Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

How will a criminal conviction impact on WH2024? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,736
edited March 12 in General
imageHow will a criminal conviction impact on WH2024? – politicalbetting.com

One of the big unknowns in WH2024 is how Trump’s chances could be affected if he gets convicted in the courts of a criminal offence.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    Lock him up!
  • Options
    Those fines in New York are really going to bugger him senseless.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,589

    Those fines in New York are really going to bugger him senseless.

    FPT https://trumpdebtcounter.com/
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,054
    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,620
    Trump is doomed, whatever.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,589
    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,056
    When the time comes many of them will somehow convince themselves that actually it's probably OK to vote Trump after all.

    To paraphrase Olivia Rodrigo:

    Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right?
    Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right?
    Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right?
    ...whatever, it's fine
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    Yes, he's effectively running as an incumbent and only polling 60%, it's not like he's an unknown.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,699
    edited February 27
    TimS said:

    When the time comes many of them will somehow convince themselves that actually it's probably OK to vote Trump after all.

    To paraphrase Olivia Rodrigo:

    Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right?
    Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right?
    Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right?
    ...whatever, it's fine

    Agreed. Fooling themselves that there's a line Trump hasn't crossed, but if he did, then that would be too much, is a psychological coping mechanism to give themselves permission to support him now, even though he's crossed countless other lines that they would previously have considered beyond the pale.

    If/when Trump is convicted then there will be another line drawn, further off, that he hasn't crossed yet.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,054
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,147
    edited February 27
    I noted various UK articles yesterday saying Trump was going to appeal the cases.

    Well he can’t do that without either paying the money to the court or finding someone (bail) willing to pay the money on his behalf.

    Now Trump wasn’t able to find anyone willing to lend him the original $5m fine so there is little chance of him finding someone willing to stump up $540m or so and unless he does so the appeals won’t proceed any further
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,089
    eek said:

    I noted various UK articles yesterday saying Trump was going to appeal the cases.

    Well he can’t do that without either paying the money to the court or finding someone (bail) willing to pay the money on his behalf.

    Now Trump wasn’t able to find anyone willing to lend him the original $5m fine so there is little chance of him finding someone willing to stump up $540m or so and unless he does so the appeals won’t proceed any further

    He asked to be allowed to appeal the Carroll case without stumping up any money. The Court said no.

    His lawyers have said they will appeal the New York fraud case, but he's not handed over any money yet. He could ask, again, to be allowed to appeal without doing so. That Court would likely also say no.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,589
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,355
    "Trump holds 6-point lead over Biden despite legal woes: Harris poll"

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4490047-trump-holds-6-point-lead-over-biden-despite-legal-woes-poll/

    Trump - 48
    Biden - 42
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,881
    if you're feeling unreasonably cheerful and need reminding that life and humanity can be dreadful


    "Taken in 1996 photo of Dolly who was incarcerated in the Moor Psychiatric Hospital for having an illegitimate child in her early teens, she never left and died about a year after I took her photo."


    https://x.com/IanBeesleyphoto/status/1762216625518891090?s=20
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,056

    TimS said:

    When the time comes many of them will somehow convince themselves that actually it's probably OK to vote Trump after all.

    To paraphrase Olivia Rodrigo:

    Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right?
    Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right?
    Voting for you tonight, it's a bad idea right?
    ...whatever, it's fine

    Agreed. Fooling themselves that there's a line Trump hasn't crossed, but if he did, then that would be too much, is a psychological coping mechanism to give themselves permission to support him now, even though he's crossed countless other lines that they would previously have considered beyond the pale.

    If/when Trump is convicted then there will be another line drawn, further off, that he hasn't crossed yet.
    Has been happening recently with the "one nation" group in the conservative party. They keep expressing outrage but doing nothing about it, unlike their more naturally rebellious counterparts on the right.
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,561
    For some years I have thought this would be an apropriate punishment for Trump: He should be required to join one of those monastic orders that take vows of poverty, chastity, obedience -- and silence. (Especially the last.)
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,589
    eek said:

    I noted various UK articles yesterday saying Trump was going to appeal the cases.

    Well he can’t do that without either paying the money to the court or finding someone (bail) willing to pay the money on his behalf.

    Now Trump wasn’t able to find anyone willing to lend him the original $5m fine so there is little chance of him finding someone willing to stump up $540m or so and unless he does so the appeals won’t proceed any further

    The procedure seems quite complicated. There were time limits to appeal the decisions. The lodging of the appeals sets another clock running by which either the money or at least a bond has to be lodged for 110% of the award.

    The time limit from the lodging of security for the appeal seems to be 30 days from the date of the appeal which, in the first case, expires on the first day of his criminal trial for the false records relating to the payments for Stormy Daniels or 8th March. My understanding is that if there is no payment or bond at that date the appeal is deemed to be abandoned and the creditors are free to enforce the judgments by seizing his assets. At which point any loans over those properties are very likely to be called in.

    In the meantime he can apply to the court to either waive the bond or restrict the bond. His attempts to do that so far have failed.
  • Options
    glwglw Posts: 9,556
    Fishing said:

    I wonder if the 61% would be fine with a teacher or police officer having no doubt several dozen criminal convictions?

    But a President similarly judged? No problem, apparently.

    A mad world sometimes ...

    The mere fact that so many are sticking with Trump despite mountains of evidence that he is a crook, liar, creep and plainly unfit for office is enough to say that no matter what happens in the US this November the country is screwed. Trump may fail but worse people will follow in his footsteps.
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,783

    For some years I have thought this would be an apropriate punishment for Trump: He should be required to join one of those monastic orders that take vows of poverty, chastity, obedience -- and silence. (Especially the last.)

    Seems a little cruel and unusual for the other monks to be punished that way.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,881
    I'm sorry, but it's time for us all to sit back and listen, once again, to @RochdalePioneers classick rock anthem, "Rochdale's 30p Lament", because, well, when is it ever not a good time to hear Rochdale's 30p Lament??

    https://app.suno.ai/song/91270dcb-ef95-45f7-b6d2-acc5c3bb8a12


    Like the man said: Someone had to say it
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,334
    Conviction of a criminal offence wouldn't see Republican voters leave Trump but it could cost him support from Independents who are crucial in the general election
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,334

    "Trump holds 6-point lead over Biden despite legal woes: Harris poll"

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4490047-trump-holds-6-point-lead-over-biden-despite-legal-woes-poll/

    Trump - 48
    Biden - 42

    9% undecided
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    "Trump holds 6-point lead over Biden despite legal woes: Harris poll"

    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4490047-trump-holds-6-point-lead-over-biden-despite-legal-woes-poll/

    Trump - 48
    Biden - 42

    9% undecided
    Don't you normally allocate all those to Trump ?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,881
    edited February 27
    I've just emailed Nayib Bukele, El Presidente of El Salvador

    That's been me for the last 5 minutes. Not sure if he will reply to my fanmail, tho
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,147
    Todays story of a Tory politician lying about what they can and can’t do while standing for election

    If re-elected Ben Houchen has pledged to bring flights to Malaga and Tenerife to Teesside Airport.

    Last year TVCA told me he "does not have any operational role at Teesside Airport and is not party to any such decisions relating to commercial agreements"
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,561
    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,620
    Leon said:

    if you're feeling unreasonably cheerful and need reminding that life and humanity can be dreadful

    Isn’t that why you post here, in the first place?
  • Options
    david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,465
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    It's entirely plausible. Trump can win with about 7m fewer votes than Biden - and can Biden get his 2020 vote out again given his physical and mental state, and with the Trump machine constantly hammering those points (as well as on regular political topics, whether true, exaggerated or wholly fabricated)?

    On balance, he's the more likely.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,355
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,089

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).

    Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.

    If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
  • Options
    jamesdoylejamesdoyle Posts: 667
    I have read The Deep by John Crowley.

    This was his first novel, from 1975, and at 166 pages it only just qualifies as a novel, albeit those 166 pages read like 500 in terms of what they give the reader.. It doesn't have the depth or give the satisfaction of the Aegypt cycle, but it is gnomic and dense, in some ways more like a prose poem than a novel with a plot and characters. Supposedly somewhat inspired by the Wars of the Roses (or the reign of Edward II), it in no way resembles an historical novel.

    Comparisons have been made with Game of Thrones. A note to those who make such comparisons: if one was written in 1975, and the other begun in 1996, then it's the latter that resembles the former, _not_ the other way around. Idiots. It does not have much in common with GoT, other than its alleged historical inspiration, but (much as I love GoT) the 166 pages of this have more going on, more to chew on and reflect on, than the 4000+ and counting pages of the latter. But GRRM undoubtedly knows The Deep, and Crowley.

    What is it like? It's a bit like the Gormenghast books, but less grounded. It's a bit like Jack Vance's Dying Earth, but better written. Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun owes a fair bit to this book, and I bet Crowley and Wolfe love each other's work.

    There are hints as to a possible interpreation of the story, but even at this stage of his career, Crowley is clearly cautioning against taking anything at face value. I loved it. I don't know what it means. He's worth reading, every page.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,056

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party.
    It's possibly not even that, although no doubt some of the protagonists' feelings play a part. The issue is that the Conservative party sees some electoral gain in indulging other people's latent Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred.

    It feels opportunistic, as do most of their statements these days, rather than particularly heartfelt.
  • Options
    148grss148grss Posts: 3,870
    A great episode of a podcast I listen to that discusses the “protect the children” narrative and the murder of Nex Benedict:

    https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/a-bit-fruity-with-matt-bernstein/id1693739175?i=1000647191757
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,170

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    My wife wears a cross as a necklace, a legacy from her grandmother. Her family were definitely not Catholic; in fact as a child she was discouraged from playing with Catholic children. The only time anybody has suggested she was Catholic was about 20 years ago in Sri Lanka!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,334

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).

    Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.

    If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
    I would have thought the first amendment would protect wearing a cross in the US
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,170

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).

    Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.

    If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
    Sikh’s are followers of a religion, not a ‘race’. As with Muslims. Or Christians.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,342
    edited February 27

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).

    Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.

    If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
    They could sue in the US, religion being a protected characteristic in relation to employment.

    https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination
    Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,334

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.

    However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,159
    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yup - that 36% is roughly the demographic who aren't going to vote for Trump even if he is not (yet) convicted come the election. So while a conviction might cement whatever proportion of that cohort are "waverers" I think the damage is already done.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,342
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.

    However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
    It will be about turnout, rather than an unlikely number of Biden to Trump switchers.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,159

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    The polls v. actual Republican v. Democrat elections seem to overstate the Republicans by ~8-10% at the moment. So that's how I'd explain that.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,342
    Someone learned the wrong lessons from Gingrich.

    Senate GOP fears Speaker Johnson headed toward shutdown wreck
    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4490424-senate-gop-fears-speaker-johnson-headed-toward-shutdown-wreck/
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,699
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.

    However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
    Stay at home. Voters can always stay at home, or switch to a third party.

    Biden's ratings are awful. How can that not depress his vote?

    Trump being awful wasn't enough to encourage voters to turn out for H. Clinton, because enough people had negative views of her that they stayed at home or voted for a third party.
  • Options
    AverageNinjaAverageNinja Posts: 1,169

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.

    However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
    Stay at home. Voters can always stay at home, or switch to a third party.

    Biden's ratings are awful. How can that not depress his vote?

    Trump being awful wasn't enough to encourage voters to turn out for H. Clinton, because enough people had negative views of her that they stayed at home or voted for a third party.
    If the voters stay at home Trump wins. I just cannot see that happening.

    Biden wins by default.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,159

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.

    However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
    Stay at home. Voters can always stay at home, or switch to a third party.

    Biden's ratings are awful. How can that not depress his vote?

    Trump being awful wasn't enough to encourage voters to turn out for H. Clinton, because enough people had negative views of her that they stayed at home or voted for a third party.
    We're back to the classic Presidential election discriminator of "(S)he who has the biggest clown shoes, loses."
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,699
    edited February 27
    Nigelb said:

    Someone learned the wrong lessons from Gingrich.

    Senate GOP fears Speaker Johnson headed toward shutdown wreck
    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4490424-senate-gop-fears-speaker-johnson-headed-toward-shutdown-wreck/

    It would be one way of delaying further sending any assistance to Ukraine.
  • Options
    northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,547
    edited February 27
    Leon said:

    I'm sorry, but it's time for us all to sit back and listen, once again, to @RochdalePioneers classick rock anthem, "Rochdale's 30p Lament", because, well, when is it ever not a good time to hear Rochdale's 30p Lament??

    https://app.suno.ai/song/91270dcb-ef95-45f7-b6d2-acc5c3bb8a12


    Like the man said: Someone had to say it

    It is remarkable that AI can do that.

    If it was a human wot’d done it, you’d think it was gash, but from a few prompts a piece of software doing that is amazing.

    But, if music is just maths, essentially, it should be easy for a computer to make music which sounds ok, and just ok.

    As to the question as to whether AI will ever make music as good as a human can, well, that remains to be seen. I bet most recorded human-made music is ok, pedestrian, does the job, but there’s something almost undefinable about a great tune or melody. A chord progression, a crunching riff, that really endures, and will endure, for decades, centuries. That appeals to new generations time and time again. What makes one of those? Where do they come from?

    Is it simply a numbers game? Enough human music is produced, most of it perfectly ok and workable but, like the monkeys typing and eventually getting Shakespeare, some of it is bound to be amazing. So if AI can churn out music, will it be that most of it’ll be ok but a small bit of it will be sublime?

    Or will AI birth its own McCartneys, or Mozarts, algorithms which can consistently produce music which captures people in that undefinable way? Tunes which soar, which tug at the heart. Which are discovered by people again and again.

    I don’t know the answer. It’s going to be interesting watching what happens.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,699

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.

    However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
    Stay at home. Voters can always stay at home, or switch to a third party.

    Biden's ratings are awful. How can that not depress his vote?

    Trump being awful wasn't enough to encourage voters to turn out for H. Clinton, because enough people had negative views of her that they stayed at home or voted for a third party.
    If the voters stay at home Trump wins. I just cannot see that happening.

    Biden wins by default.
    It happened in 2016. People insisted Trump couldn't possibly win, they ignored Clinton's negatives, Trump won.

    Look at Biden's ratings. They're awful.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,089

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).

    Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.

    If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
    Sikh’s are followers of a religion, not a ‘race’. As with Muslims. Or Christians.
    Sikhs are an ethnoreligious group and the UK Courts ruled they count as a "race" in 1982 when it comes to racial discrimination laws. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandla_v_Dowell-Lee
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,089
    Nigelb said:

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).

    Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.

    If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
    They could sue in the US, religion being a protected characteristic in relation to employment.

    https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination
    Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
    Well, what is Jim worried about then?
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,881
    IanB2 said:

    Leon said:

    if you're feeling unreasonably cheerful and need reminding that life and humanity can be dreadful

    Isn’t that why you post here, in the first place?
    You never told us there is an entire bluegrass song about you

    You're famous! Was this after your recent roadtrip?

    https://app.suno.ai/song/dd0a0c35-3249-4014-9d54-9f12249607c1
  • Options
    Rochdale by-election: Man held over Simon Danczuk death threats
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68414864
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,355
    mwadams said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    The polls v. actual Republican v. Democrat elections seem to overstate the Republicans by ~8-10% at the moment. So that's how I'd explain that.
    Trump outperformed his polling average in 2016 and 2020.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,334

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.

    However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
    Stay at home. Voters can always stay at home, or switch to a third party.

    Biden's ratings are awful. How can that not depress his vote?

    Trump being awful wasn't enough to encourage voters to turn out for H. Clinton, because enough people had negative views of her that they stayed at home or voted for a third party.
    If the voters stay at home Trump wins. I just cannot see that happening.

    Biden wins by default.
    It happened in 2016. People insisted Trump couldn't possibly win, they ignored Clinton's negatives, Trump won.

    Look at Biden's ratings. They're awful.
    Trump's aren't much better and Biden did win the rustbelt swing states unlike Hillary
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,159
    edited February 27

    mwadams said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    The polls v. actual Republican v. Democrat elections seem to overstate the Republicans by ~8-10% at the moment. So that's how I'd explain that.
    Trump outperformed his polling average in 2016 and 2020.
    But in the last few years, the GOP vote has underperformed the polling average, and explicitly Trump backed candidates have underperformed that. So I think we are in a different phase.

    ETA: I'm by no means saying that Trump is going to lose. Just that we have to be cautious with any prior assumptions.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,342

    Nigelb said:

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).

    Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.

    If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
    They could sue in the US, religion being a protected characteristic in relation to employment.

    https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination
    Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
    Well, what is Jim worried about then?
    Don't know. But yesterday it was 'the Left didn't care about genocide against yazhidis because they are christians' today it seems to be 'big tech companies won't employ talented and brilliant people if they have traditional religious ideas about sex'. bit odd.
  • Options

    Rochdale by-election: Man held over Simon Danczuk death threats
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68414864

    good
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,881
    edited February 27

    Leon said:

    I'm sorry, but it's time for us all to sit back and listen, once again, to @RochdalePioneers classick rock anthem, "Rochdale's 30p Lament", because, well, when is it ever not a good time to hear Rochdale's 30p Lament??

    https://app.suno.ai/song/91270dcb-ef95-45f7-b6d2-acc5c3bb8a12


    Like the man said: Someone had to say it

    It is remarkable that AI can do that.

    If it was a human wot’d done it, you’d think it was gash, but from a few prompts a piece of software doing that is amazing.

    But, if music is just maths, essentially, it should be easy for a computer to make music which sounds ok, and just ok.

    As to the question as to whether AI will ever make music as good as a human can, well, that remains to be seen. I bet most recorded human-made music is ok, pedestrian, does the job, but there’s something almost undefinable about a great tune or melody. A chord progression, a crunching riff, that really endures, and will endure, for decades, centuries. That appeals to new generations time and time again. What makes one of those? Where do they come from?

    Is it simply a numbers game? Enough human music is produced, most of it perfectly ok and workable but, like the monkeys typing and eventually getting Shakespeare, some of it is bound to be amazing. So if AI can churn out music, will it be that most of it’ll be ok but a small bit of it will be sublime?

    Or will AI birth its own McCartneys, or Mozarts, algorithms which can consistently produce music which captures people in that undefinable way? Tunes which soar, which tug at the heart. Which are discovered by people again and again.

    I don’t know the answer. It’s going to be interesting watching what happens.
    What fascinates me about this AI composition is that the machine knew to drop several notes through "ferrets... in their trousers", creating a clever emotional effect (I'm serious here)

    It also spotted the internal rhyme between "25p" and "declamatory" - and uses it

    And it knew to put the small solo right at the end, but just before "someone had to say it", another nice touch

    It really is all algorithms. All of it. Everything. Which is why AI will do everything we can, and then more
  • Options
    JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,034

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).

    Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.

    If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
    Sikh’s are followers of a religion, not a ‘race’. As with Muslims. Or Christians.
    Sikhs are an ethnoreligious group and the UK Courts ruled they count as a "race" in 1982 when it comes to racial discrimination laws. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandla_v_Dowell-Lee
    As I understand it, almost all Sikhs are Punjabis, and are darker than me. Similarly, so are most Muslims (other than Balkan ones).
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,089
    kamski said:

    Nigelb said:

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).

    Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.

    If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
    They could sue in the US, religion being a protected characteristic in relation to employment.

    https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination
    Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
    Well, what is Jim worried about then?
    Don't know. But yesterday it was 'the Left didn't care about genocide against yazhidis because they are christians' today it seems to be 'big tech companies won't employ talented and brilliant people if they have traditional religious ideas about sex'. bit odd.
    But Yazidis aren't Christian. They're Yazidi.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,342
    mwadams said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    The polls v. actual Republican v. Democrat elections seem to overstate the Republicans by ~8-10% at the moment. So that's how I'd explain that.
    Some evidence for that?

    https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-predictor-polls-special-elections/story?id=107369614 suggests you wrong

    "In 25 special elections since Nov. 7 (there were no specials between Sept. 19 and Nov. 7), Republicans have won by an average of 3 points. The districts in which the elections were held had an average base partisanship of R+2, meaning that, over the last few months, it’s actually Republicans who have been overperforming in special elections, albeit by an average of just 1 point. That’s exactly what the polls are saying right now."
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 47,881

    kamski said:

    Nigelb said:

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).

    Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.

    If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
    They could sue in the US, religion being a protected characteristic in relation to employment.

    https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination
    Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
    Well, what is Jim worried about then?
    Don't know. But yesterday it was 'the Left didn't care about genocide against yazhidis because they are christians' today it seems to be 'big tech companies won't employ talented and brilliant people if they have traditional religious ideas about sex'. bit odd.
    But Yazidis aren't Christian. They're Yazidi.
    They very definitely are NOT Christian. Arguably, they worship the Christian Devil, or some ur-God that eventually became the Christian Devil. Their fascinating and crazy religion long predates Christianity, indeed it might be the oldest surviving religion in the world

    This alleged "devil worship" is just one reason they have been brutally persecuted by Christians AND Muslims, over the centuries

    They are some of the most interesting people on earth. May God, of whatever variety, protect them
  • Options
    Re: folks wearing crosses or other religious symbols (ditto political/ideological symbols/slogans) perhaps they should remember, that IF they behave in a un-Christian (or whatever) manner, then others, especially those on receiving end, are highly likely to consider them and/or their beliefs, to be a crock of shit.

    Just sayin'.
  • Options
    PlayStation to axe 900 jobs and close London studio
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68404704

    Bad news in itself, and it also means recent graduates face even more competition for jobs.
  • Options

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).

    Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.

    If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
    Sikh’s are followers of a religion, not a ‘race’. As with Muslims. Or Christians.
    Sikhs are an ethnoreligious group and the UK Courts ruled they count as a "race" in 1982 when it comes to racial discrimination laws. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandla_v_Dowell-Lee
    As I understand it, almost all Sikhs are Punjabis, and are darker than me. Similarly, so are most Muslims (other than Balkan ones).
    But not all Panjabis are Sikhs. In fact, most Panjabis are Muslim and live in Pakistani Panjab (a much larger region than Indian Panjab).
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,607

    Rochdale by-election: Man held over Simon Danczuk death threats
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68414864

    good
    Oh I think that falls foul of the PB rules where you're not allowed to have beastly thoughts.

    Please refer yourself to the moderators for appropriate actions.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,324
    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    I think it's a mistake to think of things as step functions. Many - perhaps most - of those who say today that they won't vote Trump if he's convicted, will indeed, vote for him.

    But there will be plenty for whom it will have some impact. They might still like him more than Biden... but the motivation to go down to the polling station and vote Trump will be that little bit less than it was. And at the margin, he will lose a few votes to NOTA.

    Of course, Trump's conviction will no doubt motivate a few people too: among left wingers, there will be some who prefer Stein but who might be tipped into voting Biden to prevent Trump's return. And there will be some on the right who see this all as a big conspiracy, and will be more motivated to go out and vote Trump than they might otherwise be.
  • Options
    mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,159
    kamski said:

    mwadams said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    The polls v. actual Republican v. Democrat elections seem to overstate the Republicans by ~8-10% at the moment. So that's how I'd explain that.
    Some evidence for that?

    https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-predictor-polls-special-elections/story?id=107369614 suggests you wrong

    "In 25 special elections since Nov. 7 (there were no specials between Sept. 19 and Nov. 7), Republicans have won by an average of 3 points. The districts in which the elections were held had an average base partisanship of R+2, meaning that, over the last few months, it’s actually Republicans who have been overperforming in special elections, albeit by an average of just 1 point. That’s exactly what the polls are saying right now."
    Hmmm. That's interesting. That's precisely the article I was looking at, along with this additional detail around the presidential primaries. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/upshot/trump-polling-primaries.html

    Have you over-discounted the anti-correlation of the special election figures? Or have I over-emphasised it?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,355
    Trump's town hall with Laura Ingraham is worth watching for people who are still writing him off.

    The full thing is paywalled but there are clips on YouTube:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_8no_RFCjw
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 828
    Interesting goings-on at the PO scandal evidence session for the business committee.

    Former PO chair Staunton has made "bombshell revelations about a boardroom that is in disarray, a chief executive [Nick Read] that is under investigation and a chief executive who has sought to resign, even though he told us on oath that he has not"
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68405566

    Perhaps the biggest claim is that "it's Nick Read [the PO chief exec] who is subject to misconduct inquiry, not him" - this directly contradicts what Badenoch's been saying.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63

    And now, Kevin Hollinrake, the postal services minister appears to have all but confirmed this, saying "that it was “entirely inappropriate” for Henry Staunton to talk to the Commons business committee about Nick Read, the chief executive, being investigated over a misconduct complaint."
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63

    Seems like it's about to become an even huger mess...
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,975
    Leon said:

    kamski said:

    Nigelb said:

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    Well, no-one is a race, because "race" is a discredited concept! Badenoch wants to quibble that you can't be racist against Muslims because UK law says they're not a race, whereas you can be racist against Jews and Sikhs because UK law says they are a race. Which seems utterly pointless "well actually" behaviour when the more important thing is how to rid the Conservative Party of its Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim hatred, if you prefer).

    Are members of other religious groups sometimes discriminated against? Yes. We should strive to make the world a better place and stop that happening. However, right now, the issue is around Islamophobia/anti-Muslim hatred in the Conservative Party. Whataboutery doesn't help any more than quibbling over words.

    If a young Catholic woman didn't get a job because she was wearing an obvious cross when applying for a job with Disney in the UK, she would be able to sue for discrimination. The US has a long way to go in terms of improving its employment law.
    They could sue in the US, religion being a protected characteristic in relation to employment.

    https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protected-employment-discrimination
    Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).
    Well, what is Jim worried about then?
    Don't know. But yesterday it was 'the Left didn't care about genocide against yazhidis because they are christians' today it seems to be 'big tech companies won't employ talented and brilliant people if they have traditional religious ideas about sex'. bit odd.
    But Yazidis aren't Christian. They're Yazidi.
    They very definitely are NOT Christian. Arguably, they worship the Christian Devil, or some ur-God that eventually became the Christian Devil. Their fascinating and crazy religion long predates Christianity, indeed it might be the oldest surviving religion in the world

    This alleged "devil worship" is just one reason they have been brutally persecuted by Christians AND Muslims, over the centuries

    They are some of the most interesting people on earth. May God, of whatever variety, protect them
    IIRC they find the devil worship claim highly offensive.

    In the Iraqi Parliament, again IIRC, some traditional exclamations about “going to the devil” or similar were banned because of association with attacks on Yazidis. Racist language….
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,561
    Religion is a protected category in most US civil rights laws. But organizations dominated by cultural leftists discriminate against those believers regularly, without any fear of punishment.

    And the Democratic Party often caters to them. For example, I can not imagine Washington state's attorney general, Bob Ferguson, defending that hypothetical young Catholic woman I mentioned.

    But don't ask me: Ask Google, and Apple, and the rest, whether those traditional groups constitute about 40 percent of their employees.



  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,553
    ...
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    Trump isn't polling any higher than the 47% he got in 2020 in most polls, it is Biden well down on the 51% he got then.

    However although not keen on Biden, if Trump gets convicted the wavering 2020 Biden voters will likely go back to him not switch to Trump
    Stay at home. Voters can always stay at home, or switch to a third party.

    Biden's ratings are awful. How can that not depress his vote?

    Trump being awful wasn't enough to encourage voters to turn out for H. Clinton, because enough people had negative views of her that they stayed at home or voted for a third party.
    If the voters stay at home Trump wins. I just cannot see that happening.

    Biden wins by default.
    It happened in 2016. People insisted Trump couldn't possibly win, they ignored Clinton's negatives, Trump won.

    Look at Biden's ratings. They're awful.
    Trump's aren't much better and Biden did win the rustbelt swing states unlike Hillary
    HY, you are back on the side of the good and the righteous. I am rather relieved.

    One or two others are still shilling for Satan!
  • Options
    AlsoLei said:

    Interesting goings-on at the PO scandal evidence session for the business committee.

    Former PO chair Staunton has made "bombshell revelations about a boardroom that is in disarray, a chief executive [Nick Read] that is under investigation and a chief executive who has sought to resign, even though he told us on oath that he has not"
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68405566

    Perhaps the biggest claim is that "it's Nick Read [the PO chief exec] who is subject to misconduct inquiry, not him" - this directly contradicts what Badenoch's been saying.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63

    And now, Kevin Hollinrake, the postal services minister appears to have all but confirmed this, saying "that it was “entirely inappropriate” for Henry Staunton to talk to the Commons business committee about Nick Read, the chief executive, being investigated over a misconduct complaint."
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63

    Seems like it's about to become an even huger mess...

    The session was an embarrassment and whilst he accuses Nick Read of misconduct he accepts he is also

    The postmasters must be gobsmacked
  • Options
    PB = Putinist Bullshit 24/7

    Sad but true.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,355
    edited February 27
    Things must be bad if they need to rely on Andrew and Fergie.

    image
  • Options

    Things must be bad if they need to rely on Andrew and Fergie.

    image

    Taken outside a Pizza Express in Woking?
  • Options
    AlsoLeiAlsoLei Posts: 828

    AlsoLei said:

    Interesting goings-on at the PO scandal evidence session for the business committee.

    Former PO chair Staunton has made "bombshell revelations about a boardroom that is in disarray, a chief executive [Nick Read] that is under investigation and a chief executive who has sought to resign, even though he told us on oath that he has not"
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68405566

    Perhaps the biggest claim is that "it's Nick Read [the PO chief exec] who is subject to misconduct inquiry, not him" - this directly contradicts what Badenoch's been saying.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63

    And now, Kevin Hollinrake, the postal services minister appears to have all but confirmed this, saying "that it was “entirely inappropriate” for Henry Staunton to talk to the Commons business committee about Nick Read, the chief executive, being investigated over a misconduct complaint."
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63

    Seems like it's about to become an even huger mess...

    The session was an embarrassment and whilst he accuses Nick Read of misconduct he accepts he is also

    The postmasters must be gobsmacked
    Agreed - Staunton didn't seem a particularly credible witness to me (to say the least!). I thought Liam Byrne's eyes were going to pop out at one point...

    That said, if Hollinrake really is saying that his claims were "inappropriate" rather than wrong or misleading, then it leaves Kemi looking rather exposed. The only source I've seen so far is a tweet quoted by the Guardian live blog, so let's see how it develops...
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,324

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    I know plenty of people who fall into those categories who are rather more liberal on - say - gay marriage, than their religion. It's a mistake to assume that all adherents are of one mind.

    It's also important to note that age plays a role: older people are much less likely to be in favor of gay marriage. They are also much less likely to work for Google. But that's not because Google is discriminating against those views, so much as the fact that they are much more likely to hire young people.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,975
    AlsoLei said:

    AlsoLei said:

    Interesting goings-on at the PO scandal evidence session for the business committee.

    Former PO chair Staunton has made "bombshell revelations about a boardroom that is in disarray, a chief executive [Nick Read] that is under investigation and a chief executive who has sought to resign, even though he told us on oath that he has not"
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68405566

    Perhaps the biggest claim is that "it's Nick Read [the PO chief exec] who is subject to misconduct inquiry, not him" - this directly contradicts what Badenoch's been saying.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63

    And now, Kevin Hollinrake, the postal services minister appears to have all but confirmed this, saying "that it was “entirely inappropriate” for Henry Staunton to talk to the Commons business committee about Nick Read, the chief executive, being investigated over a misconduct complaint."
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63

    Seems like it's about to become an even huger mess...

    The session was an embarrassment and whilst he accuses Nick Read of misconduct he accepts he is also

    The postmasters must be gobsmacked
    Agreed - Staunton didn't seem a particularly credible witness to me (to say the least!). I thought Liam Byrne's eyes were going to pop out at one point...

    That said, if Hollinrake really is saying that his claims were "inappropriate" rather than wrong or misleading, then it leaves Kemi looking rather exposed. The only source I've seen so far is a tweet quoted by the Guardian live blog, so let's see how it develops...
    Staunton is just like the crapulent investigators previously exposed. He seems to think that any responsibility for his own actions lies with other people.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,342
    mwadams said:

    kamski said:

    mwadams said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    61 - 36 is pretty much the Trump - Haley split in the primaries I think ?

    Yes, but if Republicans remain split like that he loses bigly.
    When push and shove come they'll vote for him in November.
    In sufficient numbers? I don't think so. And even if they do he won't get the independents. Or any Democrats. His candidacy is doomed. But what happens then is far from clear.
    How do you explain the polls? The precedents for Biden aren’t good if you compare them with other incumbents at this stage.
    The polls v. actual Republican v. Democrat elections seem to overstate the Republicans by ~8-10% at the moment. So that's how I'd explain that.
    Some evidence for that?

    https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-predictor-polls-special-elections/story?id=107369614 suggests you wrong

    "In 25 special elections since Nov. 7 (there were no specials between Sept. 19 and Nov. 7), Republicans have won by an average of 3 points. The districts in which the elections were held had an average base partisanship of R+2, meaning that, over the last few months, it’s actually Republicans who have been overperforming in special elections, albeit by an average of just 1 point. That’s exactly what the polls are saying right now."
    Hmmm. That's interesting. That's precisely the article I was looking at, along with this additional detail around the presidential primaries. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/upshot/trump-polling-primaries.html

    Have you over-discounted the anti-correlation of the special election figures? Or have I over-emphasised it?
    I'm not sure. I think you can see some positive signs for Dems if you want to, but it's a long way to go, and there are plenty of bad signs for Biden's chances too. I agree with the conclusion to the first article:

    "All signs right now point to an election that could go either way, and if I had to guess, I don’t think that will change by November."
  • Options
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I'm sorry, but it's time for us all to sit back and listen, once again, to @RochdalePioneers classick rock anthem, "Rochdale's 30p Lament", because, well, when is it ever not a good time to hear Rochdale's 30p Lament??

    https://app.suno.ai/song/91270dcb-ef95-45f7-b6d2-acc5c3bb8a12


    Like the man said: Someone had to say it

    It is remarkable that AI can do that.

    If it was a human wot’d done it, you’d think it was gash, but from a few prompts a piece of software doing that is amazing.

    But, if music is just maths, essentially, it should be easy for a computer to make music which sounds ok, and just ok.

    As to the question as to whether AI will ever make music as good as a human can, well, that remains to be seen. I bet most recorded human-made music is ok, pedestrian, does the job, but there’s something almost undefinable about a great tune or melody. A chord progression, a crunching riff, that really endures, and will endure, for decades, centuries. That appeals to new generations time and time again. What makes one of those? Where do they come from?

    Is it simply a numbers game? Enough human music is produced, most of it perfectly ok and workable but, like the monkeys typing and eventually getting Shakespeare, some of it is bound to be amazing. So if AI can churn out music, will it be that most of it’ll be ok but a small bit of it will be sublime?

    Or will AI birth its own McCartneys, or Mozarts, algorithms which can consistently produce music which captures people in that undefinable way? Tunes which soar, which tug at the heart. Which are discovered by people again and again.

    I don’t know the answer. It’s going to be interesting watching what happens.
    What fascinates me about this AI composition is that the machine knew to drop several notes through "ferrets... in their trousers", creating a clever emotional effect (I'm serious here)

    It also spotted the internal rhyme between "25p" and "declamatory" - and uses it

    And it knew to put the small solo right at the end, but just before "someone had to say it", another nice touch

    It really is all algorithms. All of it. Everything. Which is why AI will do everything we can, and then more
    I play a bit of guitar and know the most basic bits of music theory. You don't really need any theory to play guitar - learn a few basic chord shapes and put the hours in and get the muscle memory and you can play 95% of popular music pretty easily.

    Hey man, the chicks dig it.

    But the problem with not knowing any theory is you don't know why you're doing what you're doing. You're just playing chord progressions (usually the same chord progressions over and over again) and notes you've learnt by rote, but you don't understand why they fit together. Or why they shouldn't but it sounds amazing anyway.

    Even with my severely limited musical knowledge, you do recognise certain things that crop up again and again, little tricks that everyone uses, that once you see the trick you can't unsee it - the magic has gone. And I wonder if AI is just picking up on these common tropes, these hackneyed techniques, your brain's heard a thousand times before, and which always sound good to us.

    I'm not saying AI won't know theory - it's not that hard, it's just tricky to memorise it all, I bet AI knows it now. But is AI currently relying on those common tropes? It might well be now, but in 5 years time? Even in 6 months time? Who knows? At some point it will become a very sophisticated composer, probably much sooner rather than later.

    I think it's really exciting. Most of it might be garbage. But it's going to be really interesting.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,436
    Leon said:

    I've just emailed Nayib Bukele, El Presidente of El Salvador

    That's been me for the last 5 minutes. Not sure if he will reply to my fanmail, tho

    Bukele bukkake!
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,355

    PB = Putinist Bullshit 24/7

    Sad but true.

    What is the official Putinist position on Israel/Gaza? Are you in favour of Biden's decision to redirect ammunition from Ukraine to Israel?
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,913
    Hello @Leon @rcs1000 and the PB gang. I want to get up to speed on AI, where would you recommend I start. I have a moderately strong, but clearly outdated, tech literacy. I can deal with pop science books to more instructive content for how it actually works.
  • Options
    AlsoLei said:

    AlsoLei said:

    Interesting goings-on at the PO scandal evidence session for the business committee.

    Former PO chair Staunton has made "bombshell revelations about a boardroom that is in disarray, a chief executive [Nick Read] that is under investigation and a chief executive who has sought to resign, even though he told us on oath that he has not"
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68405566

    Perhaps the biggest claim is that "it's Nick Read [the PO chief exec] who is subject to misconduct inquiry, not him" - this directly contradicts what Badenoch's been saying.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63

    And now, Kevin Hollinrake, the postal services minister appears to have all but confirmed this, saying "that it was “entirely inappropriate” for Henry Staunton to talk to the Commons business committee about Nick Read, the chief executive, being investigated over a misconduct complaint."
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63

    Seems like it's about to become an even huger mess...

    The session was an embarrassment and whilst he accuses Nick Read of misconduct he accepts he is also

    The postmasters must be gobsmacked
    Agreed - Staunton didn't seem a particularly credible witness to me (to say the least!). I thought Liam Byrne's eyes were going to pop out at one point...

    That said, if Hollinrake really is saying that his claims were "inappropriate" rather than wrong or misleading, then it leaves Kemi looking rather exposed. The only source I've seen so far is a tweet quoted by the Guardian live blog, so let's see how it develops...
    I listened to the whole testimony and the looks of incredulity by the mps and those behind him said it all

    He was all over the place and he seemed to 'protest too much '

    To be honest Badenoch took the correct decision in sacking him, certainly on the way he presented himself today, but frankly the whole lot of them should be sacked and the matter taken completely out of the Post Office's hands
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,174

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I'm sorry, but it's time for us all to sit back and listen, once again, to @RochdalePioneers classick rock anthem, "Rochdale's 30p Lament", because, well, when is it ever not a good time to hear Rochdale's 30p Lament??

    https://app.suno.ai/song/91270dcb-ef95-45f7-b6d2-acc5c3bb8a12


    Like the man said: Someone had to say it

    It is remarkable that AI can do that.

    If it was a human wot’d done it, you’d think it was gash, but from a few prompts a piece of software doing that is amazing.

    But, if music is just maths, essentially, it should be easy for a computer to make music which sounds ok, and just ok.

    As to the question as to whether AI will ever make music as good as a human can, well, that remains to be seen. I bet most recorded human-made music is ok, pedestrian, does the job, but there’s something almost undefinable about a great tune or melody. A chord progression, a crunching riff, that really endures, and will endure, for decades, centuries. That appeals to new generations time and time again. What makes one of those? Where do they come from?

    Is it simply a numbers game? Enough human music is produced, most of it perfectly ok and workable but, like the monkeys typing and eventually getting Shakespeare, some of it is bound to be amazing. So if AI can churn out music, will it be that most of it’ll be ok but a small bit of it will be sublime?

    Or will AI birth its own McCartneys, or Mozarts, algorithms which can consistently produce music which captures people in that undefinable way? Tunes which soar, which tug at the heart. Which are discovered by people again and again.

    I don’t know the answer. It’s going to be interesting watching what happens.
    What fascinates me about this AI composition is that the machine knew to drop several notes through "ferrets... in their trousers", creating a clever emotional effect (I'm serious here)

    It also spotted the internal rhyme between "25p" and "declamatory" - and uses it

    And it knew to put the small solo right at the end, but just before "someone had to say it", another nice touch

    It really is all algorithms. All of it. Everything. Which is why AI will do everything we can, and then more
    I play a bit of guitar and know the most basic bits of music theory. You don't really need any theory to play guitar - learn a few basic chord shapes and put the hours in and get the muscle memory and you can play 95% of popular music pretty easily.

    Hey man, the chicks dig it.

    But the problem with not knowing any theory is you don't know why you're doing what you're doing. You're just playing chord progressions (usually the same chord progressions over and over again) and notes you've learnt by rote, but you don't understand why they fit together. Or why they shouldn't but it sounds amazing anyway.

    Even with my severely limited musical knowledge, you do recognise certain things that crop up again and again, little tricks that everyone uses, that once you see the trick you can't unsee it - the magic has gone. And I wonder if AI is just picking up on these common tropes, these hackneyed techniques, your brain's heard a thousand times before, and which always sound good to us.

    I'm not saying AI won't know theory - it's not that hard, it's just tricky to memorise it all, I bet AI knows it now. But is AI currently relying on those common tropes? It might well be now, but in 5 years time? Even in 6 months time? Who knows? At some point it will become a very sophisticated composer, probably much sooner rather than later.

    I think it's really exciting. Most of it might be garbage. But it's going to be really interesting.
    So you can play the Four Chord Song?
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,603

    Things must be bad if they need to rely on Andrew and Fergie.

    image

    No sweat.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,324
    @Jim_Miller

    I would advise anyone going to a job interview to avoid anything advertising political or personal beliefs: no LBG flag, no gang motif, no crucifix or Star of David, no BLM badge, no extinction rebellion or anything else.

    Someone's personal beliefs and hobbies are their own. If someone feels the need to advertise them, irrespective of what they are, raises the question with me of you are more committed to the job, or to something else.

    And my job is to hire people who are going to devote themselves 100% to the success of my enterprise. To do anything else is to anywhere abrogate my responsibility to my shareholders.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,342

    Religion is a protected category in most US civil rights laws. But organizations dominated by cultural leftists discriminate against those believers regularly, without any fear of punishment.

    And the Democratic Party often caters to them. For example, I can not imagine Washington state's attorney general, Bob Ferguson, defending that hypothetical young Catholic woman I mentioned.

    But don't ask me: Ask Google, and Apple, and the rest, whether those traditional groups constitute about 40 percent of their employees.

    There are some famous religious computer scientists.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_a_Computer_Scientist_Rarely_Talks_About

    But there is very likely something of an inverse correlation between religious fundamentalism and being a tech nerd.

    I think you need to show your workings.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,342
    rcs1000 said:

    FPT: It has often occurred to me that "racism" is such a potent criticism that it is often used inappropriately. Muslims are not a race, to state the obvious. Nor are they the only ones to discriminate on the basis of religion -- or to be discriminated against because of their religion.

    An example: In the US, people with traditional religious ideas about sex and marriage are about 40 percent of the population. (I am thinking of evangelicals, traditional Catholics, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and so forth.) But I doubt very much that they are 40 percent of the employees at, for example, Google, Facebook, or Apple.)

    (Microsoft, so far as I can tell, doesn't care about such things.)

    Nor do I think such firms would hire a lawyer as talented as Joe Lieberman or Amy Cony Barrett, a manager as brilliant as Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels. If that lawyer held any such traditional religious beliefs.

    No doubt there are exceptions, just as there were racial exceptions when discrimination against blacks was so common. But, for example, I would advise a young Catholic woman not to wear an obvious cross when she was applying for a job at, for example, Disney.

    I know plenty of people who fall into those categories who are rather more liberal on - say - gay marriage, than their religion. It's a mistake to assume that all adherents are of one mind.

    It's also important to note that age plays a role: older people are much less likely to be in favor of gay marriage. They are also much less likely to work for Google. But that's not because Google is discriminating against those views, so much as the fact that they are much more likely to hire young people.
    Probably Google isn't refusing to hire people because they have "traditional religious ideas about sex". But everybody has affinity bias. I'm just wondering how people responsible for hiring at Google know whether candidates have traditional religious ideas about sex, or is it just a general correlation with how people look/dress, or specifically religious dress code like wearing a burqa? The example was someone wearing a cross when going for a job at Disney - is there any research on the effect of wearing a cross at job interviews?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,174
    2m views in 12 hours, during which time most of the US has been sleeping, for Jon Stewart’s take on the Israel / Palestine conflict.

    https://youtube.com/watch?v=K2zbN3AuHG8

    He really is a genius at being able to find the jokes in the worst of circumstances, and is going to be a massive personality as the US election draws closer. Well worth 15m of everyone’s time to watch it, no matter your view of the war. Not afraid to call a spade, which is something most American commentators have forgotten in the past eight years.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I'm sorry, but it's time for us all to sit back and listen, once again, to @RochdalePioneers classick rock anthem, "Rochdale's 30p Lament", because, well, when is it ever not a good time to hear Rochdale's 30p Lament??

    https://app.suno.ai/song/91270dcb-ef95-45f7-b6d2-acc5c3bb8a12


    Like the man said: Someone had to say it

    It is remarkable that AI can do that.

    If it was a human wot’d done it, you’d think it was gash, but from a few prompts a piece of software doing that is amazing.

    But, if music is just maths, essentially, it should be easy for a computer to make music which sounds ok, and just ok.

    As to the question as to whether AI will ever make music as good as a human can, well, that remains to be seen. I bet most recorded human-made music is ok, pedestrian, does the job, but there’s something almost undefinable about a great tune or melody. A chord progression, a crunching riff, that really endures, and will endure, for decades, centuries. That appeals to new generations time and time again. What makes one of those? Where do they come from?

    Is it simply a numbers game? Enough human music is produced, most of it perfectly ok and workable but, like the monkeys typing and eventually getting Shakespeare, some of it is bound to be amazing. So if AI can churn out music, will it be that most of it’ll be ok but a small bit of it will be sublime?

    Or will AI birth its own McCartneys, or Mozarts, algorithms which can consistently produce music which captures people in that undefinable way? Tunes which soar, which tug at the heart. Which are discovered by people again and again.

    I don’t know the answer. It’s going to be interesting watching what happens.
    What fascinates me about this AI composition is that the machine knew to drop several notes through "ferrets... in their trousers", creating a clever emotional effect (I'm serious here)

    It also spotted the internal rhyme between "25p" and "declamatory" - and uses it

    And it knew to put the small solo right at the end, but just before "someone had to say it", another nice touch

    It really is all algorithms. All of it. Everything. Which is why AI will do everything we can, and then more
    I play a bit of guitar and know the most basic bits of music theory. You don't really need any theory to play guitar - learn a few basic chord shapes and put the hours in and get the muscle memory and you can play 95% of popular music pretty easily.

    Hey man, the chicks dig it.

    But the problem with not knowing any theory is you don't know why you're doing what you're doing. You're just playing chord progressions (usually the same chord progressions over and over again) and notes you've learnt by rote, but you don't understand why they fit together. Or why they shouldn't but it sounds amazing anyway.

    Even with my severely limited musical knowledge, you do recognise certain things that crop up again and again, little tricks that everyone uses, that once you see the trick you can't unsee it - the magic has gone. And I wonder if AI is just picking up on these common tropes, these hackneyed techniques, your brain's heard a thousand times before, and which always sound good to us.

    I'm not saying AI won't know theory - it's not that hard, it's just tricky to memorise it all, I bet AI knows it now. But is AI currently relying on those common tropes? It might well be now, but in 5 years time? Even in 6 months time? Who knows? At some point it will become a very sophisticated composer, probably much sooner rather than later.

    I think it's really exciting. Most of it might be garbage. But it's going to be really interesting.
    So you can play the Four Chord Song?
    That’s good, never seen that before. And yes I can!
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,342
    rcs1000 said:

    @Jim_Miller

    I would advise anyone going to a job interview to avoid anything advertising political or personal beliefs: no LBG flag, no gang motif, no crucifix or Star of David, no BLM badge, no extinction rebellion or anything else.

    Someone's personal beliefs and hobbies are their own. If someone feels the need to advertise them, irrespective of what they are, raises the question with me of you are more committed to the job, or to something else.

    And my job is to hire people who are going to devote themselves 100% to the success of my enterprise. To do anything else is to anywhere abrogate my responsibility to my shareholders.

    but presumably you would try not to discriminate against a sikh man wearing a turban, for example?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 63,342
    rcs1000 said:

    @Jim_Miller

    I would advise anyone going to a job interview to avoid anything advertising political or personal beliefs: no LBG flag, no gang motif, no crucifix or Star of David, no BLM badge, no extinction rebellion or anything else.

    Someone's personal beliefs and hobbies are their own. If someone feels the need to advertise them, irrespective of what they are, raises the question with me of you are more committed to the job, or to something else.

    And my job is to hire people who are going to devote themselves 100% to the success of my enterprise...

    During working hours, I hope ?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,324
    Jonathan said:

    Hello @Leon @rcs1000 and the PB gang. I want to get up to speed on AI, where would you recommend I start. I have a moderately strong, but clearly outdated, tech literacy. I can deal with pop science books to more instructive content for how it actually works.

    How technical/mathematical are you? Which bits are you most interested in?

    I would probably start with Stephen Wolfram's piece on how LLMs work: https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/02/what-is-chatgpt-doing-and-why-does-it-work/
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,553
    ...

    AlsoLei said:

    AlsoLei said:

    Interesting goings-on at the PO scandal evidence session for the business committee.

    Former PO chair Staunton has made "bombshell revelations about a boardroom that is in disarray, a chief executive [Nick Read] that is under investigation and a chief executive who has sought to resign, even though he told us on oath that he has not"
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/business-68405566

    Perhaps the biggest claim is that "it's Nick Read [the PO chief exec] who is subject to misconduct inquiry, not him" - this directly contradicts what Badenoch's been saying.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63

    And now, Kevin Hollinrake, the postal services minister appears to have all but confirmed this, saying "that it was “entirely inappropriate” for Henry Staunton to talk to the Commons business committee about Nick Read, the chief executive, being investigated over a misconduct complaint."
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63#block-65ddf5b78f08c90e7e511c63

    Seems like it's about to become an even huger mess...

    The session was an embarrassment and whilst he accuses Nick Read of misconduct he accepts he is also

    The postmasters must be gobsmacked
    Agreed - Staunton didn't seem a particularly credible witness to me (to say the least!). I thought Liam Byrne's eyes were going to pop out at one point...

    That said, if Hollinrake really is saying that his claims were "inappropriate" rather than wrong or misleading, then it leaves Kemi looking rather exposed. The only source I've seen so far is a tweet quoted by the Guardian live blog, so let's see how it develops...
    I listened to the whole testimony and the looks of incredulity by the mps and those behind him said it all

    He was all over the place and he seemed to 'protest too much '

    To be honest Badenoch took the correct decision in sacking him, certainly on the way he presented himself today, but frankly the whole lot of them should be sacked and the matter taken completely out of the Post Office's hands
    Shame Kemi didn't sack herself too. Utterly out of her depth.
  • Options
    ChrisChris Posts: 11,153
    rcs1000 said:

    @Jim_Miller

    I would advise anyone going to a job interview to avoid anything advertising political or personal beliefs: no LBG flag, no gang motif, no crucifix or Star of David, no BLM badge, no extinction rebellion or anything else.

    Someone's personal beliefs and hobbies are their own. If someone feels the need to advertise them, irrespective of what they are, raises the question with me of you are more committed to the job, or to something else.

    And my job is to hire people who are going to devote themselves 100% to the success of my enterprise. To do anything else is to anywhere abrogate my responsibility to my shareholders.

    I don't think your "responsibility to your shareholders" would hold up in court as a defence against unlawful direct discrimination.
This discussion has been closed.