Unfortunately this doesn't really translate into those people won't vote for him. They are saying the system should generally bar such a person. When it comes to Biden v Trump, the best guesses are current polling, possibly adjusted slightly for the economy and incumbancy, all of which suggest it will be very tight.
Remember today is also the crucial day for deciding on whether this bond is valid.
If it’s rejected, Trump will have to put up the cash more or less instantly or his properties start being repossessed, which as @rcs1000 noted could have unfortunate consequences for him.
I will be surprised if it *is* rejected even though it’s clearly as reliable as a Cummings eyesight test, because the courts have been bending over backwards to accommodate Trump. But it’s another headache he probably doesn’t need.
Remember today is also the crucial day for deciding on whether this bond is valid.
If it’s rejected, Trump will have to put up the cash more or less instantly or his properties start being repossessed, which as @rcs1000 noted could have unfortunate consequences for him.
I will be surprised if it *is* rejected even though it’s clearly as reliable as a Cummings eyesight test, because the courts have been bending over backwards to accommodate Trump. But it’s another headache he probably doesn’t need.
I can't see them accepting it. The Bond should be a cast iron guarantee that $175m is sat in accounts that can be instantly drawn upon and no part of the bond paperwork seems to actually offer that.
So I can see the bond being ruled invalid and an awful lot of whining kicking off...
Remember today is also the crucial day for deciding on whether this bond is valid.
If it’s rejected, Trump will have to put up the cash more or less instantly or his properties start being repossessed, which as @rcs1000 noted could have unfortunate consequences for him.
I will be surprised if it *is* rejected even though it’s clearly as reliable as a Cummings eyesight test, because the courts have been bending over backwards to accommodate Trump. But it’s another headache he probably doesn’t need.
I can't see them accepting it. The Bond should be a cast iron guarantee that $175m is sat in accounts that can be instantly drawn upon and no part of the bond paperwork seems to actually offer that.
So I can see the bond being ruled invalid and an awful lot of whining kicking off...
Remember today is also the crucial day for deciding on whether this bond is valid.
If it’s rejected, Trump will have to put up the cash more or less instantly or his properties start being repossessed, which as @rcs1000 noted could have unfortunate consequences for him.
I will be surprised if it *is* rejected even though it’s clearly as reliable as a Cummings eyesight test, because the courts have been bending over backwards to accommodate Trump. But it’s another headache he probably doesn’t need.
I can't see them accepting it. The Bond should be a cast iron guarantee that $175m is sat in accounts that can be instantly drawn upon and no part of the bond paperwork seems to actually offer that.
So I can see the bond being ruled invalid and an awful lot of whining kicking off...
“We thought it would be an easy procedure that wouldn’t involve other legal problems and it’s not turning out that way,” he said. “We probably didn’t charge enough.”
"The taco represents the eldest Goneril. I tried to capture her somber, yet secretive nature with a shrimp encased in a black taco shell, covered with aioli. The contrast between the crunchy shell and the tender shrimp mirrors the complex duality of the character," Park Sun-woo, head chef of Central Yunit, told The Korea Times, April 17.
The second daughter, Regan, is captured with a red-colored cannoli.
"Regan's cannoli is made from a blackish-red shell, tinted with beet to lend a touch of glamor, reflecting her winning of Edmund's love. Filled with cream cheese and a whole blueberry, the filling bursts from the shell, symbolizing the eruption of deep-seated human desires," Park explained...
Pleased to highlight some good news that will be massively underreported.
The number of people attending hospital in England & Wales after violent incidents has halved in the last 14 years. That is really strong progress. There was a bit of a blip during and post covid but trend is back down again now.
Shells Braverman just on Today, talking about Palestine marches. Exuding her usual tangible menace.
I’ve commented before that she’s the one who really means it. Others grift and sound off, but you sense Suella has proper deep seated anger in there. And she really didn’t appreciate the impertinence of her interviewer daring to ask challenging questions.
The woman quoted couldn't remember signing a legal document as a witness for Rayner until presented with the document, but had a minute recollection of Rayner's movements at the time?
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
It’s a bit worrying one-third *don’t* think that it should bar him.
Even if he’s convicted, of course, it’s fairly unlikely he’ll actually be jailed on these grounds, although he’s doing his best to annoy the judge.
That’s probably the best bet actually - that he testifies, has a meltdown and is jailed for contempt.
The poll is actually whether whether people should be legally allowed to do particular jobs. One response on the Presidency, including from non-Republicans, might be that whether or not they themselves would vote for a convicted felon, democracy should prevail and the person shouldn't be barred from office.
In some ways, I find it more worrying that nearly one in ten say a convicted felon shouldn't be allowed to be a waiter. They're essentially saying that such people should never work again in any job, which is extremely harsh.
It’s a bit worrying one-third *don’t* think that it should bar him.
Even if he’s convicted, of course, it’s fairly unlikely he’ll actually be jailed on these grounds, although he’s doing his best to annoy the judge.
That’s probably the best bet actually - that he testifies, has a meltdown and is jailed for contempt.
The poll is actually whether whether people should be legally allowed to do particular jobs. One response on the Presidency, including from non-Republicans, might be that whether or not they themselves would vote for a convicted felon, democracy should prevail and the person shouldn't be barred from office.
In some ways, I find it more worrying that nearly one in ten say a convicted felon shouldn't be allowed to be a waiter. They're essentially saying that such people should never work again in any job, which is extremely harsh.
Wait til you hear what they say about benefit scrounging ex convicts.
Ex-head of MI6 says Hamas will be satisfied at Israel's overreaction. There's your headline. Interesting stuff on Iraq and Northern Ireland. They are not Trump fans (sort of on-topic for this thread). Climate change risks major destabilisation. Tony Blair was an inspiring leader but not a great manager. Read Damascus Station by David McCloskey.
But it is ok for me to register in two different constituencies because I have two properties (I haven't done so but could) or my children to do so when they were students (both did) or Brits who have not lived in the UK for up to a decade, and now forever to have a vote, yet it is not ok for Rayner to pick which house she is registered in, in the same constituency (so the impact is zero).
Please explain what the issue is @squareroot2 . The answer isn't because the Times is running the story but actually requires you to use your brain.
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
The second is quite a good reason for not wanting to vote for him.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
"The taco represents the eldest Goneril. I tried to capture her somber, yet secretive nature with a shrimp encased in a black taco shell, covered with aioli. The contrast between the crunchy shell and the tender shrimp mirrors the complex duality of the character," Park Sun-woo, head chef of Central Yunit, told The Korea Times, April 17.
It’s a bit worrying one-third *don’t* think that it should bar him.
Even if he’s convicted, of course, it’s fairly unlikely he’ll actually be jailed on these grounds, although he’s doing his best to annoy the judge.
That’s probably the best bet actually - that he testifies, has a meltdown and is jailed for contempt.
The poll is actually whether whether people should be legally allowed to do particular jobs. One response on the Presidency, including from non-Republicans, might be that whether or not they themselves would vote for a convicted felon, democracy should prevail and the person shouldn't be barred from office.
In some ways, I find it more worrying that nearly one in ten say a convicted felon shouldn't be allowed to be a waiter. They're essentially saying that such people should never work again in any job, which is extremely harsh.
Possibly, they are thinking of the end of the meal, when you hand credit cards to the waiter?
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
The second is quite a good reason for not wanting to vote for him.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
I don't think Biden has dementia, but yes of course he is old and like every old person I know has name recall problems. FWIW I don't think Trump has dementia either, he is just a narcissist with a weird mix of cognitive weaknesses whilst also being very sharp at the skills needed for manipulation.
It’s a bit worrying one-third *don’t* think that it should bar him.
Even if he’s convicted, of course, it’s fairly unlikely he’ll actually be jailed on these grounds, although he’s doing his best to annoy the judge.
That’s probably the best bet actually - that he testifies, has a meltdown and is jailed for contempt.
The poll is actually whether whether people should be legally allowed to do particular jobs. One response on the Presidency, including from non-Republicans, might be that whether or not they themselves would vote for a convicted felon, democracy should prevail and the person shouldn't be barred from office.
In some ways, I find it more worrying that nearly one in ten say a convicted felon shouldn't be allowed to be a waiter. They're essentially saying that such people should never work again in any job, which is extremely harsh.
Demosthenes Platterbaff has entered the chat, carrying a model of the Manchester Free Trade Hall.
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
The second is quite a good reason for not wanting to vote for him.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
I don't think Biden has dementia, but yes of course he is old and like every old person I know has name recall problems. FWIW I don't think Trump has dementia either, he is just a narcissist with a weird mix of cognitive weaknesses whilst also being very sharp at the skills needed for manipulation.
I am 41 and when I'm tired I have problems recalling names. It's not the name recall issues that bothers me about Trump, it's all the complete bullshit he spouts. More than a stand up philosopher after the third amphorae of wine!
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
The second is quite a good reason for not wanting to vote for him.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
I don't think Biden has dementia, but yes of course he is old and like every old person I know has name recall problems. FWIW I don't think Trump has dementia either, he is just a narcissist with a weird mix of cognitive weaknesses whilst also being very sharp at the skills needed for manipulation.
I am 41 and when I'm tired I have problems recalling names. It's not the name recall issues that bothers me about Trump, it's all the complete bullshit he spouts. More than a stand up philosopher after the third amphorae of wine!
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
The second is quite a good reason for not wanting to vote for him.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
I don't think Biden has dementia, but yes of course he is old and like every old person I know has name recall problems. FWIW I don't think Trump has dementia either, he is just a narcissist with a weird mix of cognitive weaknesses whilst also being very sharp at the skills needed for manipulation.
I am 41 and when I'm tired I have problems recalling names. It's not the name recall issues that bothers me about Trump, it's all the complete bullshit he spouts. More than a stand up philosopher after the third amphorae of wine!
Trump has spouted bullshit all his life, and tried to speak knowledgeably about anything and everything even if he knows nothing about it and ends up sounding bizarrely stupid. That is his nature, it is not dementia.
Wouldn't the Somme without the Generals been an improvement?
Well, it wouldn't have happened.
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is another question.
Sure, the generalship of the Somme was inept, but that's partly because the generals were wrestling with a new type of warfare. And while their errors came at a terrible human cost, the lessons learned in that battle (particularly by the likes of Currie, watching closely from the reserve trenches) ultimately paved the way for the breaking of the German army in 1918.
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
The second is quite a good reason for not wanting to vote for him.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
I don't think Biden has dementia, but yes of course he is old and like every old person I know has name recall problems. FWIW I don't think Trump has dementia either, he is just a narcissist with a weird mix of cognitive weaknesses whilst also being very sharp at the skills needed for manipulation.
I am 41 and when I'm tired I have problems recalling names. It's not the name recall issues that bothers me about Trump, it's all the complete bullshit he spouts. More than a stand up philosopher after the third amphorae of wine!
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
The second is quite a good reason for not wanting to vote for him.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
I don't think Biden has dementia, but yes of course he is old and like every old person I know has name recall problems. FWIW I don't think Trump has dementia either, he is just a narcissist with a weird mix of cognitive weaknesses whilst also being very sharp at the skills needed for manipulation.
I am 41 and when I'm tired I have problems recalling names. It's not the name recall issues that bothers me about Trump, it's all the complete bullshit he spouts. More than a stand up philosopher after the third amphorae of wine!
Trump has spouted bullshit all his life, and tried to speak knowledgeably about anything and everything even if he knows nothing about it and ends up sounding bizarrely stupid. That is his nature, it is not dementia.
It does make him gaga though, in the sense of 'completely round the twist,' unless you're focusing that on a narrow definition of 'suffers from dementia.'
It’s a bit worrying one-third *don’t* think that it should bar him.
Even if he’s convicted, of course, it’s fairly unlikely he’ll actually be jailed on these grounds, although he’s doing his best to annoy the judge.
That’s probably the best bet actually - that he testifies, has a meltdown and is jailed for contempt.
The poll is actually whether whether people should be legally allowed to do particular jobs. One response on the Presidency, including from non-Republicans, might be that whether or not they themselves would vote for a convicted felon, democracy should prevail and the person shouldn't be barred from office.
In some ways, I find it more worrying that nearly one in ten say a convicted felon shouldn't be allowed to be a waiter. They're essentially saying that such people should never work again in any job, which is extremely harsh.
Possibly, they are thinking of the end of the meal, when you hand credit cards to the waiter?
Who hands their credit card to the waiter rather than waving it at a chip and pin machine? I guess chip and pin is slightly less universal in the US but still - 9% being against and 22% including don't knows being sceptical about people being allowed to hold a very low risk, minimum wage job is a lot.
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
The second is quite a good reason for not wanting to vote for him.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
I don't think Biden has dementia, but yes of course he is old and like every old person I know has name recall problems. FWIW I don't think Trump has dementia either, he is just a narcissist with a weird mix of cognitive weaknesses whilst also being very sharp at the skills needed for manipulation.
I am 41 and when I'm tired I have problems recalling names. It's not the name recall issues that bothers me about Trump, it's all the complete bullshit he spouts. More than a stand up philosopher after the third amphorae of wine!
Trump has spouted bullshit all his life, and tried to speak knowledgeably about anything and everything even if he knows nothing about it and ends up sounding bizarrely stupid. That is his nature, it is not dementia.
It does make him gaga though, in the sense of 'completely round the twist,' unless you're focusing that on a narrow definition of 'suffers from dementia.'
He is definitely somewhere on the gaga spectrum. Never quite sure how far down.
Wouldn't the Somme without the Generals been an improvement?
Not my department, but isn't the WW1 trope that the generals generally did a pretty good job of staying away from the front line?
I may just be thinking of Blackadder here.
At the start of the war, generals were often on the front line. You see the following numbers quoted a fair bit - 76 British, 42 French, 2 Belgian, 2 Italian, and 2 Romanian generals killed on the Allied side.
The big problem was command and control. Without mobile radio, you are in command of those in earshot. Unless you are in a bunker, with wired telephones or telegraph.
And then you need a big space for the maps, whole rooms for the telephone and telegraph operators (who have to be on site). So running the war from the front lines couldn’t work.
Towards the end of the war, aircraft began to carry radio, which allowed a massive cut in the time for events on the battleground (as observed by recon aircraft) to be added to the “picture” on the map tables.
It’s a bit worrying one-third *don’t* think that it should bar him.
Even if he’s convicted, of course, it’s fairly unlikely he’ll actually be jailed on these grounds, although he’s doing his best to annoy the judge.
That’s probably the best bet actually - that he testifies, has a meltdown and is jailed for contempt.
The poll is actually whether whether people should be legally allowed to do particular jobs. One response on the Presidency, including from non-Republicans, might be that whether or not they themselves would vote for a convicted felon, democracy should prevail and the person shouldn't be barred from office.
In some ways, I find it more worrying that nearly one in ten say a convicted felon shouldn't be allowed to be a waiter. They're essentially saying that such people should never work again in any job, which is extremely harsh.
Possibly, they are thinking of the end of the meal, when you hand credit cards to the waiter?
Who hands their credit card to the waiter rather than waving it at a chip and pin machine? I guess chip and pin is slightly less universal in the US but still - 9% being against and 22% including don't knows being sceptical about people being allowed to hold a very low risk, minimum wage job is a lot.
If the waiter is bringing you the machine and the only way you know it's the genuine machine is to trust the waiter, the chip-and-pin case is as bad for you as giving him the card number, except that he also gets your pin.
It’s a bit worrying one-third *don’t* think that it should bar him.
Even if he’s convicted, of course, it’s fairly unlikely he’ll actually be jailed on these grounds, although he’s doing his best to annoy the judge.
That’s probably the best bet actually - that he testifies, has a meltdown and is jailed for contempt.
The poll is actually whether whether people should be legally allowed to do particular jobs. One response on the Presidency, including from non-Republicans, might be that whether or not they themselves would vote for a convicted felon, democracy should prevail and the person shouldn't be barred from office.
In some ways, I find it more worrying that nearly one in ten say a convicted felon shouldn't be allowed to be a waiter. They're essentially saying that such people should never work again in any job, which is extremely harsh.
Possibly, they are thinking of the end of the meal, when you hand credit cards to the waiter?
Who hands their credit card to the waiter rather than waving it at a chip and pin machine? I guess chip and pin is slightly less universal in the US but still - 9% being against and 22% including don't knows being sceptical about people being allowed to hold a very low risk, minimum wage job is a lot.
As in the waiter has some control over the machine taking cards. There’s a whole bunch of popular scams involving stealing credit card data involving retail terminals.
IIRC US credit cards have quite poor security. Have they actually taken up chip and pin yet? Last time I was there (not long ago) it was regarded as a kind of witchcraft.
Yes, MiC and 38 degrees are "wouldn't the world be nicer if we all just agreed to be friends" centrists.
But that, by itself, doesn't mean their numbers are wrong.
It doesn't make them right either. They are finding what they are looking for. Had this been polled by a reputable pollster I'd take it credibly. But you are free to believe what you like without challenging or seeing where it is coming from.
What next. People love eating meat regularly, source : British Butchers federation. etc etc.
Wouldn't the Somme without the Generals been an improvement?
Not my department, but isn't the WW1 trope that the generals generally did a pretty good job of staying away from the front line?
I may just be thinking of Blackadder here.
At the start of the war, generals were often on the front line. You see the following numbers quoted a fair bit - 76 British, 42 French, 2 Belgian, 2 Italian, and 2 Romanian generals killed on the Allied side.
The big problem was command and control. Without mobile radio, you are in command of those in earshot. Unless you are in a bunker, with wired telephones or telegraph.
And then you need a big space for the maps, whole rooms for the telephone and telegraph operators (who have to be on site). So running the war from the front lines couldn’t work.
Towards the end of the war, aircraft began to carry radio, which allowed a massive cut in the time for events on the battleground (as observed by recon aircraft) to be added to the “picture” on the map tables.
Yes, generals did need to be kept away from the front line but it did not help that they arrived in staff cars and uniforms that enemy snipers could easily identify, just like Nelson at Trafalgar.
It’s a bit worrying one-third *don’t* think that it should bar him.
Even if he’s convicted, of course, it’s fairly unlikely he’ll actually be jailed on these grounds, although he’s doing his best to annoy the judge.
That’s probably the best bet actually - that he testifies, has a meltdown and is jailed for contempt.
The poll is actually whether whether people should be legally allowed to do particular jobs. One response on the Presidency, including from non-Republicans, might be that whether or not they themselves would vote for a convicted felon, democracy should prevail and the person shouldn't be barred from office.
In some ways, I find it more worrying that nearly one in ten say a convicted felon shouldn't be allowed to be a waiter. They're essentially saying that such people should never work again in any job, which is extremely harsh.
Possibly, they are thinking of the end of the meal, when you hand credit cards to the waiter?
Who hands their credit card to the waiter rather than waving it at a chip and pin machine? I guess chip and pin is slightly less universal in the US but still - 9% being against and 22% including don't knows being sceptical about people being allowed to hold a very low risk, minimum wage job is a lot.
If the waiter is bringing you the machine and the only way you know it's the genuine machine is to trust the waiter, the chip-and-pin case is as bad for you as giving him the card number, except that he also gets your pin.
Chip and pin massively reduced fraud (estimates typically 60-70% range). There are loopholes in every payment system.
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
The second is quite a good reason for not wanting to vote for him.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
I don't think Biden has dementia, but yes of course he is old and like every old person I know has name recall problems. FWIW I don't think Trump has dementia either, he is just a narcissist with a weird mix of cognitive weaknesses whilst also being very sharp at the skills needed for manipulation.
I am 41 and when I'm tired I have problems recalling names. It's not the name recall issues that bothers me about Trump, it's all the complete bullshit he spouts. More than a stand up philosopher after the third amphorae of wine!
Trump has spouted bullshit all his life, and tried to speak knowledgeably about anything and everything even if he knows nothing about it and ends up sounding bizarrely stupid. That is his nature, it is not dementia.
On top of which, if he had early stage dementia in 2014, when everyone claimed he did, he'd be gaga in 2024.
Yes, MiC and 38 degrees are "wouldn't the world be nicer if we all just agreed to be friends" centrists.
But that, by itself, doesn't mean their numbers are wrong.
It doesn't make them right either. They are finding what they are looking for. Had this been polled by a reputable pollster I'd take it credibly. But you are free to believe what you like without challenging or seeing where it is coming from.
What next. People love eating meat regularly, source : British Butchers federation. etc etc.
More in Common are a member of the BPC. They are a reputable pollster. Isn't questioning the reputability of pollsters like this against PB rules?
If you wish to critique the poll, you could consider what the questions asked were.
Wouldn't the Somme without the Generals been an improvement?
Well, it wouldn't have happened.
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is another question.
Sure, the generalship of the Somme was inept, but that's partly because the generals were wrestling with a new type of warfare. And while their errors came at a terrible human cost, the lessons learned in that battle (particularly by the likes of Currie, watching closely from the reserve trenches) ultimately paved the way for the breaking of the German army in 1918.
"Mud, Blood and Poppycock" by Gordon Corrigan is a useful corrective to the Blackadder depiction of British and Imperial Generalship.
Wouldn't the Somme without the Generals been an improvement?
Well, it wouldn't have happened.
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is another question.
Sure, the generalship of the Somme was inept, but that's partly because the generals were wrestling with a new type of warfare. And while their errors came at a terrible human cost, the lessons learned in that battle (particularly by the likes of Currie, watching closely from the reserve trenches) ultimately paved the way for the breaking of the German army in 1918.
"Mud, Blood and Poppycock" by Gordon Corrigan is a useful corrective to the Blackadder depiction of British and Imperial Generalship.
It's a good book. I suppose we sympathise with the version of history that we sympathise with (eg RIII) but that is a good book and there are several others with a similar premise.
Are there any circumstances in which you would be willing to vote for someone convicted of a felony who is running for President NET YES
Dem: -61% Ind: -20% Rep: +12%
Yet another silly poll.
Given that the definition of felony is being convicted of a crime of over 12 months then I'd have said 'yes'.
Over here, if one of the wronged postmasters had been sentenced for over 12 months would you deem him or her unsupportable in an election?
Not totally sure what you're saying here. You could make an extremely pedantic argument that someone whose conviction has been overturned was still convicted in the first place, and therefore respondents answering "no" were saying they'd not vote for someone who'd subsequently been entirely exonerated.
But it seems extremely unlikely people were interpreting the question in that way. I mean, it's so obvious that the question isn't about someone wrongfully convicted who had later been exhonorated that the point that they aren't covered is surely implied. I mean, if someone had been exonerated on appeal, you'd just not refer to them as a "convicted criminal" any more (indeed, it'd be libel).
Wouldn't the Somme without the Generals been an improvement?
Well, it wouldn't have happened.
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is another question.
Sure, the generalship of the Somme was inept, but that's partly because the generals were wrestling with a new type of warfare. And while their errors came at a terrible human cost, the lessons learned in that battle (particularly by the likes of Currie, watching closely from the reserve trenches) ultimately paved the way for the breaking of the German army in 1918.
"Mud, Blood and Poppycock" by Gordon Corrigan is a useful corrective to the Blackadder depiction of British and Imperial Generalship.
It's a good book. I suppose we sympathise with the version of history that we sympathise with (eg RIII) but that is a good book and there are several others with a similar premise.
I've just started Nick Lloyd's new book on the Eastern Front in WW1
Plenty of mindless slaughter of Russians, Germans and Austrians so far without many trenches.
Your clock might have stopped. This is the article in the Sunday Times we discussed yesterday.
I suspect even if you get your scalp and she is charged, it will just reinforce the voter notion that Conservative rule breakers are above the law that applies to everyone else.
But it is ok for me to register in two different constituencies because I have two properties (I haven't done so but could) or my children to do so when they were students (both did) or Brits who have not lived in the UK for up to a decade, and now forever to have a vote, yet it is not ok for Rayner to pick which house she is registered in, in the same constituency (so the impact is zero).
Please explain what the issue is @squareroot2 . The answer isn't because the Times is running the story but actually requires you to use your brain.
A bit early to start insulting people first up.... We shall see. The police are investigation. Neighbours accuse her of lying. The tax man doesn't like being taken for a fool.
Yes, MiC and 38 degrees are "wouldn't the world be nicer if we all just agreed to be friends" centrists.
But that, by itself, doesn't mean their numbers are wrong.
It doesn't make them right either. They are finding what they are looking for. Had this been polled by a reputable pollster I'd take it credibly. But you are free to believe what you like without challenging or seeing where it is coming from.
What next. People love eating meat regularly, source : British Butchers federation. etc etc.
More in Common are a member of the BPC. They are a reputable pollster. Isn't questioning the reputability of pollsters like this against PB rules?
If you wish to critique the poll, you could consider what the questions asked were.
Looking at the polling done in more detail, it appears robust in its methods.
Wouldn't the Somme without the Generals been an improvement?
Not my department, but isn't the WW1 trope that the generals generally did a pretty good job of staying away from the front line?
I may just be thinking of Blackadder here.
At the start of the war, generals were often on the front line. You see the following numbers quoted a fair bit - 76 British, 42 French, 2 Belgian, 2 Italian, and 2 Romanian generals killed on the Allied side.
The big problem was command and control. Without mobile radio, you are in command of those in earshot. Unless you are in a bunker, with wired telephones or telegraph.
And then you need a big space for the maps, whole rooms for the telephone and telegraph operators (who have to be on site). So running the war from the front lines couldn’t work.
Towards the end of the war, aircraft began to carry radio, which allowed a massive cut in the time for events on the battleground (as observed by recon aircraft) to be added to the “picture” on the map tables.
The slaughter of officers in Austria-Hungarian army is astonishing in early part of war in eastern front. Not the most senior ranks but anything below.
Yes, MiC and 38 degrees are "wouldn't the world be nicer if we all just agreed to be friends" centrists.
But that, by itself, doesn't mean their numbers are wrong.
It doesn't make them right either. They are finding what they are looking for. Had this been polled by a reputable pollster I'd take it credibly. But you are free to believe what you like without challenging or seeing where it is coming from.
What next. People love eating meat regularly, source : British Butchers federation. etc etc.
More in Common are a member of the BPC. They are a reputable pollster. Isn't questioning the reputability of pollsters like this against PB rules?
If you wish to critique the poll, you could consider what the questions asked were.
Are they ? I looked at their website and they appear to be lobbyists for all sorts of centrist Dad stuff. I didn't see anything about polling.
Anyway if I have broken the site rules, inadvertently, can't do anything about it now.
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
The second is quite a good reason for not wanting to vote for him.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
I don't think Biden has dementia, but yes of course he is old and like every old person I know has name recall problems. FWIW I don't think Trump has dementia either, he is just a narcissist with a weird mix of cognitive weaknesses whilst also being very sharp at the skills needed for manipulation.
I am 41 and when I'm tired I have problems recalling names. It's not the name recall issues that bothers me about Trump, it's all the complete bullshit he spouts. More than a stand up philosopher after the third amphorae of wine!
Trump has spouted bullshit all his life, and tried to speak knowledgeably about anything and everything even if he knows nothing about it and ends up sounding bizarrely stupid. That is his nature, it is not dementia.
It does make him gaga though, in the sense of 'completely round the twist,' unless you're focusing that on a narrow definition of 'suffers from dementia.'
He is definitely somewhere on the gaga spectrum. Never quite sure how far down.
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
The second is quite a good reason for not wanting to vote for him.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
I don't think Biden has dementia, but yes of course he is old and like every old person I know has name recall problems. FWIW I don't think Trump has dementia either, he is just a narcissist with a weird mix of cognitive weaknesses whilst also being very sharp at the skills needed for manipulation.
I am 41 and when I'm tired I have problems recalling names. It's not the name recall issues that bothers me about Trump, it's all the complete bullshit he spouts. More than a stand up philosopher after the third amphorae of wine!
Trump has spouted bullshit all his life, and tried to speak knowledgeably about anything and everything even if he knows nothing about it and ends up sounding bizarrely stupid. That is his nature, it is not dementia.
It does make him gaga though, in the sense of 'completely round the twist,' unless you're focusing that on a narrow definition of 'suffers from dementia.'
He is definitely somewhere on the gaga spectrum. Never quite sure how far down.
The spineless gimp is holding a morning news conference on the Rwanda Bill .
Will the media ask him why the government refuses to accept an amendment in relation to Afghanis who helped the British army?
According to discussion on last night's thread Sunak aims to be out and about and making media appearances all this week.
Labour must be delighted.
My slightly contrarian view is that Sunak is okay at media appearances. He can be a shade tetchy, but generally comes across as quite capable and engaging - not charismatic but well prepped and able to convey a message. It's the public he shouldn't be allowed near as he's dreadful at empathy - as soon as someone talks about their nan in hospital or kid's leaking classroom roof, his eyes glaze over and he tries to work out a fast exit strategy.
We got fined a fiver for a Christmas card sent by a Rector. I very much doubt he bought dodgy stamps down the pub.
Bit weird shouldn't they do what they do with insufficient postage and ask you to pay or not receive the item.
But then given the reputation and probably business practices of everything associated with the PO are in the khazi then it's no surprise they are pulling this trick.
The spineless gimp is holding a morning news conference on the Rwanda Bill .
Will the media ask him why the government refuses to accept an amendment in relation to Afghanis who helped the British army?
According to discussion on last night's thread Sunak aims to be out and about and making media appearances all this week.
Labour must be delighted.
My slightly contrarian view is that Sunak is okay at media appearances. He can be a shade tetchy, but generally comes across as quite capable and engaging - not charismatic but well prepped and able to convey a message. It's the public he shouldn't be allowed near as he's dreadful at empathy - as soon as someone talks about their nan in hospital or kid's leaking classroom roof, his eyes glaze over and he tries to work out a fast exit strategy.
A politician who shouldn't be allowed near voters.
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
The second is quite a good reason for not wanting to vote for him.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
I don't think Biden has dementia, but yes of course he is old and like every old person I know has name recall problems. FWIW I don't think Trump has dementia either, he is just a narcissist with a weird mix of cognitive weaknesses whilst also being very sharp at the skills needed for manipulation.
I am 41 and when I'm tired I have problems recalling names. It's not the name recall issues that bothers me about Trump, it's all the complete bullshit he spouts. More than a stand up philosopher after the third amphorae of wine!
Trump has spouted bullshit all his life, and tried to speak knowledgeably about anything and everything even if he knows nothing about it and ends up sounding bizarrely stupid. That is his nature, it is not dementia.
It does make him gaga though, in the sense of 'completely round the twist,' unless you're focusing that on a narrow definition of 'suffers from dementia.'
He is definitely somewhere on the gaga spectrum. Never quite sure how far down.
Note the ambiguity contained in the phrase "should be allowed". Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
The real question goes two steps further. If Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, but you believed him innocent, would you vote for him or Biden?
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
The second is quite a good reason for not wanting to vote for him.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
I don't think Biden has dementia, but yes of course he is old and like every old person I know has name recall problems. FWIW I don't think Trump has dementia either, he is just a narcissist with a weird mix of cognitive weaknesses whilst also being very sharp at the skills needed for manipulation.
I am 41 and when I'm tired I have problems recalling names. It's not the name recall issues that bothers me about Trump, it's all the complete bullshit he spouts. More than a stand up philosopher after the third amphorae of wine!
Trump has spouted bullshit all his life, and tried to speak knowledgeably about anything and everything even if he knows nothing about it and ends up sounding bizarrely stupid. That is his nature, it is not dementia.
It does make him gaga though, in the sense of 'completely round the twist,' unless you're focusing that on a narrow definition of 'suffers from dementia.'
He is definitely somewhere on the gaga spectrum. Never quite sure how far down.
Sunak knows the Rwanda Bill will pass likely today so wants to look tough by coming out and threatening them beforehand so that when it passes it looks like the Lords were terrified of him and his majestic splendour. They backed down because the Great Leader forced them to .
Jeez and we’ve got months of this. Can’t the gimp just call an election and FO back to California.
We got fined a fiver for a Christmas card sent by a Rector. I very much doubt he bought dodgy stamps down the pub.
Bit weird shouldn't they do what they do with insufficient postage and ask you to pay or not receive the item.
But then given the reputation and probably business practices of everything associated with the PO are in the khazi then it's no surprise they are pulling this trick.
Your premise still applies. I paid online not realising it was just a card.
We got fined a fiver for a Christmas card sent by a Rector. I very much doubt he bought dodgy stamps down the pub.
He probably bought them from a newsagent, didn't he? They'd be the ones passing off counterfeit stamps as they get the full price rather than a paltry percentage from the Royal Mail. I'd not have thought this is an area where a lot of it is dodgy geezers selling discounted stamps at the local boozer.
That is, the vicar will be blameless I'd expect... but it doesn't mean the stamp isn't counterfeit.
It's obviously annoying if you're charged to receive a letter with incorrect postage attached, although that's always been true.
Not wishing to traduce the good name of local shopkeepers, by the way. Most are fine people. But who do you think shoplifters sell their stolen Creme Eggs and bottles of Pernod to? It isn't normally down the Dog and Duck.
Are there any circumstances in which you would be willing to vote for someone convicted of a felony who is running for President NET YES
Dem: -61% Ind: -20% Rep: +12%
Yet another silly poll.
Given that the definition of felony is being convicted of a crime of over 12 months then I'd have said 'yes'.
Over here, if one of the wronged postmasters had been sentenced for over 12 months would you deem him or her unsupportable in an election?
Not totally sure what you're saying here. You could make an extremely pedantic argument that someone whose conviction has been overturned was still convicted in the first place, and therefore respondents answering "no" were saying they'd not vote for someone who'd subsequently been entirely exonerated.
But it seems extremely unlikely people were interpreting the question in that way. I mean, it's so obvious that the question isn't about someone wrongfully convicted who had later been exhonorated that the point that they aren't covered is surely implied. I mean, if someone had been exonerated on appeal, you'd just not refer to them as a "convicted criminal" any more (indeed, it'd be libel).
A lot of the postmasters are still waiting for their convictions to be quashed. If one of them stood for parliament in protest I'd certainly consider voting for them.
And the relevance for the US election is a lot of Trump voters would view a convicted Trump as I view a convicted postmaster.
Sunak knows the Rwanda Bill will pass likely today so wants to look tough by coming out and threatening them beforehand so that when it passes it looks like the Lords were terrified of him and his majestic splendour. They backed down because the Great Leader forced them to .
Jeez and we’ve got months of this. Can’t the gimp just call an election and FO back to California.
But it is ok for me to register in two different constituencies because I have two properties (I haven't done so but could) or my children to do so when they were students (both did) or Brits who have not lived in the UK for up to a decade, and now forever to have a vote, yet it is not ok for Rayner to pick which house she is registered in, in the same constituency (so the impact is zero).
Please explain what the issue is @squareroot2 . The answer isn't because the Times is running the story but actually requires you to use your brain.
A bit early to start insulting people first up.... We shall see. The police are investigation. Neighbours accuse her of lying. The tax man doesn't like being taken for a fool.
We shall see.
I didn't insult you, I asked you to use your brain rather than link to a Times article and you haven't done so.
What I want to know is what you think the issue is re registration for voting and you just keep ignoring the question.
So tell us 'What is the issue?' because it baffles me. I mean use your brain and don't just link to an article. Think for yourself. It isn't a lot to ask
PS I am referring to the electoral registration not CGT so the taxman issue is not relevant to my question.
It’s a bit worrying one-third *don’t* think that it should bar him.
Even if he’s convicted, of course, it’s fairly unlikely he’ll actually be jailed on these grounds, although he’s doing his best to annoy the judge.
That’s probably the best bet actually - that he testifies, has a meltdown and is jailed for contempt.
A lot of Trumpists won't consider it a felony conviction. They will see it as a framing by the deep state.
Trumpists gonna 'Trump' regardless and there's plenty of them - but hopefully his criminality (either the court-confirmed fact of it or the growing aura of it around him) will cost a critical mass of votes outside of that space. A swing of just 3 or 4 points away from where he's polling now and he's toast. I'm expecting this to happen.
Sunak knows the Rwanda Bill will pass likely today so wants to look tough by coming out and threatening them beforehand so that when it passes it looks like the Lords were terrified of him and his majestic splendour. They backed down because the Great Leader forced them to .
Jeez and we’ve got months of this. Can’t the gimp just call an election and FO back to California.
Undermined a bit by Suella telling Today she doesn’t support it because it’s not nasty enough.
According to considerable quantities of publicly available information, politics in the UK *is* populated by the weird and the wealthy.
Politics used to be a part time job, generally done by the upper middle classes. The problem with the change to professional, full time politics is that it isn’t a career - more moderately paid social work and greasy poll climbing. There’s no professional development and after 10 years in Parliament, you have no career to return to - unless you’ve created a lobbying network instead of trying to do the job.
Further, the gao between what an MP does and what we expect a Minister to do is staggering. To go from running a half dozen, very junior direct reports (with direct hire and fire), to running a department. 100ks of people, with all the internal systems and politics. And a weird, rather convoluted definition of responsibility - meaning you can’t fire civil servants if they literally lie to you.
It’s not surprising that many ministers just sign the huge piles of paper they are given. They have no idea how to do anything else.
Except US voters have already elected a President with a felony conviction. George W Bush had a conviction for DUI and was elected in 2000 and re elected in 2004.
Ted Kennedy ran for President in 1980 despite having received a suspended sentence in 1973 for fleeing the scene of an accident after killing his passenger. Although Carter beat him in the primaries he still won a lot of states.
So a conviction alone may not be fatal for Trump, although it would hit him with Independents. Jail time though likely would be beyond his core vote
Wouldn't the Somme without the Generals been an improvement?
Not my department, but isn't the WW1 trope that the generals generally did a pretty good job of staying away from the front line?
I may just be thinking of Blackadder here.
Current WW1 historians are frustrated by the Blackadder, Lions Led by Donkeys view of WW1 generals that has become the accepted norm amongst the wider population. The picture is nuanced. Some were good, some were bad, like anything.
I am torn in my view of the Battle of the Somme. On one hand it seems that the disaster of the first day and the ensuing campaign threw away lives needlessly for little gain. And it's hard to see beyond that.
The flip side of the coin is that the Somme - originally planned as a huge offensive jointly with the French, but the French contribution was dramatically curtailed due to the German attack at Verdun - was a vital attritional battle, helping the French at Verdun by tying up German manpower and logistics.
It was also vital for the British Army in 1916 - largely the first time the volunteers of 1914 went into action - to actually learn how to fight, though it was certainly a bloody lesson.
It also brought hard-won lessons - the amount and density of artillery needed to properly destroy barbed wire was much greater than that used at the Somme, for example. New tactics, such as bite and hold, developed.
As for staying away from the frontline, the generals were hamstrung by poor communications. They were commanding thousands of men over a wide area and they needed to be at the centre of a vast communications hub to be contactable, receive reports and issue commands accordingly, and this was something like a chateau ten miles behind the frontline. Though the communications network was rudimentary in the extreme and very ineffective.
Having said all that, I think there was still a willingness by the generals, or maybe too many of them, to stomach gargantuan casualties all through the war. But it was ultimately, brutally, a war of attrition.
I swing from one view to the other. I think the Somme, particularly the first day, was waste. But many argue it was the blood price that had to be paid, the school of hard knocks that had to be endured, that paved the way for eventual victory.
We got fined a fiver for a Christmas card sent by a Rector. I very much doubt he bought dodgy stamps down the pub.
Bit weird shouldn't they do what they do with insufficient postage and ask you to pay or not receive the item.
But then given the reputation and probably business practices of everything associated with the PO are in the khazi then it's no surprise they are pulling this trick.
That is basically what they do. There are several problems:-
1. They ask the addressee, not the sender, to fix things 2. You get a card through the door inviting you to cough up 3. Only after you have paid and received the item can you tell if it was worth it 4. Huge numbers of false positives from their dodgy barcode detectors 5. Confusing postage charges that now depend on size as well as weight 6. Withdrawal of previously issued stamps
(4) is an obvious parallel with the Horizon scandal but there is also legitimate confusion from (5,6) leading to insufficient postage when granny sends Christmas cards.
According to considerable quantities of publicly available information, politics in the UK *is* populated by the weird and the wealthy.
Politics used to be a part time job, generally done by the upper middle classes. The problem with the change to professional, full time politics is that it isn’t a career - more moderately paid social work and greasy poll climbing. There’s no professional development and after 10 years in Parliament, you have no career to return to - unless you’ve created a lobbying network instead of trying to do the job.
Further, the gao between what an MP does and what we expect a Minister to do is staggering. To go from running a half dozen, very junior direct reports (with direct hire and fire), to running a department. 100ks of people, with all the internal systems and politics. And a weird, rather convoluted definition of responsibility - meaning you can’t fire civil servants if they literally lie to you.
It’s not surprising that many ministers just sign the huge piles of paper they are given. They have no idea how to do anything else.
The only way we are going to fix this is either dramatically devolve some things away from Parliament (eg set up an English Parliament as well as Westminster), or dramatically increase the number of MPs (I'd go with at least 900), or both.
Comments
The Two Spies | Former MI5 & MI6 Heads On The Iraq War, Double Agents & Today's Best Secret Services
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyLqCkfpHPo
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/21/uk-voters-frustrated-with-politicians-desperate-culture-war-tactics-survey-finds
Even if he’s convicted, of course, it’s fairly unlikely he’ll actually be jailed on these grounds, although he’s doing his best to annoy the judge.
That’s probably the best bet actually - that he testifies, has a meltdown and is jailed for contempt.
I note it simply says “ convicted of a felony”, not imprisoned.
And our on camera Blue-tit seems to have started incubating eight eggs. Her mate was feeding her on the nest last night!
If it’s rejected, Trump will have to put up the cash more or less instantly or his properties start being repossessed, which as @rcs1000 noted could have unfortunate consequences for him.
I will be surprised if it *is* rejected even though it’s clearly as reliable as a Cummings eyesight test, because the courts have been bending over backwards to accommodate Trump. But it’s another headache he probably doesn’t need.
NO
Dem: 10%
Ind: 16%
Rep: 17%
Other "Felons for President" were
Trump voters (22%)
Income $100k+ (17%)
South (17%)
Notably the 65+ were least keen (11%).
https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/crosstabs_Felonies_and_Employment_20240418.pdf#page=3
I don't think waiter is in his nature.
So I can see the bond being ruled invalid and an awful lot of whining kicking off...
Clearly it's not constitutionally barred, so what does the question mean ?
It's not the same as asking "would you vote for" a convicted felon.
Why didn't they just ask "if Trump were convicted of a felony before the election, would you vote for him" ?
How does Trump keep finding these rich suckers?
Theater restaurant offers Shakespeare-inspired menu
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=373152
...The meal begins with three amuse-bouches, each symbolizing one of Lear's daughters.
"The taco represents the eldest Goneril. I tried to capture her somber, yet secretive nature with a shrimp encased in a black taco shell, covered with aioli. The contrast between the crunchy shell and the tender shrimp mirrors the complex duality of the character," Park Sun-woo, head chef of Central Yunit, told The Korea Times, April 17.
The second daughter, Regan, is captured with a red-colored cannoli.
"Regan's cannoli is made from a blackish-red shell, tinted with beet to lend a touch of glamor, reflecting her winning of Edmund's love. Filled with cream cheese and a whole blueberry, the filling bursts from the shell, symbolizing the eruption of deep-seated human desires," Park explained...
An absolute bargain at $26
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2645b4f3-bf74-4c88-bb03-09553c154bdc?shareToken=5b48c6c31f3174d0b24b3ea03145762e
The number of people attending hospital in England & Wales after violent incidents has halved in the last 14 years. That is really strong progress. There was a bit of a blip during and post covid but trend is back down again now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68850952
Are there any circumstances in which you would be willing to vote for someone convicted of a felony who is running for President
NET YES
Dem: -61%
Ind: -20%
Rep: +12%
I’ve commented before that she’s the one who really means it. Others grift and sound off, but you sense Suella has proper deep seated anger in there. And she really didn’t appreciate the impertinence of her interviewer daring to ask challenging questions.
Not only will many think Trump innocent and/or fitted up but a decent subset think Biden is guilty of something or other too. Or should not be allowed because he is old/gaga or whatever.
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1782137087149445568
In some ways, I find it more worrying that nearly one in ten say a convicted felon shouldn't be allowed to be a waiter. They're essentially saying that such people should never work again in any job, which is extremely harsh.
I may just be thinking of Blackadder here.
Please explain what the issue is @squareroot2 . The answer isn't because the Times is running the story but actually requires you to use your brain.
The snag is the Republicans have picked somebody almost as old and considerably more gaga.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/alvin-braggs-liberal-critics-are-wrong/id1485109198?i=1000652720754
Given that the definition of felony is being convicted of a crime of over 12 months then I'd have said 'yes'.
Over here, if one of the wronged postmasters had been sentenced for over 12 months would you deem him or her unsupportable in an election?
Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is another question.
Sure, the generalship of the Somme was inept, but that's partly because the generals were wrestling with a new type of warfare. And while their errors came at a terrible human cost, the lessons learned in that battle (particularly by the likes of Currie, watching closely from the reserve trenches) ultimately paved the way for the breaking of the German army in 1918.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/gps-jamming
The big problem was command and control. Without mobile radio, you are in command of those in earshot. Unless you are in a bunker, with wired telephones or telegraph.
And then you need a big space for the maps, whole rooms for the telephone and telegraph operators (who have to be on site). So running the war from the front lines couldn’t work.
Towards the end of the war, aircraft began to carry radio, which allowed a massive cut in the time for events on the battleground (as observed by recon aircraft) to be added to the “picture” on the map tables.
Yes, MiC and 38 degrees are "wouldn't the world be nicer if we all just agreed to be friends" centrists.
But that, by itself, doesn't mean their numbers are wrong.
IIRC US credit cards have quite poor security. Have they actually taken up chip and pin yet? Last time I was there (not long ago) it was regarded as a kind of witchcraft.
What next. People love eating meat regularly, source : British Butchers federation. etc etc.
Undoubtedly some reasonable points here from Blair.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/blair-warns-politics-risks-becoming-populated-by-the-weird-and-wealthy-as-he-calls-for-reset-with-europe/ar-AA1nnMky?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=82fbd4ee6de944cae9da4ac3ddc14c8f&ei=14
If you wish to critique the poll, you could consider what the questions asked were.
Mud, Blood and Poppycock: Britain and the Great War (W&N Military) https://amzn.eu/d/fqcI9KX
Will the media ask him why the government refuses to accept an amendment in relation to Afghanis who helped the British army?
Why are counterfeit barcoded stamps more difficult to identify correctly than the previous unbarcoded ones, or was this always a problem?
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/apr/22/counterfeit-barcode-stamps-furore-carries-echoes-of-horizon-scandal
Labour must be delighted.
But it seems extremely unlikely people were interpreting the question in that way. I mean, it's so obvious that the question isn't about someone wrongfully convicted who had later been exhonorated that the point that they aren't covered is surely implied. I mean, if someone had been exonerated on appeal, you'd just not refer to them as a "convicted criminal" any more (indeed, it'd be libel).
Plenty of mindless slaughter of Russians, Germans and Austrians so far without many trenches.
I suspect even if you get your scalp and she is charged, it will just reinforce the voter notion that Conservative rule breakers are above the law that applies to everyone else.
We shall see. The police are investigation. Neighbours accuse her of lying. The tax man doesn't like being taken for a fool.
We shall see.
Anyway if I have broken the site rules, inadvertently, can't do anything about it now.
But then given the reputation and probably business practices of everything associated with the PO are in the khazi then it's no surprise they are pulling this trick.
And no - don't go there ydoethur.
Jeez and we’ve got months of this. Can’t the gimp just call an election and FO back to California.
My point was I doubt the stamp was counterfeit.
That is, the vicar will be blameless I'd expect... but it doesn't mean the stamp isn't counterfeit.
It's obviously annoying if you're charged to receive a letter with incorrect postage attached, although that's always been true.
Not wishing to traduce the good name of local shopkeepers, by the way. Most are fine people. But who do you think shoplifters sell their stolen Creme Eggs and bottles of Pernod to? It isn't normally down the Dog and Duck.
And the relevance for the US election is a lot of Trump voters would view a convicted Trump as I view a convicted postmaster.
Won’t be able to check it till the weekend.
What I want to know is what you think the issue is re registration for voting and you just keep ignoring the question.
So tell us 'What is the issue?' because it baffles me. I mean use your brain and don't just link to an article. Think for yourself. It isn't a lot to ask
PS I am referring to the electoral registration not CGT so the taxman issue is not relevant to my question.
Politics used to be a part time job, generally done by the upper middle classes. The problem with the change to professional, full time politics is that it isn’t a career - more moderately paid social work and greasy poll climbing. There’s no professional development and after 10 years in Parliament, you have no career to return to - unless you’ve created a lobbying network instead of trying to do the job.
Further, the gao between what an MP does and what we expect a Minister to do is staggering. To go from running a half dozen, very junior direct reports (with direct hire and fire), to running a department. 100ks of people, with all the internal systems and politics. And a weird, rather convoluted definition of responsibility - meaning you can’t fire civil servants if they literally lie to you.
It’s not surprising that many ministers just sign the huge piles of paper they are given. They have no idea how to do anything else.
Ted Kennedy ran for President in 1980 despite having received a suspended sentence in 1973 for fleeing the scene of an accident after killing his passenger. Although Carter beat him in the primaries he still won a lot of states.
So a conviction alone may not be fatal for Trump, although it would hit him with Independents. Jail time though likely would be beyond his core vote
I am torn in my view of the Battle of the Somme. On one hand it seems that the disaster of the first day and the ensuing campaign threw away lives needlessly for little gain. And it's hard to see beyond that.
The flip side of the coin is that the Somme - originally planned as a huge offensive jointly with the French, but the French contribution was dramatically curtailed due to the German attack at Verdun - was a vital attritional battle, helping the French at Verdun by tying up German manpower and logistics.
It was also vital for the British Army in 1916 - largely the first time the volunteers of 1914 went into action - to actually learn how to fight, though it was certainly a bloody lesson.
It also brought hard-won lessons - the amount and density of artillery needed to properly destroy barbed wire was much greater than that used at the Somme, for example. New tactics, such as bite and hold, developed.
As for staying away from the frontline, the generals were hamstrung by poor communications. They were commanding thousands of men over a wide area and they needed to be at the centre of a vast communications hub to be contactable, receive reports and issue commands accordingly, and this was something like a chateau ten miles behind the frontline. Though the communications network was rudimentary in the extreme and very ineffective.
Having said all that, I think there was still a willingness by the generals, or maybe too many of them, to stomach gargantuan casualties all through the war. But it was ultimately, brutally, a war of attrition.
I swing from one view to the other. I think the Somme, particularly the first day, was waste. But many argue it was the blood price that had to be paid, the school of hard knocks that had to be endured, that paved the way for eventual victory.
1. They ask the addressee, not the sender, to fix things
2. You get a card through the door inviting you to cough up
3. Only after you have paid and received the item can you tell if it was worth it
4. Huge numbers of false positives from their dodgy barcode detectors
5. Confusing postage charges that now depend on size as well as weight
6. Withdrawal of previously issued stamps
(4) is an obvious parallel with the Horizon scandal but there is also legitimate confusion from (5,6) leading to insufficient postage when granny sends Christmas cards.