the Wellingborough area as their candidate with no scandal and completely disconnect Bone from their campaign if he is not even now a member of the Conservative Party let alone a Tory MP but instead the Reform Party candidate in the by election.
Reform selecting a candidate who has been hit by sexual misconduct allegations also likely reduces likely Tory voter leakage to Reform in the by election too
But Tory voters aren't interested in those things. Bone wasn't just a proper Brexiteer, he practically owned and operated the grass roots campaign.
Just you watch how disruptive ReFUK can be with a Bone waved in the voter's faces.
If he joins Reform we will need a way to distinguish previous activity from more recent moves.
"On this evening's episode of 'Sedan Chair Travels' our intrepid host Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the "Grand Horizontal" of the 21st century, explores the backroads and byways of the West Country . . . until being 'accidentially' dropped into the Wookie Hole by his less-than-gruntled sedan-chair attendants."
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
Apparently, on that fateful night, when the Returning Officer told the candidates the figures he asked 'Ok, everybody happy?' To which Portillo replied 'Delirious.'
Class.
Just think, in a decade’s time, JRM will be presenting some sort of cookery or travel or history programme on TV and we will all be thinking that he’s positively marvellous….
We really, really won't.
Just as I do not somehow now think Ed Balls is marvellous.
Or indeed, Michael Portillo.
At the time of the Owen Patterson affair when he was trying to argue that he should be entitled to an appeal against the decision of the privileges committee Portillo was presenting on LBC and supporting Patterson.
I think that Portillo has now moved over to GB News?
I assume he's just freelance so various things for various channels still.
He does a GB News show on a Sunday, I think. I've never watched it but believe it's a soft-hitting, Sunday supplement-style show. Not all the shows on that channel are right-wing conspiracy theories and cheerful -isms. Indeed, they have a bit of a strategy of easing people in with Portillo, Holmes, and Diamond then WHAM - have some Tice, Anderson, and a long, hard session with that bearded f***wit who used to visit lighthouses.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
Apparently, on that fateful night, when the Returning Officer told the candidates the figures he asked 'Ok, everybody happy?' To which Portillo replied 'Delirious.'
Class.
His Desert Island Discs from 2000 talks about this, he comes over really well
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
It wasn't really the making of Portillo, though. One can't feel sorry for him - he's had a thoroughly nice and interesting life. But his dream was to be PM, not to serve time in some middling cabinet posts in a fag end Tory government, followed by making some amiable travel programmes like the bastard child of John Selwyn Gummer and Judith Chalmers.
You're right that he (and JRM would be similar) have enough about them to shake their opponent warmly by the hand, thank the returning officer, their campaign team, and their constituents for the honour of having been their MP. They aren't stupid enough to rant and rave like Mellor, storm off the stage like that tit in Tamworth, or blame their opponent and the dumb punters like the Chesham guy. But failure is failure.
In retrospect Portillo should have stood against Major in 1995 if he really wanted to be PM. Thatcher would have likely come out for him and he would have had a much better chance of winning a majority of Tory MPs then than Redwood did.
By the time his chance came again in 2001 he was far too much of a woolly, social liberal and too much like New Labour for most Tory MPs and members and most Thatcherites backed IDS instead
Not one of the great decisions of the 21st Century.
Although if I remember rightly the polling suggested Portillo would have lost to Clarke.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
So in effect Trump could stand and win but couldn’t be inaugurated?
That one would be the worst of all worlds. Probably the one with the greatest potential for civil unrest.
The law and the constitution are what they are.
Congress can lift the bar on someone who engaged in insurrection, with a two-thirds vote. If it can do that, then there's an argument that such an individual shouldn't be legally prevented from standing because to do so is to usurp Congress's rights. AIUI, there's no specification on how or when Congress should vote, or how many times it can do so (although it is implied that once lifted, the ban can't then be reimposed). Even if there is, Congress hasn't so voted on Trump, yet.
The constitution also makes explicit provision for what happens is a president has not qualified for office at the start of their term but does so part way through, which certainly implies that Electors can vote for non-qualified candidates, and that these votes are valid for the purpose of the Electoral College (there is precedent that votes for a deceased candidate were *not* counted, but that's a one-off and happened before the 20th Amendment was passed).
But how states choose their Electors is a matter for them, within the equal protections of the law. How far that extends to the provisions for excluding aspirant candidates is the key question. Personally, I'd have thought that given the measures some states already lawfully impose on ballot access, it's not unreasonable that excluding people who are unable to take up the post based on the facts at the time is within a state's lawful powers.
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
It wasn't really the making of Portillo, though. One can't feel sorry for him - he's had a thoroughly nice and interesting life. But his dream was to be PM, not to serve time in some middling cabinet posts in a fag end Tory government, followed by making some amiable travel programmes like the bastard child of John Selwyn Gummer and Judith Chalmers.
You're right that he (and JRM would be similar) have enough about them to shake their opponent warmly by the hand, thank the returning officer, their campaign team, and their constituents for the honour of having been their MP. They aren't stupid enough to rant and rave like Mellor, storm off the stage like that tit in Tamworth, or blame their opponent and the dumb punters like the Chesham guy. But failure is failure.
In retrospect Portillo should have stood against Major in 1995 if he really wanted to be PM. Thatcher would have likely come out for him and he would have had a much better chance of winning a majority of Tory MPs then than Redwood did.
By the time his chance came again in 2001 he was far too much of a woolly, social liberal and too much like New Labour for most Tory MPs and members and most Thatcherites backed IDS instead
Not one of the great decisions of the 21st Century.
Although if I remember rightly the polling suggested Portillo would have lost to Clarke.
Of the general public but they weren't the electorate, Tory MPs were and they wouldn't have defied Thatcher's orders to back Portillo (in 1997 they even backed Hague over Clarke when the Lady told them too).
Say what you like about Rishi, he likely will lose the next election but he was ruthless enough to take his best chance of being PM and shaft Boris in 2022 and stand for leader and now he is PM. Whereas Portillo in 1995 and David Miliband in 2008/9 were too cowardly to take on Major or Brown and thus lost their best chances to be PM
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
So in effect Trump could stand and win but couldn’t be inaugurated?
That one would be the worst of all worlds. Probably the one with the greatest potential for civil unrest.
The law and the constitution are what they are.
Congress can lift the bar on someone who engaged in insurrection, with a two-thirds vote. If it can do that, then there's an argument that such an individual shouldn't be legally prevented from standing because to do so is to usurp Congress's rights. AIUI, there's no specification on how or when Congress should vote, or how many times it can do so (although it is implied that once lifted, the ban can't then be reimposed). Even if there is, Congress hasn't so voted on Trump, yet.
The constitution also makes explicit provision for what happens is a president has not qualified for office at the start of their term but does so part way through, which certainly implies that Electors can vote for non-qualified candidates, and that these votes are valid for the purpose of the Electoral College (there is precedent that votes for a deceased candidate were *not* counted, but that's a one-off and happened before the 20th Amendment was passed).
But how states choose their Electors is a matter for them, within the equal protections of the law. How far that extends to the provisions for excluding aspirant candidates is the key question. Personally, I'd have thought that given the measures some states already lawfully impose on ballot access, it's not unreasonable that excluding people who are unable to take up the post based on the facts at the time is within a state's lawful powers.
Very interesting. Thanks. When people say that any decision is going to open up another can of worms, I understand it. No easy way out for SCOTUS here from what I can tell.
I can confirm much of what @MarqueeMark is saying and I have not hacked his account
For anyone following this “aliens” story with an open mind, it remains mind boggling and possibly gets MORE mind boggling as time passes. As ever, it is not the evidence itself which boggles (this remains feeble or meagre) it’s the behaviour and statements by significant people in the US “Establishment” - to what end, no one knows. Perhaps they are simply mad
FWIW the latest theories revolve around “inter dimensional” beings - maybe from earth, maybe from another time, maybe from another universe - solving many of the problems posited above
And again, this could all be some weird psyops to freak out the Chinese or a truly grandiose mass hallucination. But the narrative rolls on…
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
In which case, though ?
I would agree with you in expecting them to throw out his absurdly broad claims of Presidential immunity (and double jeopardy) regarding the Jan 6 charges (which if allowed would literally allow incumbent presidents to murder their opponents, and face no remedy except for impeachment).
How they rule on the Colorado (and Maine) decision is more problematic, though. Even if they act as justices, rather than politicians sitting on the bench, there's no straightforward ruling which won't cause further problems.
Such as with SCOTUS's previous ruling in "Bush v Gore".
Where, for example, alleged "obiter dicta" is actually/effectively law of the land.
Certainly have heard it quoted as such on numerous occasions, by Republicans.
Even if there were nine entirely incorruptible liberals on the court, it would not be an easy case to decide, since they are effectively being asked to define the hitherto undefined boundaries of a law.
While the 14th amendment is incontrovertibly the law of the land, the clause in question has been so little used that there is significant uncertainty about what exactly it means for any given case.
Although the two opinion polls published today are good for Labour I’m innately suspicious of fieldwork over bank holidays, and Christmas / New Year seems particularly precarious.
As for Wellingborough and beyond, I guess this really does make a Labour win all the more likely.
But will Reform do a deal at the GE as they did with Boris? I’m guessing not but my knowledge that far Right peters out so others on here will know better. Will Reform voting tories get their revenge on Rishi?
BTW, last night in New Orleans, University of Washington defeated University of Texas by 37-31 in the Sugar Bowl.
Meaning that UW will face University of Michigan (winner of the Rose Bowl versus The Ohio State University) in next week in Houston, to decide the national #1 college football team for NCAA Division 1.
"Will an artificial intelligence (AI) superintelligence appear suddenly, or will scientists see it coming, and have a chance to warn the world? That’s a question that has received a lot of attention recently, with the rise of large language models, such as ChatGPT, which have achieved vast new abilities as their size has grown. Some findings point to “emergence”, a phenomenon in which AI models gain intelligence in a sharp and unpredictable way. But a recent study calls these cases “mirages” — artefacts arising from how the systems are tested — and suggests that innovative abilities instead build more gradually."
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Maine is probably 1 electoral vote lost for Trump, if this happens - Maine splits its electoral votes.
The interesting bit will be any cases up coming in swing states
Or if big states like California, NY and Illinois try to block Trump from their ballots.
For even if they are blue states in the general election they carry a lot of delegates in the GOP primaries which would make it much more difficult for Trump to even get the GOP nomination in the Presidential election and impossible if most swing states also keep him off the ballot (even if he could still run 3rd party in red states and any swing states which kept him on the ballot)
Does the ballot blocking for former insurgents apply to primaries, as well?
BTW, last night in New Orleans, University of Washington defeated University of Texas by 37-31 in the Sugar Bowl.
Meaning that UW will face University of Michigan (winner of the Rose Bowl versus The Ohio State University) in next week in Houston, to decide the national #1 college football team for NCAA Division 1.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
In terms of political reaction, I'd expect Trump to say "We need to arm ourselves to the teeth to fight off this invader threat!"
I'd then expect Biden to retort "They are so technologically advanced, it would just give them a good laugh if we tried to fight them off. My proposed course of action is dialogue - and bridging this technology gap through friendship."
Be interesting to see how it shook up politics. Especially with the Christian right.
There is nothing in the Bible saying God didn't also create aliens, indeed they might even see them as angels or demons
Arthur C Clarke's Childhood's End had a peaceful alien invasion that led to something of a utopia on Earth but they never let themselves be seen. The reason being, in a somewhat Jungian twist, that they looked like the devil. One of his best books.
Another potential black swan for 2024 is the POTUS saying
“It came from the lab, it was genetically engineered to be dangerous, it was possibly the product of bioweapon research”
I suggest the chances of this are even less than the chances of Biden saying he’s had chats with ET
But for the fun of it
1. It almost certainly came from the lab 2. It was almost certainly engineered (“gain of function”) 3. Bioweapon research is much less likely, though there are troubling links between the Chinese military and the various Wuhan labs, so hmmm
(I am dismissing the fourth lurid idea that it was a virus released deliberately as too outlandish even for me; also: why? How would it benefit anyone?)
If Biden did say the above how would the world react? Quite likely with a shrug. Because: what can we do now, anyway? And China is too big to fight or to punish
But Biden isn’t going to say any of this, anyway, because it implicates America too: as America funded much of the “gain of function” research
Question for you all. Given that this general election is going to be bad for the Tories regardless as to what they do, do we have any opinions as to who is going to be the 'Portillo moment'?
A couple of suggestions (based on 1997 results in the constituencies):
James Cleverly Penny Morduant Jacob Rees-Mogg
A fascinating hatrick. But who would open all the new food banks in Portsmouth North?
The one of those who would be a Portillo is JRM. The Portillo moment has to be a party bigwig, widely disliked (before repairing their reputation later with interesting TV programmes about trains), and long enough established that their going is iconic.
JRM all the way. The only others I can think of who’d have similar impact would be Patel, Braverman or Raab before he announced he was stepping down.
There will of course be a number of Lee Anderson moments as some of the smallest majorities are with the new thug tendency.
Careful what you wish for.
The other thing about the Portillo moment was that it was kind of the making of him. He responded in a surprisingly classy way, which belied his reputation as a right wing Bovver Boy.
JRM can do civil words. It's the sentences that form and the actions they describe that are ghastly.
Assuming he loses, the Conservatives will be better off without him. Just beware his reinvention doing a remake of Donald Sinden's Discovering English Churches.
It wasn't really the making of Portillo, though. One can't feel sorry for him - he's had a thoroughly nice and interesting life. But his dream was to be PM, not to serve time in some middling cabinet posts in a fag end Tory government, followed by making some amiable travel programmes like the bastard child of John Selwyn Gummer and Judith Chalmers.
You're right that he (and JRM would be similar) have enough about them to shake their opponent warmly by the hand, thank the returning officer, their campaign team, and their constituents for the honour of having been their MP. They aren't stupid enough to rant and rave like Mellor, storm off the stage like that tit in Tamworth, or blame their opponent and the dumb punters like the Chesham guy. But failure is failure.
In retrospect Portillo should have stood against Major in 1995 if he really wanted to be PM. Thatcher would have likely come out for him and he would have had a much better chance of winning a majority of Tory MPs then than Redwood did.
By the time his chance came again in 2001 he was far too much of a woolly, social liberal and too much like New Labour for most Tory MPs and members and most Thatcherites backed IDS instead
Not one of the great decisions of the 21st Century.
Although if I remember rightly the polling suggested Portillo would have lost to Clarke.
Of the general public but they weren't the electorate, Tory MPs were and they wouldn't have defied Thatcher's orders to back Portillo (in 1997 they even backed Hague over Clarke when the Lady told them too).
Say what you like about Rishi, he likely will lose the next election but he was ruthless enough to take his best chance of being PM and shaft Boris in 2022 and stand for leader and now he is PM. Whereas Portillo in 1995 and David Miliband in 2008/9 were too cowardly to take on Major or Brown and thus lost their best chances to be PM
I was talking about polling of Tory members (this was the first election where they had a vote). The Telegraph commissioned some in advance of the final round of MPs and being idiots they were delighted when it showed Duncan Smith was more likely to beat Clarke than Portillo.
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
If 'contact' means 'identifying the probable signs of intelligent life', then (c) is near-100%. Humankind has been (mostly inadvertently) broadcasting its presence to the universe for over 100 years now and the natural development of other civilizations would probably do likewise. Certainly, it's unlikely that they'd develop the technology to broadcast into interstellar space but refrain from using it for domestic purposes (which largley overlap) until they were ready to find alien civilizations.
But the kicker is (d) picking up and identifying the signal.
The catch really is the unimaginable length of galactic time (think how hugely way back, and hugely long-lasting, the dinosaur period was, in relation to the span of human history), and the critical factor - which is the probability of a civilisation progressing its science and technology to the point where interstellar travel (or communication) becomes possible, versus the probability of that civilisation self-destructing, or wrecking its planetary home to the point where it is unfit for life (or this happening ‘naturally’), before it achieves that.
Given the size and variety of the universe, the probability that other planets have carried other advanced lifeforms is very high. Whether any of these are around and sufficiently proximate during the span of human history, with the ability to travel to or communicate with us, is extremely low.
Maybe God, despite purported omnipotence, can actually only cope with the avalanche of casework from one advanced bunch of critters at a time?
The Drake equation, for all its problems, is worth a look.
So far, what we *know* is that lots of planets have formed around stars.
As we have gone out into space what we have seen are fabulous wonders - but essentially, space is full of solar systems. We have seen much that looks very familiar to our own backyard. Just not intelligent life. Yet.
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
The more strongly that is asserted, the more interesting the absence of evidence seems.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
The "absence of evidence" is more explicable if that absence has been caused by governments unable to handle the consequences and so suppressing the evidence. What we are currently seeing is perhaps a lot of that "evidence" now being released along with a "we don't know what these things are or where they come from" narrative.
Which is a line that can't hold for long. Hence a need for the US President to make some sort of announcement to the population. And where I came in with my black swan.
Maybe. Occam's Razor suggests that in this general case other explanations for the absence of evidence may also be contenders.
If really decent evidence exists, it is unlikely to be single discrete particles of it that governments as a whole can control (and is unlikely to be confined to the USA or to our period of history). The desire to be the most famous scientist in the world, even more so than Einstein, and to write the most read ever paper must lurk in the hearts of enough physics folk to ensure that a journal like 'Nature' gets to publish some peer reviewed stuff. If such evidence exists.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
Or the SCOTUS may produce a more nuanced verdict. For example, that it's within the legitimate discretion of states to arrange their primaries so as to exclude aspirant candidates who would not be qualified at the start of the term they seek, even if they would, or could, become qualified at a later point - but that no-one is automatically barred by the constitution from seeking election, even if they are barred (or contingently barred) from taking the office to which the election is for for some or all of that term.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
So in effect Trump could stand and win but couldn’t be inaugurated?
That one would be the worst of all worlds. Probably the one with the greatest potential for civil unrest.
The law and the constitution are what they are.
Congress can lift the bar on someone who engaged in insurrection, with a two-thirds vote. If it can do that, then there's an argument that such an individual shouldn't be legally prevented from standing because to do so is to usurp Congress's rights. AIUI, there's no specification on how or when Congress should vote, or how many times it can do so (although it is implied that once lifted, the ban can't then be reimposed). Even if there is, Congress hasn't so voted on Trump, yet.
The constitution also makes explicit provision for what happens is a president has not qualified for office at the start of their term but does so part way through, which certainly implies that Electors can vote for non-qualified candidates, and that these votes are valid for the purpose of the Electoral College (there is precedent that votes for a deceased candidate were *not* counted, but that's a one-off and happened before the 20th Amendment was passed).
But how states choose their Electors is a matter for them, within the equal protections of the law. How far that extends to the provisions for excluding aspirant candidates is the key question. Personally, I'd have thought that given the measures some states already lawfully impose on ballot access, it's not unreasonable that excluding people who are unable to take up the post based on the facts at the time is within a state's lawful powers.
Stephens was unable to take up his Senate seat, but was still elected to it.
I'm not quite sure when the restrictions on him were lifted, whether they were before or after his election to the House in 1873.
"On this evening's episode of 'Sedan Chair Travels' our intrepid host Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, the "Grand Horizontal" of the 21st century, explores the backroads and byways of the West Country . . . until being 'accidentially' dropped into the Wookie Hole by his less-than-gruntled sedan-chair attendants."
A pedant insists: Wookey Hole.
Wookie Hole is the kind you rummage around in a lot of long ginger fur to find.
But even then Wookey Hole is horizontal. Not vertical. You're thinking of the pots higher up on Mendip.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
In which case, though ?
I would agree with you in expecting them to throw out his absurdly broad claims of Presidential immunity (and double jeopardy) regarding the Jan 6 charges (which if allowed would literally allow incumbent presidents to murder their opponents, and face no remedy except for impeachment).
How they rule on the Colorado (and Maine) decision is more problematic, though. Even if they act as justices, rather than politicians sitting on the bench, there's no straightforward ruling which won't cause further problems.
Such as with SCOTUS's previous ruling in "Bush v Gore".
Where, for example, alleged "obiter dicta" is actually/effectively law of the land.
Certainly have heard it quoted as such on numerous occasions, by Republicans.
Even if there were nine entirely incorruptible liberals on the court, it would not be an easy case to decide, since they are effectively being asked to define the hitherto undefined boundaries of a law.
While the 14th amendment is incontrovertibly the law of the land, the clause in question has been so little used that there is significant uncertainty about what exactly it means for any given case.
It seems to me that at least five of the Justices will give Trump the benefit of the doubt.
They could rule that the question - whether Trump is guilty of insurrection - is a question of fact, to be determined by a jury in criminal proceedings - and until that happens, he’s eligible to run.
On the other hand they might just throw SCOTUS impartiality to the wind and back Trump. Clarence Thomas will be off rations for eternity if he doesn't back Trump.
(1.76 pints of mind bleach are enclosed with this post).
The billionaires who have been kindly supporting Thomas in minor ways that needn't trouble any declaration of interests forms may one day realise that Trump does more harm to them than good.
Indeed. The supreme Court has a chance to undo Trump in a way which the Republican Party otherwise cannot. And as good Republicans, they can see this as their chance to restore balance. Whilst blaming Trump's own hubris for supporting insurrection...
Is my theory.
Mine too, Mark.
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
In which case, though ?
I would agree with you in expecting them to throw out his absurdly broad claims of Presidential immunity (and double jeopardy) regarding the Jan 6 charges (which if allowed would literally allow incumbent presidents to murder their opponents, and face no remedy except for impeachment).
How they rule on the Colorado (and Maine) decision is more problematic, though. Even if they act as justices, rather than politicians sitting on the bench, there's no straightforward ruling which won't cause further problems.
Such as with SCOTUS's previous ruling in "Bush v Gore".
Where, for example, alleged "obiter dicta" is actually/effectively law of the land.
Certainly have heard it quoted as such on numerous occasions, by Republicans.
Even if there were nine entirely incorruptible liberals on the court, it would not be an easy case to decide, since they are effectively being asked to define the hitherto undefined boundaries of a law.
While the 14th amendment is incontrovertibly the law of the land, the clause in question has been so little used that there is significant uncertainty about what exactly it means for any given case.
"the clause in question has been so little used"
Indeed. For example, the 63 former Confederate veterans elected to the US Senate in years after Civil War; including
"Charles S. Thomas of Colorado [!] was the last Confederate veteran to serve in the Senate. Born in Georgia, he served briefly as a teenager in the Confederate Army. He settled in Denver after the war, where he built a law practice and pursued a Senate career. Following three failed attempts to gain a Senate seat, the 63-year-old Thomas finally became a U.S. senator in 1913, a position he held until 1921."
Oh, and the award for going W-A-Y off topic quickest in a thread goes to....
If you want a black swan for 2024, what the hell would be the political impact - in the US and the UK - of Biden going on the telly from the Oval Office to confirm that we have been in contact with intelligent life from outside our solar system...
It's going to happen sometime, why not 2024?
It's only going to 'happen sometime' if a) there is indeed intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, b) it is able to communicate across the distances involved, and c) it chooses to communicate.
I would guess the chances are 50%, 1%, and 10%, so 0.05% overall.
It's a great Black Swan suggestion mind.
My simpler one is that one of Trump or Biden dies in 2024.
In terms of political reaction, I'd expect Trump to say "We need to arm ourselves to the teeth to fight off this invader threat!"
I'd then expect Biden to retort "They are so technologically advanced, it would just give them a good laugh if we tried to fight them off. My proposed course of action is dialogue - and bridging this technology gap through friendship."
Be interesting to see how it shook up politics. Especially with the Christian right.
There is nothing in the Bible saying God didn't also create aliens, indeed they might even see them as angels or demons
Arthur C Clarke's Childhood's End had a peaceful alien invasion that led to something of a utopia on Earth but they never let themselves be seen. The reason being, in a somewhat Jungian twist, that they looked like the devil. One of his best books.
Did you ever encounter James Blish's A Case for Conscience? On the issue of revelation of the Christian religion to aliens on an exosolar planet.
Comments
We do know that all stars have a limited lifespan, albeit measured in billions of years. Truly intelligent life will move way from being terrestrially bound - and move through space. And in doing so, bump into other intelligent life.
Is my theory.
Class.
we should have a good handle nearer election night which seats are really up for a flip.
But he’s gone along with most of the Tory nonsense ever since.
And the tax breaks for regular contributors to political discussion forums are a very long time in coming.
If they leave Trump on the ballot, without clarifying that somehow attempting to overthrow the government isn't insurrection (worth noting Alexander Stephens was never accused of that, or at least, only of the Confederate government) they would be guilty of aiding insurrection.
And therefore, ineligible to serve on the Supreme Court, because they are assumed to be civil officers under the Constitution...
Posters on this site have, in my opinion, a tendency to underestimate the seriousness with which high-ranking judges take their responsibilities. Some of them even believe in justice.
I'm going for 6-2 against Trump, with that evil gobshite Thomas recusing himself.
Alice Wood, 23, had denied murdering Ryan Watson, aged 24, near their home in Rode Heath, Cheshire. She drove at Mr Watson three times before he was dragged for up to 160m (525ft) underneath the car, after he "clicked" with another woman. And after a trial at Chester Crown Court, the jury found her unanimously guilty. In a statement read to the court, Mr Watson's family said they had finally got justice for their "beloved son"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67862292
The interesting bit will be any cases up coming in swing states
How SUCCESSION's Fourth Season Became Self Aware, orowen, 15mins, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJK1eS073-k
Just as I do not somehow now think Ed Balls is marvellous.
Or indeed, Michael Portillo.
Formerly Percy Updyke Dick Wang-Doodle, aka "Pud" to fellow Bullingdonians.
To add to the puzzle is the absence of evidence that life started here more than once; in fact it seems almost an inbuilt assumption in the science community that once is enough, whereas if it is a naturalistic phenomenon two things should be true - it will happen sometimes because it does, and it can be observed to happen by condition replication by science.
Fun indeed.
That said, if a heavily conservative SCOTUS ruled as a matter of fact that Trump did engage in insurrection, then that's not a development to be dismissed lightly in terms of political impact, never mind the legal consequences.
https://www.go4awalk.com/userpics/christineshepherd28.php
But...there's a famous phrase of mine regarding limbo dancing mice that springs to mind.
I think that Portillo has now moved over to GB News?
I'm beginning to think that the scope of deflation incoming is being seriously underestimated. If Samsung are cutting the price of their phones, TVs and other goods by up to 10% then I expect other companies will be dropping prices too and not just tech.
Is Martin Bell available?
For even if they are blue states in the general election they carry a lot of delegates in the GOP primaries which would make it much more difficult for Trump to even get the GOP nomination in the Presidential election and impossible if most swing states also keep him off the ballot (even if he could still run 3rd party in red states and any swing states which kept him on the ballot)
You're right that he (and JRM would be similar) have enough about them to shake their opponent warmly by the hand, thank the returning officer, their campaign team, and their constituents for the honour of having been their MP. They aren't stupid enough to rant and rave like Mellor, storm off the stage like that tit in Tamworth, or blame their opponent and the dumb punters like the Chesham guy. But failure is failure.
Which is a line that can't hold for long. Hence a need for the US President to make some sort of announcement to the population. And where I came in with my black swan.
Meanwhile wasnt it you that recommended this Dune film? Does anything happen at all, during the second half?
Would it not be reasonable for SCOTUS to decline making a judgement itself on whether he contributed to an insurrection, but to assert that any State might reasonably come that conclusion and bar him accordingly?
This would toss the problem back to the States. Presumably they would then tend to divide on Party lines, and he would therefoire be on the ballot in Red States.
That one would be the worst of all worlds. Probably the one with the greatest potential for civil unrest.
Wonderful news for people whom the price of flatscreen samsung tellys is important, rather less good news for those whose mortgage repayments are still likely to double in the next year...
Strikes me as more of a return to the norm of the last decade, where the price of consumer goods has consistently dropped (remember how much more expensive such goods were a decade ago) which has kept headline inflation artificially low, all the while costs on essentials - putting a roof over your head, paying your gas bill - have spiralled. People spend between a third and a half of their income putting a roof over their head and more to heat it. Cheap samsung tellys are not much of a boon while mortgage and rental costs continue to rise.
Shapps as current Defence Secretary in long shot Labour target Welwyn Hatfield would also be a big scalp, his seat was Labour too in 1997 like Mogg's
I would agree with you in expecting them to throw out his absurdly broad claims of Presidential immunity (and double jeopardy) regarding the Jan 6 charges (which if allowed would literally allow incumbent presidents to murder their opponents, and face no remedy except for impeachment).
How they rule on the Colorado (and Maine) decision is more problematic, though. Even if they act as justices, rather than politicians sitting on the bench, there's no straightforward ruling which won't cause further problems.
If really decent evidence exists, it is unlikely to be single discrete particles of it that governments as a whole can control (and is unlikely to be confined to the USA or to our period of history). The desire to be the most famous scientist in the world, even more so than Einstein, and to write the most read ever paper must lurk in the hearts of enough physics folk to ensure that a journal like 'Nature' gets to publish some peer reviewed stuff. If such evidence exists.
If they has at least “reviewed” (whatever that means) all the pre June 2022 cases then you can argue the backlog has been cleared provided you are willing to accept that 18 months is a normal processing time (which it shouldn’t be)
I think it’s fair to ignore the 4000 difficult cases that they are still working on
The issue with “noting” is that it carries a an aura of authority but it could be written by someone partisan (the same with partisan “fact checking”)
Where, for example, alleged "obiter dicta" is actually/effectively law of the land.
Certainly have heard it quoted as such on numerous occasions, by Republicans.
I mean, we know Michael Greene is always near him...
Based on quasi-learned commentary on here so far . . . hell no!
It would create another fine mess. From here, unless Haley pulls it out of the bag, it’s very hard to see how this doesn’t end up in some kind of constitutional crisis one way or another.
The boat sinks. Who is saved?
America.
By the time his chance to be Tory leader came again in 2001 after he had been elected for the then still True Blue Kensington and Chelsea seat in the 1999 parliamentary by election there, he was far too much of a woolly, social liberal and too much like New Labour for most Tory MPs and members and most Thatcherites backed IDS instead
Anyhow, we already know that he can recycle them at will.
I propose Bone-R
He does a GB News show on a Sunday, I think. I've never watched it but believe it's a soft-hitting, Sunday supplement-style show. Not all the shows on that channel are right-wing conspiracy theories and cheerful -isms. Indeed, they have a bit of a strategy of easing people in with Portillo, Holmes, and Diamond then WHAM - have some Tice, Anderson, and a long, hard session with that bearded f***wit who used to visit lighthouses.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00949py
Although if I remember rightly the polling suggested Portillo would have lost to Clarke.
Congress can lift the bar on someone who engaged in insurrection, with a two-thirds vote. If it can do that, then there's an argument that such an individual shouldn't be legally prevented from standing because to do so is to usurp Congress's rights. AIUI, there's no specification on how or when Congress should vote, or how many times it can do so (although it is implied that once lifted, the ban can't then be reimposed). Even if there is, Congress hasn't so voted on Trump, yet.
The constitution also makes explicit provision for what happens is a president has not qualified for office at the start of their term but does so part way through, which certainly implies that Electors can vote for non-qualified candidates, and that these votes are valid for the purpose of the Electoral College (there is precedent that votes for a deceased candidate were *not* counted, but that's a one-off and happened before the 20th Amendment was passed).
But how states choose their Electors is a matter for them, within the equal protections of the law. How far that extends to the provisions for excluding aspirant candidates is the key question. Personally, I'd have thought that given the measures some states already lawfully impose on ballot access, it's not unreasonable that excluding people who are unable to take up the post based on the facts at the time is within a state's lawful powers.
Say what you like about Rishi, he likely will lose the next election but he was ruthless enough to take his best chance of being PM and shaft Boris in 2022 and stand for leader and now he is PM. Whereas Portillo in 1995 and David Miliband in 2008/9 were too cowardly to take on Major or Brown and thus lost their best chances to be PM
For anyone following this “aliens” story with an open mind, it remains mind boggling and possibly gets MORE mind boggling as time passes. As ever, it is not the evidence itself which boggles (this remains feeble or meagre) it’s the behaviour and statements by significant people in the US “Establishment” - to what end, no one knows. Perhaps they are simply mad
FWIW the latest theories revolve around “inter dimensional” beings - maybe from earth, maybe from another time, maybe from another universe - solving many of the problems posited above
And again, this could all be some weird psyops to freak out the Chinese or a truly grandiose mass hallucination. But the narrative rolls on…
https://thehill.com/opinion/4380182-betting-the-odds-on-trumps-supreme-court-case/
Even if there were nine entirely incorruptible liberals on the court, it would not be an easy case to decide, since they are effectively being asked to define the hitherto undefined boundaries of a law.
While the 14th amendment is incontrovertibly the law of the land, the clause in question has been so little used that there is significant uncertainty about what exactly it means for any given case.
I will let you form your own judgement on the robustness of the source
Although the two opinion polls published today are good for Labour I’m innately suspicious of fieldwork over bank holidays, and Christmas / New Year seems particularly precarious.
As for Wellingborough and beyond, I guess this really does make a Labour win all the more likely.
But will Reform do a deal at the GE as they did with Boris? I’m guessing not but my knowledge that far Right peters out so others on here will know better. Will Reform voting tories get their revenge on Rishi?
Meaning that UW will face University of Michigan (winner of the Rose Bowl versus The Ohio State University) in next week in Houston, to decide the national #1 college football team for NCAA Division 1.
"Will an artificial intelligence (AI) superintelligence appear suddenly, or will scientists see it coming, and have a chance to warn the world? That’s a question that has received a lot of attention recently, with the rise of large language models, such as ChatGPT, which have achieved vast new abilities as their size has grown. Some findings point to “emergence”, a phenomenon in which AI models gain intelligence in a sharp and unpredictable way. But a recent study calls these cases “mirages” — artefacts arising from how the systems are tested — and suggests that innovative abilities instead build more gradually."
“It came from the lab, it was genetically engineered to be dangerous, it was possibly the product of bioweapon research”
I suggest the chances of this are even less than the chances of Biden saying he’s had chats with ET
But for the fun of it
1. It almost certainly came from the lab
2. It was almost certainly engineered (“gain of function”)
3. Bioweapon research is much less likely, though there are troubling links between the Chinese military and the various Wuhan labs, so hmmm
(I am dismissing the fourth lurid idea that it was a virus released deliberately as too outlandish even for me; also: why? How would it benefit anyone?)
If Biden did say the above how would the world react? Quite likely with a shrug. Because: what can we do now, anyway? And China is too big to fight or to punish
But Biden isn’t going to say any of this, anyway, because it implicates America too: as America funded much of the “gain of function” research
It's a long way to even the nearest star.
1 10%
2 24th October 2024
3 Sunak, Starmer, Davey, Yousaf, Tice
4 Labour +65
5 Trump and Biden
6 Biden
7 4.00%
8 3.25%
9 96 billion
10 62
I'm not quite sure when the restrictions on him were lifted, whether they were before or after his election to the House in 1873.
Wookie Hole is the kind you rummage around in a lot of long ginger fur to find.
But even then Wookey Hole is horizontal. Not vertical. You're thinking of the pots higher up on Mendip.
They could rule that the question - whether Trump is guilty of insurrection - is a question of fact, to be determined by a jury in criminal proceedings - and until that happens, he’s eligible to run.
Indeed. For example, the 63 former Confederate veterans elected to the US Senate in years after Civil War; including
"Charles S. Thomas of Colorado [!] was the last Confederate veteran to serve in the Senate. Born in Georgia, he served briefly as a teenager in the Confederate Army. He settled in Denver after the war, where he built a law practice and pursued a Senate career. Following three failed attempts to gain a Senate seat, the 63-year-old Thomas finally became a U.S. senator in 1913, a position he held until 1921."
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/civil_war/VictoryTragedyReconstruction.htm
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Civil_War_Veterans.htm#:~:text=In the years following the,well into the 20th century.