If you ignore them, they will go about their business. If you flap around and get agitated, they will too. I rather like wasps, even the dozy, end of summer, not long for the world ones that plague late August in the beer garden.
No, I'm catching up on Springwatch and they're talking about yet another creepy parasitic wasp species which preys on sad lonely caterpilars and forces them to become living broodmares as the wasplings eat it alive
They are C*NTS. Absolute C*NTS
I'd vote for anyone that promises to Wipe Out Wasps
That was exactly what caused c Darwin to cease to believe in God
The ichneumon wasp parasitises on the blue butterfly which itself is a parasite of the ants
(local joke) "When Neds die they are reincarnated as seagulls. When seagulls are reincarnated they come back as wasps. When wasps are reincarnated they come back as Tories."
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
Hillbilly Elegy will get another print run after Vance's selection
It's an interesting book at times, but mostly it blames the poor for being poor. After all, Vance escaped so anyone who fails to do so too is deserving of their fate.
It's been several years since I read it, so I can't recall any detail other than he would not have got out without his grandmother who had character and held things together. It was well written though, that I do remember.
Might reread it now he is on the brink of being a heartbeat away from holding the nuke codes with a fellow running mate who is old and gets shot at.
I think skipping a couple of generations will become a trend in US politics and power will pass straight from people pushing 80 to people half that age.
Hillbilly Elegy will get another print run after Vance's selection
It's an interesting book at times, but mostly it blames the poor for being poor. After all, Vance escaped so anyone who fails to do so too is deserving of their fate.
You would prefer they find a scapegoat?
No, I would prefer them to be able to access the same lifestyle that Vance's parents did (according to the book). They moved from Appalacia to a suburban house, well paid Unionised jobs, heath care in the 1950s.
The current generation in Appalachia doesn't have that option. Jobs with no security on a minimum wage that hasn't kept pace with inflation in decades, unaffordable housing, limited educational options.
It isn't sloth that is keeping Appalachian Hillbillies poor now, it's that the opportunities of the 1950s are gone. True of other American communities and cultures too. The American economy only works for people like Trump, Vance and Thiel.
Hillbilly Elegy will get another print run after Vance's selection
It's an interesting book at times, but mostly it blames the poor for being poor. After all, Vance escaped so anyone who fails to do so too is deserving of their fate.
You would prefer they find a scapegoat?
No, I would prefer them to be able to access the same lifestyle that Vance's parents did (according to the book). They moved from Appalacia to a suburban house, well paid Unionised jobs, heath care in the 1950s.
The current generation in Appalachia doesn't have that option. Jobs with no security on a minimum wage that hasn't kept pace with inflation in decades, unaffordable housing, limited educational options.
It isn't sloth that is keeping Appalachian Hillbillies poor now, it's that the opportunities of the 1950s are gone. True of other American communities and cultures too. The American economy only works for people like Trump, Vance and Thiel.
I find this disingenuous because you wouldn't dream of opposing the policies that really transformed the US since then, such as the liberalisation of immigration laws.
Hillbilly Elegy will get another print run after Vance's selection
It's an interesting book at times, but mostly it blames the poor for being poor. After all, Vance escaped so anyone who fails to do so too is deserving of their fate.
You would prefer they find a scapegoat?
No, I would prefer them to be able to access the same lifestyle that Vance's parents did (according to the book). They moved from Appalacia to a suburban house, well paid Unionised jobs, heath care in the 1950s.
The current generation in Appalachia doesn't have that option. Jobs with no security on a minimum wage that hasn't kept pace with inflation in decades, unaffordable housing, limited educational options.
It isn't sloth that is keeping Appalachian Hillbillies poor now, it's that the opportunities of the 1950s are gone. True of other American communities and cultures too. The American economy only works for people like Trump, Vance and Thiel.
I find this disingenuous because you wouldn't dream of opposing the policies that really transformed the US since then, such as the liberalisation of immigration laws.
I find this disingenuous of you. I think I know more about my own views on political and social policy than you know of mine.
Hillbilly Elegy will get another print run after Vance's selection
It's an interesting book at times, but mostly it blames the poor for being poor. After all, Vance escaped so anyone who fails to do so too is deserving of their fate.
You would prefer they find a scapegoat?
No, I would prefer them to be able to access the same lifestyle that Vance's parents did (according to the book). They moved from Appalacia to a suburban house, well paid Unionised jobs, heath care in the 1950s.
The current generation in Appalachia doesn't have that option. Jobs with no security on a minimum wage that hasn't kept pace with inflation in decades, unaffordable housing, limited educational options.
It isn't sloth that is keeping Appalachian Hillbillies poor now, it's that the opportunities of the 1950s are gone. True of other American communities and cultures too. The American economy only works for people like Trump, Vance and Thiel.
My old man went to America once, back in the early '90's.
He'd decided an American company had a product that was going to be the next big thing in the UK. He ploughed our modest family fortune into buying the stock. The owner took my dad out to dinner and told him, quite bluntly, it was BULLSHIT.
EVERYTHING IN AMERICA IS BULLSHIT. THE PRODUCT HE WAS SELLING WAS BULLSHIT. THE PRODUCT MY DAD WAS BUYING WAS BULLSHIT. EVERYTHING IN AMERICA IS BULLSHIT.
He even gave my old man a bag of badges, which say "BULLSHIT" on them. And nothing else. The American guy found this hilarious.
My father proceeded to lose my family's modest fortune, never in doubt that the owner of this American company was anything but a genius.
I still have hat bag of "BULLSHIT" badges, somewhere. Whenever I'm feeling particularly depressed, or skint, I wear one for the amusement.
And then a strange sobbing sound emerges from somewhere below my nose, but above my chin.
Hillbilly Elegy will get another print run after Vance's selection
It's an interesting book at times, but mostly it blames the poor for being poor. After all, Vance escaped so anyone who fails to do so too is deserving of their fate.
You would prefer they find a scapegoat?
No, I would prefer them to be able to access the same lifestyle that Vance's parents did (according to the book). They moved from Appalacia to a suburban house, well paid Unionised jobs, heath care in the 1950s.
The current generation in Appalachia doesn't have that option. Jobs with no security on a minimum wage that hasn't kept pace with inflation in decades, unaffordable housing, limited educational options.
It isn't sloth that is keeping Appalachian Hillbillies poor now, it's that the opportunities of the 1950s are gone. True of other American communities and cultures too. The American economy only works for people like Trump, Vance and Thiel.
Trump/Vance would argue that's because the US outsourced its manufacturing base to Mexico and China etc.
"A report today says Secret Service said the building was outside its established security perimeter and so was the responsibility of local police. If so: Makes no logical sense whatsoever to put that outside the perimeter when it's an obvious access point. How could that possibly happen? And even if local police help, a security point like that should never ever be solely under the purview of the local police. And there should be second by second coordination with and oversight by Secret Service. And even in that case, the Secret Service snipers and spotters should have been scanning. That's from what I know. But there are still many blanks to be filled in."
At the same time, the shooter seems to be the only person in the USA with no online presence whatsoever. Whodathunk it. Even his Discord is empty. He has no criminal record, no history of drugs, booze or mental issues, he was a decent student, with Democrat parents, middle class, almost bizarrely unexceptionable - but no online life at all
And then from nowhere he decides to shoot Donald Trump, either knowing that it would mean certain death for him, or having been assured he would NOT die
It is perfectly weird
You need to keep up. This morning I linked to something that mentioned the 'rings' of security. Also, it suggests a good reason why the counter-snipers may not have seen the shooter: they are tasked to look for snipers outside that area, which should have been cleared by local police. And the G8 summit of 2008 indicates why they may not want to have counter-snipers looking at areas that the local police enforcement are in... (*)
Instead of being weird, it might all be rather mundane; a series of mistakes that occasionally happens; all the holes in the Swiss Cheese model aligning.
As for motivation: remember the Amess murder? The man who did it went around looking for MPs to kill; but his decision to kill Amess was nothing to do with party affiliation (one of the other people he looked at killing was Starmer). Or the Reagan shooter, who did it to impress Jodie Foster.
(*) TLDR: the counter-snipers saw snipers on the roof of a building and nearly shot them. The snipers turned out to be local law enforcement. That would have been an embarrassing blue-on-blue...
All very possible, and you may be on to something
But as yet we do not know, and there are many curious anomalies, and there are lots of people (on many sides) who would really like everyone to conclude that it's a lone gunman with random murderous intent
Just like Epstein's "suicide". For an awful lot of important people, it was definitely a positive if the public accepted that this guy coincidentally happened to top himself at the same time as every single camera went kaput and all the guards were sleeping
And, even today, that is possible. I dunno, not for sure. Do you?
I'd strongly argue that a case like this that did not have any 'curious anomalies' would be much more likely to be a planned conspiracy. Real life is messy, and throws up curiosities.
Take the assassination of Franz Ferdinand; who would believe his driver would drive past, stop and then stall, very near to the man who attempted, and failed, an earlier assassination? Yet that appears to be exactly what happened. It is slightly less coincidental when you consider that half of Bosnia wanted to kill him...
Sincere question
What do you think about Epstein? Taking into account all the fantastically weird coincidences - the wiped/defunct cameras, the sleeping guards. He was literally on suicide watch in one of America's most high profile jails, it was something that supposedly could never happen to the most important prisoner in the USA
My guess is this: he was TOLD to commit suicide, and he was told: we shall give you a window of opportunity to do it, and a means, and during that window the cameras will not be working, and the guards will be "sleeping", and he was told the alternative was people he loved suffering very badly
So he did it. Thus it was a coercive suicide, which is close to murder
The Rommel approach?
Basically, yes. I am open to other hypotheses, but they need to explain the mad weirdness
I think they croaked him. He is the most perfect psychopath on record, so threats to his "loved ones" would have zero leverage. The puppy gets it? No skin off my nose.
The story of lazy prison guards and an obviously perma-fucked billionaire nonce makes perfect sense to me. I don't see why a conspiracy is needed. Pretty sure history will prove me right but it may take centuries...
(What I really don't understand is why he didn't flee beforehand. Preferably to somewhere poor with a high birth rate. It was obvious what was coming).
Going back to Sassytempt: it is very weird that the sassytempter is so strangely neutral. I mean, many people are neutral. (Though I don't think I know of anyone with so little backstory). But normally those people don't temptsassy. And the sorts of people who DO temptsassy tend to have detailed and discoverable history of weirdness.
Sassytempters by definition are weird. I have a totally open mind on this atm but assume he'll be a lone wolf.
How bad is the R word these days? There is a hilarious name for him on social media.
If you ignore them, they will go about their business. If you flap around and get agitated, they will too. I rather like wasps, even the dozy, end of summer, not long for the world ones that plague late August in the beer garden.
No, I'm catching up on Springwatch and they're talking about yet another creepy parasitic wasp species which preys on sad lonely caterpilars and forces them to become living broodmares as the wasplings eat it alive
They are C*NTS. Absolute C*NTS
I'd vote for anyone that promises to Wipe Out Wasps
That was exactly what caused c Darwin to cease to believe in God
It's bollocks tho. As I discovered when I met God for the Second Time on ayahuasca, He simply doesn't give a fuck. He doens't give a fuck about climate change either, it is ridiculous in His eyes. He's got entire universes to run, the most Godliest thing about God is Not Giving A Fuck
It's all there in the Book of Job. Fuck off, I don't give a fuck, I'm God, also life is beautiful, so stop moaning
Or you were just high.
Psychedelics don't just make you "high" though. There's something much more interesting going on. Ayahuasca makes me see heraldic beasts so vividly that I am certain they exist on some level for real, and the heraldic artists and I have access to that level. It's not just me having seen the artwork and remembering it.
More weirdly there's a terrible thing called salvia divinorum which has the insanely specific effect of making you think you are a piece of wooden furniture. I guarantee I did not know this the first time I took it, but I spent a subjective decade forming part of the oak floor of my sitting room. This is exactly as boring as it sounds, but you have to agree it's bloody weird.
Never thought salvia was that great myself. But I agree everyone should take psychedelics, preferably lots of them. I can still access an inexplicable thought from one of the first times I took shrooms aged around 14, more than a couple of decades later.
Another weird one is datura (jimson weed). Never taken it but trip reports are pretty clear that it is the worst drug in the world. The interesting point is, you invariably keep thinking you have lit a cigarette and then dropped it and you are panicking it will start a fire. Again why would a chemical translate to a delusion like this so consistently?
Even ignoring drugs, I am also very curious about the "feeling of impending doom" that is apparently a symptom of a heart attack.
Hillbilly Elegy will get another print run after Vance's selection
It's an interesting book at times, but mostly it blames the poor for being poor. After all, Vance escaped so anyone who fails to do so too is deserving of their fate.
You would prefer they find a scapegoat?
No, I would prefer them to be able to access the same lifestyle that Vance's parents did (according to the book). They moved from Appalacia to a suburban house, well paid Unionised jobs, heath care in the 1950s.
The current generation in Appalachia doesn't have that option. Jobs with no security on a minimum wage that hasn't kept pace with inflation in decades, unaffordable housing, limited educational options.
It isn't sloth that is keeping Appalachian Hillbillies poor now, it's that the opportunities of the 1950s are gone. True of other American communities and cultures too. The American economy only works for people like Trump, Vance and Thiel.
My old man went to America once, back in the early '90's.
He'd decided an American company had a product that was going to be the next big thing in the UK. He ploughed our modest family fortune into buying the stock. The owner took my dad out to dinner and told him, quite bluntly, it was BULLSHIT.
EVERYTHING IN AMERICA IS BULLSHIT. THE PRODUCT HE WAS SELLING WAS BULLSHIT. THE PRODUCT MY DAD WAS BUYING WAS BULLSHIT. EVERYTHING IN AMERICA IS BULLSHIT.
He even gave my old man a bag of badges, which say "BULLSHIT" on them. And nothing else. The American guy found this hilarious.
My father proceeded to lose my family's modest fortune, never in doubt that the owner of this American company was anything but a genius.
I still have hat bag of "BULLSHIT" badges, somewhere. Whenever I'm feeling particularly depressed, or skint, I wear one for the amusement.
And then a strange sobbing sound emerges from somewhere below my nose, but above my chin.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
The Vance pick is aimed squarely at the rust belt voters.
That said, didn’t he underperform in his Senate run? Ohio is reliably Republican nowadays but he was run relatively close.
See the film Hillbilly Elegy Poor boy made good, single drug addicted mother.
It's a pretty good book. Trump may have picked the first VP or POTUS candidate who is a genuinely good writer, in..... many decades? Was JFK any good? He wrote Profiles in Courage, but I've no idea if it is any good (but JFK was properly smart and brave and absurdly sexual, he'd have understood my "socks" dilemma)
Not much of a dilemma.
‘Sock or Marilyn?’
Strokes chin thoughtfully.
The point of my SOCKS story is that if you have excess testosterone, and you need a quick strum, to off load the unneeded extra phwooar, but you don't want to jizz all over your gracious host's bedlinen, a gentleman reaches for a sensible receptacle, and a sock fits the bill, especially if you have quite a wide girth and length, like me and JFK
Something in me recoils from a tawdry, used sock, and I wouldn’t want to besmirch a nice clean Egyptian Cotton Pantherella. A box of Kleenex seems the pragmatic solution.
I hear you. It's not perfect, but I am talking *in extremis* here
I once used the cover of a friend's scatter cushion, and this was in a posh part of BATH, I have never gotten over the shame. Even tho no one ever noticed
From an old army spoof of Perry Como's Magic Moments:
"I'll never forget the night that I gave you your first orgasm / I wiped my cock on the curtain your mother had a spasm"
First dirty joke I ever understood: What is the Queen's favourite record?
Magic moments on Philips 12 inch.
(In a desperate and probably doomed attempt to raise the tone)
For a while as a child, my favourite joke went thusly:
Dear Norris McWhirter,
I have a disc of black plastic, quite thin and twelve inches in diameter. It has a small hole in the middle and grooves on each side.
Is this a record?
(I was easily amused.)
LOL. But the minimum age for understanding that is probably 50.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
Hillbilly Elegy will get another print run after Vance's selection
It's an interesting book at times, but mostly it blames the poor for being poor. After all, Vance escaped so anyone who fails to do so too is deserving of their fate.
You would prefer they find a scapegoat?
No, I would prefer them to be able to access the same lifestyle that Vance's parents did (according to the book). They moved from Appalacia to a suburban house, well paid Unionised jobs, heath care in the 1950s.
The current generation in Appalachia doesn't have that option. Jobs with no security on a minimum wage that hasn't kept pace with inflation in decades, unaffordable housing, limited educational options.
It isn't sloth that is keeping Appalachian Hillbillies poor now, it's that the opportunities of the 1950s are gone. True of other American communities and cultures too. The American economy only works for people like Trump, Vance and Thiel.
My old man went to America once, back in the early '90's.
He'd decided an American company had a product that was going to be the next big thing in the UK. He ploughed our modest family fortune into buying the stock. The owner took my dad out to dinner and told him, quite bluntly, it was BULLSHIT.
EVERYTHING IN AMERICA IS BULLSHIT. THE PRODUCT HE WAS SELLING WAS BULLSHIT. THE PRODUCT MY DAD WAS BUYING WAS BULLSHIT. EVERYTHING IN AMERICA IS BULLSHIT.
He even gave my old man a bag of badges, which say "BULLSHIT" on them. And nothing else. The American guy found this hilarious.
My father proceeded to lose my family's modest fortune, never in doubt that the owner of this American company was anything but a genius.
I still have hat bag of "BULLSHIT" badges, somewhere. Whenever I'm feeling particularly depressed, or skint, I wear one for the amusement.
And then a strange sobbing sound emerges from somewhere below my nose, but above my chin.
Would you like to buy some crypto?
No no no
Would you like to buy…. Some crypto AI NFTs with novel’ space! launch!
Basically a mirror image of what the GOP would call a DEI hire.
Trump wants to remake the GOP in his MAGA image, if he wins in November then Vance will be in pole position for the 2028 GOP nomination given Trump can't run again if he wins a 2nd term as President. This pick is one that throws the GOP establishment further under the bus, see Romney on Vance
"A report today says Secret Service said the building was outside its established security perimeter and so was the responsibility of local police. If so: Makes no logical sense whatsoever to put that outside the perimeter when it's an obvious access point. How could that possibly happen? And even if local police help, a security point like that should never ever be solely under the purview of the local police. And there should be second by second coordination with and oversight by Secret Service. And even in that case, the Secret Service snipers and spotters should have been scanning. That's from what I know. But there are still many blanks to be filled in."
At the same time, the shooter seems to be the only person in the USA with no online presence whatsoever. Whodathunk it. Even his Discord is empty. He has no criminal record, no history of drugs, booze or mental issues, he was a decent student, with Democrat parents, middle class, almost bizarrely unexceptionable - but no online life at all
And then from nowhere he decides to shoot Donald Trump, either knowing that it would mean certain death for him, or having been assured he would NOT die
It is perfectly weird
You need to keep up. This morning I linked to something that mentioned the 'rings' of security. Also, it suggests a good reason why the counter-snipers may not have seen the shooter: they are tasked to look for snipers outside that area, which should have been cleared by local police. And the G8 summit of 2008 indicates why they may not want to have counter-snipers looking at areas that the local police enforcement are in... (*)
Instead of being weird, it might all be rather mundane; a series of mistakes that occasionally happens; all the holes in the Swiss Cheese model aligning.
As for motivation: remember the Amess murder? The man who did it went around looking for MPs to kill; but his decision to kill Amess was nothing to do with party affiliation (one of the other people he looked at killing was Starmer). Or the Reagan shooter, who did it to impress Jodie Foster.
(*) TLDR: the counter-snipers saw snipers on the roof of a building and nearly shot them. The snipers turned out to be local law enforcement. That would have been an embarrassing blue-on-blue...
All very possible, and you may be on to something
But as yet we do not know, and there are many curious anomalies, and there are lots of people (on many sides) who would really like everyone to conclude that it's a lone gunman with random murderous intent
Just like Epstein's "suicide". For an awful lot of important people, it was definitely a positive if the public accepted that this guy coincidentally happened to top himself at the same time as every single camera went kaput and all the guards were sleeping
And, even today, that is possible. I dunno, not for sure. Do you?
I'd strongly argue that a case like this that did not have any 'curious anomalies' would be much more likely to be a planned conspiracy. Real life is messy, and throws up curiosities.
Take the assassination of Franz Ferdinand; who would believe his driver would drive past, stop and then stall, very near to the man who attempted, and failed, an earlier assassination? Yet that appears to be exactly what happened. It is slightly less coincidental when you consider that half of Bosnia wanted to kill him...
Sincere question
What do you think about Epstein? Taking into account all the fantastically weird coincidences - the wiped/defunct cameras, the sleeping guards. He was literally on suicide watch in one of America's most high profile jails, it was something that supposedly could never happen to the most important prisoner in the USA
My guess is this: he was TOLD to commit suicide, and he was told: we shall give you a window of opportunity to do it, and a means, and during that window the cameras will not be working, and the guards will be "sleeping", and he was told the alternative was people he loved suffering very badly
So he did it. Thus it was a coercive suicide, which is close to murder
The Rommel approach?
Basically, yes. I am open to other hypotheses, but they need to explain the mad weirdness
I think they croaked him. He is the most perfect psychopath on record, so threats to his "loved ones" would have zero leverage. The puppy gets it? No skin off my nose.
The story of lazy prison guards and an obviously perma-fucked billionaire nonce makes perfect sense to me. I don't see why a conspiracy is needed. Pretty sure history will prove me right but it may take centuries...
(What I really don't understand is why he didn't flee beforehand. Preferably to somewhere poor with a high birth rate. It was obvious what was coming).
Going back to Sassytempt: it is very weird that the sassytempter is so strangely neutral. I mean, many people are neutral. (Though I don't think I know of anyone with so little backstory). But normally those people don't temptsassy. And the sorts of people who DO temptsassy tend to have detailed and discoverable history of weirdness.
Sassytempters by definition are weird. I have a totally open mind on this atm but assume he'll be a lone wolf.
How bad is the R word these days? There is a hilarious name for him on social media.
But he isn't weird. That's the point. He has a preternatural absence of weirdness. Or at least what the world knows about him as a stark absence of weirdness. Take every poster on this site and rank them from weirdest (top) to least weird (bottom), and he'd be some way off the bottom of that.
I have a couple of friends who I can think of who falls into the category of 'no online presence whatsoever'. It's not entirely unknown. And yet the idea of either of those two sassytempting is preposterous.
Have the Democrats decided they don't want to replace Biden now? I don't really see what the connection is between that decision and what happened with Trump.
Have the Democrats decided they don't want to replace Biden now? I don't really see what the connection is between that decision and what happened with Trump.
It was never up to The Democrats. It was always up to Joe Biden.
The media has decided to stop talking about it for a while as there's more interesting stuff going on.
The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.
If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.
So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..
But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.
Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.
Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.
These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.
Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.
So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
Rosebank is estimated to create 1.6K jobs (during construction ahead of 'first oil' in 2026) but this will fall off once construction done. We're subsidising this to the tune of half a billion, but profits will largely be rapatriated to Norway/Israel companies (the joint venture partners).
Not sure where your 100K O&G jobs comes from, but you get many more jobs from renewables (including wave).
Even if you want to 'protect' these 100K jobs, doubling down on this amount of fossil fuel investment - subsidised, foreign-owned, sunset industry - is suicidal both economically and environmentally, no?
Its actually 140K oil and gas jobs. And of course you don't know where it comes from. You don't know the first thing about the oil and gas industry beyond what you get off the internet. Even looking at only 3 companies - BP, Total and Shell, between them they directly employ 20,000 people in the UK and another 25,000+ contractors. So no it is not suicidal either economically or environmentally.
I'm sure the canal builders were freaking out in the early 1800s about the move into railways. Destruction of jobs, untested new technologies, etc. Didn't stop the march of progress.
And BP, Shell and Total are not going away anytime soon. The oil and gas industry is not being canceled by the wokes, don't worry. We're on the hook for fossil fuels for quite some time.
But a strong commitment to changing tack in terms of future Net Zero commitments? That's what Milliband has signalled. Smart and positive. Despite the shrill cries of 'the sky is falling in' from the Telegraph.
The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.
If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.
So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..
But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.
Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.
Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.
These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.
Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.
So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
Rosebank is estimated to create 1.6K jobs (during construction ahead of 'first oil' in 2026) but this will fall off once construction done. We're subsidising this to the tune of half a billion, but profits will largely be rapatriated to Norway/Israel companies (the joint venture partners).
Not sure where your 100K O&G jobs comes from, but you get many more jobs from renewables (including wave).
Even if you want to 'protect' these 100K jobs, doubling down on this amount of fossil fuel investment - subsidised, foreign-owned, sunset industry - is suicidal both economically and environmentally, no?
Its actually 140K oil and gas jobs. And of course you don't know where it comes from. You don't know the first thing about the oil and gas industry beyond what you get off the internet. Even looking at only 3 companies - BP, Total and Shell, between them they directly employ 20,000 people in the UK and another 25,000+ contractors. So no it is not suicidal either economically or environmentally.
I'm sure the canal builders were freaking out in the early 1800s about the move into railways. Destruction of jobs, untested new technologies, etc. Didn't stop the march of progress.
And BP, Shell and Total are not going away anytime soon. The oil and gas industry is not being canceled by the wokes, don't worry. We're on the hook for fossil fuels for quite some time.
But a strong commitment to changing tack in terms of future Net Zero commitments? That's what Milliband has signalled. Smart and positive. Despite the shrill cries of 'the sky is falling in' from the Telegraph.
(Have they found a buyer yet incidentally?)
I'm instinctively with Richard on this stuff, but that's because I'm from the north of Scotland and have friends in the industry.
But you're right. The new licenses would be fairly small proportion of production going forward, and regardless of whether they are approved there is going to be a massive reduction anyway.
So the fuss people are making on all sides is completely overblown. It won't make much of a difference to gas imports. It's not going to lead to 100,000s job losses. It won't make much of a difference to UK carbon emissions.
What it does suggest is that Labour isn't going to prop up an industry that is on the way out anyway, and is happy to take a great deal on flak on the way to increase the speed of the transition. Remind you of anyone?
The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.
If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.
So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..
But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.
Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.
Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.
These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.
Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.
So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
Rosebank is estimated to create 1.6K jobs (during construction ahead of 'first oil' in 2026) but this will fall off once construction done. We're subsidising this to the tune of half a billion, but profits will largely be rapatriated to Norway/Israel companies (the joint venture partners).
Not sure where your 100K O&G jobs comes from, but you get many more jobs from renewables (including wave).
Even if you want to 'protect' these 100K jobs, doubling down on this amount of fossil fuel investment - subsidised, foreign-owned, sunset industry - is suicidal both economically and environmentally, no?
Its actually 140K oil and gas jobs. And of course you don't know where it comes from. You don't know the first thing about the oil and gas industry beyond what you get off the internet. Even looking at only 3 companies - BP, Total and Shell, between them they directly employ 20,000 people in the UK and another 25,000+ contractors. So no it is not suicidal either economically or environmentally.
I'm sure the canal builders were freaking out in the early 1800s about the move into railways. Destruction of jobs, untested new technologies, etc. Didn't stop the march of progress.
And BP, Shell and Total are not going away anytime soon. The oil and gas industry is not being canceled by the wokes, don't worry. We're on the hook for fossil fuels for quite some time.
But a strong commitment to changing tack in terms of future Net Zero commitments? That's what Milliband has signalled. Smart and positive. Despite the shrill cries of 'the sky is falling in' from the Telegraph.
(Have they found a buyer yet incidentally?)
I'm instinctively with Richard on this stuff, but that's because I'm from the north of Scotland and have friends in the industry.
But you're right. The new licenses would be fairly small proportion of production going forward, and regardless of whether they are approved there is going to be a massive reduction anyway.
So the fuss people are making on all sides is completely overblown. It won't make much of a difference to gas imports. It's not going to lead to 100,000s job losses. It won't make much of a difference to UK carbon emissions.
What it does suggest is that Labour isn't going to prop up an industry that is on the way out anyway, and is happy to take a great deal on flak on the way to increase the speed of the transition. Remind you of anyone?
"What it does suggest is that Labour isn't going to prop up an industry that is on the way out anyway..."
I bet few Labourites were saying that about the coal industry in the 1980s...
"A report today says Secret Service said the building was outside its established security perimeter and so was the responsibility of local police. If so: Makes no logical sense whatsoever to put that outside the perimeter when it's an obvious access point. How could that possibly happen? And even if local police help, a security point like that should never ever be solely under the purview of the local police. And there should be second by second coordination with and oversight by Secret Service. And even in that case, the Secret Service snipers and spotters should have been scanning. That's from what I know. But there are still many blanks to be filled in."
At the same time, the shooter seems to be the only person in the USA with no online presence whatsoever. Whodathunk it. Even his Discord is empty. He has no criminal record, no history of drugs, booze or mental issues, he was a decent student, with Democrat parents, middle class, almost bizarrely unexceptionable - but no online life at all
And then from nowhere he decides to shoot Donald Trump, either knowing that it would mean certain death for him, or having been assured he would NOT die
It is perfectly weird
You need to keep up. This morning I linked to something that mentioned the 'rings' of security. Also, it suggests a good reason why the counter-snipers may not have seen the shooter: they are tasked to look for snipers outside that area, which should have been cleared by local police. And the G8 summit of 2008 indicates why they may not want to have counter-snipers looking at areas that the local police enforcement are in... (*)
Instead of being weird, it might all be rather mundane; a series of mistakes that occasionally happens; all the holes in the Swiss Cheese model aligning.
As for motivation: remember the Amess murder? The man who did it went around looking for MPs to kill; but his decision to kill Amess was nothing to do with party affiliation (one of the other people he looked at killing was Starmer). Or the Reagan shooter, who did it to impress Jodie Foster.
(*) TLDR: the counter-snipers saw snipers on the roof of a building and nearly shot them. The snipers turned out to be local law enforcement. That would have been an embarrassing blue-on-blue...
All very possible, and you may be on to something
But as yet we do not know, and there are many curious anomalies, and there are lots of people (on many sides) who would really like everyone to conclude that it's a lone gunman with random murderous intent
Just like Epstein's "suicide". For an awful lot of important people, it was definitely a positive if the public accepted that this guy coincidentally happened to top himself at the same time as every single camera went kaput and all the guards were sleeping
And, even today, that is possible. I dunno, not for sure. Do you?
I'd strongly argue that a case like this that did not have any 'curious anomalies' would be much more likely to be a planned conspiracy. Real life is messy, and throws up curiosities.
Take the assassination of Franz Ferdinand; who would believe his driver would drive past, stop and then stall, very near to the man who attempted, and failed, an earlier assassination? Yet that appears to be exactly what happened. It is slightly less coincidental when you consider that half of Bosnia wanted to kill him...
Sincere question
What do you think about Epstein? Taking into account all the fantastically weird coincidences - the wiped/defunct cameras, the sleeping guards. He was literally on suicide watch in one of America's most high profile jails, it was something that supposedly could never happen to the most important prisoner in the USA
My guess is this: he was TOLD to commit suicide, and he was told: we shall give you a window of opportunity to do it, and a means, and during that window the cameras will not be working, and the guards will be "sleeping", and he was told the alternative was people he loved suffering very badly
So he did it. Thus it was a coercive suicide, which is close to murder
A good question, and tbh it's hard to sort the wheat out from the chaff on any of these cases. As an example, if the cameras malfunctioned or were off, how often did this usually happen? Was it a one-off, or did it commonly happen, either due to procedure or a failing system? How often do guards fall asleep at this facility, had he shown suicidal tendencies, had he pi**ed off the guards or other inmates, etc, etc.
A conspiracy over Epstein is certainly feasible. I'm not saying conspiracies don't happen; just that they (in the form of large, significant conspiracies) are quite rare.
But I stand by my point: the existence of 'curious anomalies' is *not* an indication of a conspiracy. It's an indication of messy real life.
The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.
If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.
So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..
But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.
Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.
Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.
These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.
Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.
So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
Rosebank is estimated to create 1.6K jobs (during construction ahead of 'first oil' in 2026) but this will fall off once construction done. We're subsidising this to the tune of half a billion, but profits will largely be rapatriated to Norway/Israel companies (the joint venture partners).
Not sure where your 100K O&G jobs comes from, but you get many more jobs from renewables (including wave).
Even if you want to 'protect' these 100K jobs, doubling down on this amount of fossil fuel investment - subsidised, foreign-owned, sunset industry - is suicidal both economically and environmentally, no?
Its actually 140K oil and gas jobs. And of course you don't know where it comes from. You don't know the first thing about the oil and gas industry beyond what you get off the internet. Even looking at only 3 companies - BP, Total and Shell, between them they directly employ 20,000 people in the UK and another 25,000+ contractors. So no it is not suicidal either economically or environmentally.
I'm sure the canal builders were freaking out in the early 1800s about the move into railways. Destruction of jobs, untested new technologies, etc. Didn't stop the march of progress.
And BP, Shell and Total are not going away anytime soon. The oil and gas industry is not being canceled by the wokes, don't worry. We're on the hook for fossil fuels for quite some time.
But a strong commitment to changing tack in terms of future Net Zero commitments? That's what Milliband has signalled. Smart and positive. Despite the shrill cries of 'the sky is falling in' from the Telegraph.
(Have they found a buyer yet incidentally?)
I'm instinctively with Richard on this stuff, but that's because I'm from the north of Scotland and have friends in the industry.
But you're right. The new licenses would be fairly small proportion of production going forward, and regardless of whether they are approved there is going to be a massive reduction anyway.
So the fuss people are making on all sides is completely overblown. It won't make much of a difference to gas imports. It's not going to lead to 100,000s job losses. It won't make much of a difference to UK carbon emissions.
What it does suggest is that Labour isn't going to prop up an industry that is on the way out anyway, and is happy to take a great deal on flak on the way to increase the speed of the transition. Remind you of anyone?
"What it does suggest is that Labour isn't going to prop up an industry that is on the way out anyway..."
I bet few Labourites were saying that about the coal industry in the 1980s...
"At the same time, the shooter seems to be the only person in the USA with no online presence whatsoever"
I don't think there's evidence for that? The FBI said they didn't find anything that appeared *related to the shooting*.
And aside from people who just don't use social media of whom I've met lots, there are definitely people who try not to leave a footprint. I've stayed with a guy like that in Texas, huge gun nut. I'm not personally of the paranoid persuasion but there's something to be said for it.
ONS estimates in 2023 in England and Wales: - 598,000 deaths - 598,400 births
One trending up and the other trending down, so we'll most likely hit crossover next year.
Don't worry, because there is about 1.2 immigrants coming for every birth to more than make up the numbers.
I type this from the maternity unit, where Mrs Prole produced Prole Jr on Sunday afternoon, so I've been doing my bit for the numbers anyway! The bizarre mix of the excellent and the terrible which has been our experience of the NHS over the last couple of days is probably worth a post of its own - I may type it at some point.
Congratulations to you Sir, to Mrs Prole, and Prole Jr.
So Trump picked Mr Hillbilly Elegy after all that. Not much of a surprise, given how much money went on him in the last week.
Somehow I don’t think there will be an inquiry into betting patterns in the US markets, nor a bunch of civil servants briefing the press about it every day during the election campaign.
"A report today says Secret Service said the building was outside its established security perimeter and so was the responsibility of local police. If so: Makes no logical sense whatsoever to put that outside the perimeter when it's an obvious access point. How could that possibly happen? And even if local police help, a security point like that should never ever be solely under the purview of the local police. And there should be second by second coordination with and oversight by Secret Service. And even in that case, the Secret Service snipers and spotters should have been scanning. That's from what I know. But there are still many blanks to be filled in."
At the same time, the shooter seems to be the only person in the USA with no online presence whatsoever. Whodathunk it. Even his Discord is empty. He has no criminal record, no history of drugs, booze or mental issues, he was a decent student, with Democrat parents, middle class, almost bizarrely unexceptionable - but no online life at all
And then from nowhere he decides to shoot Donald Trump, either knowing that it would mean certain death for him, or having been assured he would NOT die
It is perfectly weird
You need to keep up. This morning I linked to something that mentioned the 'rings' of security. Also, it suggests a good reason why the counter-snipers may not have seen the shooter: they are tasked to look for snipers outside that area, which should have been cleared by local police. And the G8 summit of 2008 indicates why they may not want to have counter-snipers looking at areas that the local police enforcement are in... (*)
Instead of being weird, it might all be rather mundane; a series of mistakes that occasionally happens; all the holes in the Swiss Cheese model aligning.
As for motivation: remember the Amess murder? The man who did it went around looking for MPs to kill; but his decision to kill Amess was nothing to do with party affiliation (one of the other people he looked at killing was Starmer). Or the Reagan shooter, who did it to impress Jodie Foster.
(*) TLDR: the counter-snipers saw snipers on the roof of a building and nearly shot them. The snipers turned out to be local law enforcement. That would have been an embarrassing blue-on-blue...
All very possible, and you may be on to something
But as yet we do not know, and there are many curious anomalies, and there are lots of people (on many sides) who would really like everyone to conclude that it's a lone gunman with random murderous intent
Just like Epstein's "suicide". For an awful lot of important people, it was definitely a positive if the public accepted that this guy coincidentally happened to top himself at the same time as every single camera went kaput and all the guards were sleeping
And, even today, that is possible. I dunno, not for sure. Do you?
I'd strongly argue that a case like this that did not have any 'curious anomalies' would be much more likely to be a planned conspiracy. Real life is messy, and throws up curiosities.
Take the assassination of Franz Ferdinand; who would believe his driver would drive past, stop and then stall, very near to the man who attempted, and failed, an earlier assassination? Yet that appears to be exactly what happened. It is slightly less coincidental when you consider that half of Bosnia wanted to kill him...
Sincere question
What do you think about Epstein? Taking into account all the fantastically weird coincidences - the wiped/defunct cameras, the sleeping guards. He was literally on suicide watch in one of America's most high profile jails, it was something that supposedly could never happen to the most important prisoner in the USA
My guess is this: he was TOLD to commit suicide, and he was told: we shall give you a window of opportunity to do it, and a means, and during that window the cameras will not be working, and the guards will be "sleeping", and he was told the alternative was people he loved suffering very badly
So he did it. Thus it was a coercive suicide, which is close to murder
A good question, and tbh it's hard to sort the wheat out from the chaff on any of these cases. As an example, if the cameras malfunctioned or were off, how often did this usually happen? Was it a one-off, or did it commonly happen, either due to procedure or a failing system? How often do guards fall asleep at this facility, had he shown suicidal tendencies, had he pi**ed off the guards or other inmates, etc, etc.
A conspiracy over Epstein is certainly feasible. I'm not saying conspiracies don't happen; just that they (in the form of large, significant conspiracies) are quite rare.
But I stand by my point: the existence of 'curious anomalies' is *not* an indication of a conspiracy. It's an indication of messy real life.
This.
Just as the recently released call and travel logs which show all the Trump conversations with Epstein, and trips to the island, don’t show that Trump had anything to do with the theorised conspiracy around Epstein’s death.
“Fantastically weird” coincidences (they weren’t particularly weird in an under resourced jail system); and the ‘prove this theory wrong” lens is classic conspiracy reasoning.
For all the commentators puzzling what Vance adds to the ticket, the answer is relative youth. That’s pretty well it from an electoral POV, but it’s not insignificant. A Trump mini me isn’t a daft choice from Trump’s POV.
Is there any way to check if the loss of share in North West Norfolk was compounded by Liz Truss. (The biggest fall in the country)?
I mean South west Norfolk
She had the turnip Taliban guy standing against her, pulled in 7,000 as I recall, which made her defeat by 600-odd from Labour possible.
I think turnip Taliban is a disrespectful way to refer to the Independent candidate James Bagge. I read a profile of him and he was an interesting candidate. He was a staunch member of the local Conservative Association for many years. Establishment background; Eton, army, then law. But very paternalistic Tory; actively involved with a number of local charities. He was one of the "turnip Taliban" who opposed Truss's selection and says that although they were depicted at the time by the press as a bunch of Puritans who objected to her having a much-publicised extra-marital affair, their real objection was that she had no connection with the area and no interest in local issues. They thought she would ignore the constituency and they have been proved right. She only turned up for photo opportunities. Pre-election, she spent more time in America than the constituency.
Bagge deplored her budget and loathes all the MAGA stuff and conspiracy theories she seems to be endorsing recently.
She compounded her defeat by acting in a way that provoked a previously loyal section of local Conservatives to vote against her.
Is there any way to check if the loss of share in North West Norfolk was compounded by Liz Truss. (The biggest fall in the country)?
I mean South west Norfolk
She had the turnip Taliban guy standing against her, pulled in 7,000 as I recall, which made her defeat by 600-odd from Labour possible.
I think turnip Taliban is a disrespectful way to refer to the Independent candidate James Bagge. I read a profile of him and he was an interesting candidate. He was a staunch member of the local Conservative Association for many years. Establishment background; Eton, army, then law. But very paternalistic Tory; actively involved with a number of local charities. He was one of the "turnip Taliban" who opposed Truss's selection and says that although they were depicted at the time by the press as a bunch of Puritans who objected to her having a much-publicised extra-marital affair, their real objection was that she had no connection with the area and no interest in local issues. They thought she would ignore the constituency and they have been proved right. She only turned up for photo opportunities. Pre-election, she spent more time in America than the constituency.
Bagge deplored her budget and loathes all the MAGA stuff and conspiracy theories she seems to be endorsing recently.
She compounded her defeat by acting in a way that provoked a previously loyal section of local Conservatives to vote against her.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'd suggest that the Supreme Court, if Trump still needs it then assuming he is the next POTUS, will find some weasel words to nullify the Constitution.
Is there any way to check if the loss of share in North West Norfolk was compounded by Liz Truss. (The biggest fall in the country)?
I mean South west Norfolk
She had the turnip Taliban guy standing against her, pulled in 7,000 as I recall, which made her defeat by 600-odd from Labour possible.
I think turnip Taliban is a disrespectful way to refer to the Independent candidate James Bagge. I read a profile of him and he was an interesting candidate. He was a staunch member of the local Conservative Association for many years. Establishment background; Eton, army, then law. But very paternalistic Tory; actively involved with a number of local charities. He was one of the "turnip Taliban" who opposed Truss's selection and says that although they were depicted at the time by the press as a bunch of Puritans who objected to her having a much-publicised extra-marital affair, their real objection was that she had no connection with the area and no interest in local issues. They thought she would ignore the constituency and they have been proved right. She only turned up for photo opportunities. Pre-election, she spent more time in America than the constituency.
Bagge deplored her budget and loathes all the MAGA stuff and conspiracy theories she seems to be endorsing recently.
She compounded her defeat by acting in a way that provoked a previously loyal section of local Conservatives to vote against her.
A stunning success for Camerons A List
She seems amazingly lacking in any form of self awareness.
The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.
If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.
So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..
But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.
Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.
Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.
These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.
Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.
So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
Rosebank is estimated to create 1.6K jobs (during construction ahead of 'first oil' in 2026) but this will fall off once construction done. We're subsidising this to the tune of half a billion, but profits will largely be rapatriated to Norway/Israel companies (the joint venture partners).
Not sure where your 100K O&G jobs comes from, but you get many more jobs from renewables (including wave).
Even if you want to 'protect' these 100K jobs, doubling down on this amount of fossil fuel investment - subsidised, foreign-owned, sunset industry - is suicidal both economically and environmentally, no?
Its actually 140K oil and gas jobs. And of course you don't know where it comes from. You don't know the first thing about the oil and gas industry beyond what you get off the internet. Even looking at only 3 companies - BP, Total and Shell, between them they directly employ 20,000 people in the UK and another 25,000+ contractors. So no it is not suicidal either economically or environmentally.
I'm sure the canal builders were freaking out in the early 1800s about the move into railways. Destruction of jobs, untested new technologies, etc. Didn't stop the march of progress.
And BP, Shell and Total are not going away anytime soon. The oil and gas industry is not being canceled by the wokes, don't worry. We're on the hook for fossil fuels for quite some time.
But a strong commitment to changing tack in terms of future Net Zero commitments? That's what Milliband has signalled. Smart and positive. Despite the shrill cries of 'the sky is falling in' from the Telegraph.
(Have they found a buyer yet incidentally?)
I'm instinctively with Richard on this stuff, but that's because I'm from the north of Scotland and have friends in the industry.
But you're right. The new licenses would be fairly small proportion of production going forward, and regardless of whether they are approved there is going to be a massive reduction anyway.
So the fuss people are making on all sides is completely overblown. It won't make much of a difference to gas imports. It's not going to lead to 100,000s job losses. It won't make much of a difference to UK carbon emissions.
What it does suggest is that Labour isn't going to prop up an industry that is on the way out anyway, and is happy to take a great deal on flak on the way to increase the speed of the transition. Remind you of anyone?
That's a strange use of the phrase "prop up". Usually government "propping up" industry involves government shoveling subsidies around. In this case, your "propping up" is merely giving permission for activities which generate stonking amounts of wealth, including loads of tax revenue.
Basically a mirror image of what the GOP would call a DEI hire.
Trump wants to remake the GOP in his MAGA image, if he wins in November then Vance will be in pole position for the 2028 GOP nomination given Trump can't run again if he wins a 2nd term as President. This pick is one that throws the GOP establishment further under the bus, see Romney on Vance
For all the commentators puzzling what Vance adds to the ticket, the answer is relative youth. That’s pretty well it from an electoral POV, but it’s not insignificant. A Trump mini me isn’t a daft choice from Trump’s POV.
Relative? He’s only half Trump’s age and I think the second youngest VP candidate ever.
He’s crazy, a liar and bad at campaigning, so he ticks three boxes for Trump (first two go without saying, the last because Trump doesn’t want anyone overshadowing his main campaign message on e-boats, sharks and the judiciary being rigged against him even as they bend over backwards to dismiss entirely legitimate criminal charges against him on spurious grounds).
Given that both Trump and Biden are very elderly and increasingly frail, the VP candidate assumes the same importance as it did for McCain in 2008. McCain’s pick was somewhat more experienced and slightly less crazy than Vance (plus she could pose in a Stars and Stripes bikini carrying a gun, which I’m assuming - hoping! - he won’t). Her behaviour wasn’t the only reason he lost, but it was one of the most important.
The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.
If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.
So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..
But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.
Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.
Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.
These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.
Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.
So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
Rosebank is estimated to create 1.6K jobs (during construction ahead of 'first oil' in 2026) but this will fall off once construction done. We're subsidising this to the tune of half a billion, but profits will largely be rapatriated to Norway/Israel companies (the joint venture partners).
Not sure where your 100K O&G jobs comes from, but you get many more jobs from renewables (including wave).
Even if you want to 'protect' these 100K jobs, doubling down on this amount of fossil fuel investment - subsidised, foreign-owned, sunset industry - is suicidal both economically and environmentally, no?
Its actually 140K oil and gas jobs. And of course you don't know where it comes from. You don't know the first thing about the oil and gas industry beyond what you get off the internet. Even looking at only 3 companies - BP, Total and Shell, between them they directly employ 20,000 people in the UK and another 25,000+ contractors. So no it is not suicidal either economically or environmentally.
I'm sure the canal builders were freaking out in the early 1800s about the move into railways. Destruction of jobs, untested new technologies, etc. Didn't stop the march of progress.
And BP, Shell and Total are not going away anytime soon. The oil and gas industry is not being canceled by the wokes, don't worry. We're on the hook for fossil fuels for quite some time.
But a strong commitment to changing tack in terms of future Net Zero commitments? That's what Milliband has signalled. Smart and positive. Despite the shrill cries of 'the sky is falling in' from the Telegraph.
(Have they found a buyer yet incidentally?)
I'm instinctively with Richard on this stuff, but that's because I'm from the north of Scotland and have friends in the industry.
But you're right. The new licenses would be fairly small proportion of production going forward, and regardless of whether they are approved there is going to be a massive reduction anyway.
So the fuss people are making on all sides is completely overblown. It won't make much of a difference to gas imports. It's not going to lead to 100,000s job losses. It won't make much of a difference to UK carbon emissions.
What it does suggest is that Labour isn't going to prop up an industry that is on the way out anyway, and is happy to take a great deal on flak on the way to increase the speed of the transition. Remind you of anyone?
I'm not sure how much of a pension' overhang they have or what the impact could be on the companies, but for a very long time BP and Shell were afaik the only places offering "full final salary pensions" to their staff.
Will their adjusted business models generate anything like as much wealth?
Just catching up with the overnight news of Trump’s VP pick. Interesting. Looks like a male MTG but one who is still on the meds.
The clip doing the rounds of him suggesting that the new Labour government turns the UK into an Islamist state is bonkers even as a joke. It’s the type of exaggeration for effect that teenage boys go in for to impress their fellow virgins.
Just catching up with the overnight news of Trump’s VP pick. Interesting. Looks like a male MTG but one who is still on the meds.
The clip doing the rounds of him suggesting that the new Labour government turns the UK into an Islamist state is bonkers even as a joke. It’s the type of exaggeration for effect that teenage boys go in for to impress their fellow virgins.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'd suggest that the Supreme Court, if Trump still needs it then assuming he is the next POTUS, will find some weasel words to nullify the Constitution.
The simplest means, legally, would be running as VP. But that would mean either trusting his pick for figurehead President (unlikely that Trump would), or having a reliable means of disposing of them. Given the powers of a President, that's not the easiest puzzle to solve without drastic means.
He'd probably need to replace Roberts and Barrett to have a sufficiently complaisant Supreme Court to get the required outlandish reinterpretation of the Constitution.
Then again he might be far enough deteriorated, four years down the road, to have lost the will to power.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'd suggest that the Supreme Court, if Trump still needs it then assuming he is the next POTUS, will find some weasel words to nullify the Constitution.
Two thirds of Congress and the states are needed to change the US constitution, that is written in black and white. The armed forces also take an oath to uphold the constitution as much as the President
Just catching up with the overnight news of Trump’s VP pick. Interesting. Looks like a male MTG but one who is still on the meds.
The clip doing the rounds of him suggesting that the new Labour government turns the UK into an Islamist state is bonkers even as a joke. It’s the type of exaggeration for effect that teenage boys go in for to impress their fellow virgins.
Nah, Leon hasn't been saying it...
Entirely different then. Not even slightly similar...
Just catching up with the overnight news of Trump’s VP pick. Interesting. Looks like a male MTG but one who is still on the meds.
The clip doing the rounds of him suggesting that the new Labour government turns the UK into an Islamist state is bonkers even as a joke. It’s the type of exaggeration for effect that teenage boys go in for to impress their fellow virgins.
We had enough of that sort of thing last night, don't set them off again.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'd suggest that the Supreme Court, if Trump still needs it then assuming he is the next POTUS, will find some weasel words to nullify the Constitution.
Two thirds of Congress and the states are needed to change the US constitution, that is written in black and white. The armed forces also take an oath to uphold the constitution as much as the President
Re-interpret, not change. As we just saw with the patently absurd immunity decision.
Admittedly, getting around the 22nd Amendment would require yet greater contortions. But for a sufficiently motivated Court, it wouldn't be completely impossible.
I'd suggest gaming the "shall be elected" part of it to be the most fruitful avenue
Is there any way to check if the loss of share in North West Norfolk was compounded by Liz Truss. (The biggest fall in the country)?
I mean South west Norfolk
She had the turnip Taliban guy standing against her, pulled in 7,000 as I recall, which made her defeat by 600-odd from Labour possible.
I think turnip Taliban is a disrespectful way to refer to the Independent candidate James Bagge. I read a profile of him and he was an interesting candidate. He was a staunch member of the local Conservative Association for many years. Establishment background; Eton, army, then law. But very paternalistic Tory; actively involved with a number of local charities. He was one of the "turnip Taliban" who opposed Truss's selection and says that although they were depicted at the time by the press as a bunch of Puritans who objected to her having a much-publicised extra-marital affair, their real objection was that she had no connection with the area and no interest in local issues. They thought she would ignore the constituency and they have been proved right. She only turned up for photo opportunities. Pre-election, she spent more time in America than the constituency.
Bagge deplored her budget and loathes all the MAGA stuff and conspiracy theories she seems to be endorsing recently.
She compounded her defeat by acting in a way that provoked a previously loyal section of local Conservatives to vote against her.
A stunning success for Camerons A List
She seems amazingly lacking in any form of self awareness.
Who needs any self awareness when they have such overwhelming self obsession.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'd suggest that the Supreme Court, if Trump still needs it then assuming he is the next POTUS, will find some weasel words to nullify the Constitution.
Two thirds of Congress and the states are needed to change the US constitution, that is written in black and white. The armed forces also take an oath to uphold the constitution as much as the President
Re-interpret, not change. As we just saw with the patently absurd immunity decision.
Admittedly, getting around the 22nd Amendment would require yet greater contortions. But for a sufficiently motivated Court, it wouldn't be completely impossible.
There is a long history of Supreme Court Judges doing gymnastics to reinterpret the constitution to suit their own bias. Roe v Wade in 1973 for a start.
It's interesting to see how the format has changed over the years. When Richard Dimbleby was reading the results from cards, they would comment on the elected MP. Now on the BBC most pass without comment, this time even fewer were shown on the board. They've even dispensed with guest interviews at a separate area, as with Paxman or Andrew Neil. I thought the BBC coverage this time was quite poor.
A GOP-led US is clearly not going to be a reliable friend of the UK. It already advocates policies that will harm the UK's key defence, security and economic interests. Now it is openly hostile to our democratically elected government.
It looks like we are going to be getting a lot closer to our European friends a lot quicker than many might have anticipated.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'd suggest that the Supreme Court, if Trump still needs it then assuming he is the next POTUS, will find some weasel words to nullify the Constitution.
Two thirds of Congress and the states are needed to change the US constitution, that is written in black and white. The armed forces also take an oath to uphold the constitution as much as the President
Re-interpret, not change. As we just saw with the patently absurd immunity decision.
Admittedly, getting around the 22nd Amendment would require yet greater contortions. But for a sufficiently motivated Court, it wouldn't be completely impossible.
I'd suggest gaming the "shall be elected" part of it to be the most fruitful avenue
Suspending the Constitution is obviously the route he will go down, probably successfully. He Truthed about doing that in 2020.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'd suggest that the Supreme Court, if Trump still needs it then assuming he is the next POTUS, will find some weasel words to nullify the Constitution.
Two thirds of Congress and the states are needed to change the US constitution, that is written in black and white. The armed forces also take an oath to uphold the constitution as much as the President
Re-interpret, not change. As we just saw with the patently absurd immunity decision.
Admittedly, getting around the 22nd Amendment would require yet greater contortions. But for a sufficiently motivated Court, it wouldn't be completely impossible.
I'd suggest gaming the "shall be elected" part of it to be the most fruitful avenue
Suspending the Constitution is obviously the route he will go down, probably successfully. He Truthed about doing that in 2020.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'd suggest that the Supreme Court, if Trump still needs it then assuming he is the next POTUS, will find some weasel words to nullify the Constitution.
Two thirds of Congress and the states are needed to change the US constitution, that is written in black and white. The armed forces also take an oath to uphold the constitution as much as the President
Re-interpret, not change. As we just saw with the patently absurd immunity decision.
Admittedly, getting around the 22nd Amendment would require yet greater contortions. But for a sufficiently motivated Court, it wouldn't be completely impossible.
There is a long history of Supreme Court Judges doing gymnastics to reinterpret the constitution to suit their own bias. Roe v Wade in 1973 for a start.
A GOP-led US is clearly not going to be a reliable friend of the UK. It already advocates policies that will harm the UK's key defence, security and economic interests. Now it is openly hostile to our democratically elected government.
...which is why Liz Truss is a fan. The number of cargo-cult Republicans or "Anglosphere patriots" in British politics is reprehensible. Both Liz Truss and Nigel Farage are in America right now because the election of a foreigner in a foreign election is more important to them than the British.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'd suggest that the Supreme Court, if Trump still needs it then assuming he is the next POTUS, will find some weasel words to nullify the Constitution.
Two thirds of Congress and the states are needed to change the US constitution, that is written in black and white. The armed forces also take an oath to uphold the constitution as much as the President
Re-interpret, not change. As we just saw with the patently absurd immunity decision.
Admittedly, getting around the 22nd Amendment would require yet greater contortions. But for a sufficiently motivated Court, it wouldn't be completely impossible.
I'd suggest gaming the "shall be elected" part of it to be the most fruitful avenue
Suspending the Constitution is obviously the route he will go down, probably successfully. He Truthed about doing that in 2020.
A more difficult task in a country split 50/50, and with a military that's not particularly MAGA.
He's more gradualist than his rhetoric, even if the movement is in the same direction.
A GOP-led US is clearly not going to be a reliable friend of the UK. It already advocates policies that will harm the UK's key defence, security and economic interests. Now it is openly hostile to our democratically elected government.
...which is why Liz Truss is a fan. The number of cargo-cult Republicans or "Anglosphere patriots" in British politics is reprehensible. Both Liz Truss and Nigel Farage are in America right now because the election of a foreigner in a foreign election is more important to them than the British.
The are happy to sell out pivotal UK security, defence and economic interests to own the libs and to make money. There is a word for people like them.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'd suggest that the Supreme Court, if Trump still needs it then assuming he is the next POTUS, will find some weasel words to nullify the Constitution.
Two thirds of Congress and the states are needed to change the US constitution, that is written in black and white. The armed forces also take an oath to uphold the constitution as much as the President
Re-interpret, not change. As we just saw with the patently absurd immunity decision.
Admittedly, getting around the 22nd Amendment would require yet greater contortions. But for a sufficiently motivated Court, it wouldn't be completely impossible.
I'd suggest gaming the "shall be elected" part of it to be the most fruitful avenue
Even Trump realises there are limits, hence he picked Vance as VP nominee to be his puppet third term candidate
The new government is about to eat its first bowl of shit. The "Titanic" shipyard is asking for £200m in loan guarantees to start a new defence project, they say without it the shipyard is unsustainable. The treasury says that the loan guarantee will just help the owners pay itself a big dividend from the shipyard and they're probably right.
If the government refuses there's a very real chance the shipyard goes under and all the jobs/skills are lost and if they do the subsidy scheme there's a very good chance the shareholders will immediately suck that cash out of the business anyway and leave the taxpayer on the hook for £200m.
So best to let it go bankrupt and then lend the administrators the money to keep projects going..
But as with many things when these issues are involved no easy answers.
Worth saying that Short Brothers next door has similar issues, Airbus has "bought" it from Boeing but the vast majority of it's production is for none Airbus products and they don't want those parts and seemingly nor does Bombardier.
Rachel Reeves has decisions to make. What with Mad Ed Miliband trying to kill off 200,000 jobs in the North Sea and the major manufacturers in Belfast looking shakey, this is where we see if she has an industrial policy.
Where is your North Sea jobs figure from - that feels incredibly high..
Direct employent/contracting in UK Oil and gas exploration is between 35,000 and 40,000 jobs. There are an additional 100,000 jobs in companies directy supporting the oil and gas industry through manufacturing and direct supply of goods, materials and services. In addition there are around 80,000 jobs which are in services not directly related to the oil industry in the NE but which would suffer some loss due to a downturn in the region.
These numbers are pretty well known because of the experience of previous downturns.
Realistically I would assume that the 40K direct jobs are at risk and a reasonable proportion of the 100K directly supporting jobs. I don't know how you could or should quantify the 80K jobs which might be affected by a regional downturn.
So whilst there are more than 200,000 jobs in the UK being supported by the O&G sector, not all of those would be at risk. Maybe half of them? But that would depend a lot on the wider economy.
Rosebank is estimated to create 1.6K jobs (during construction ahead of 'first oil' in 2026) but this will fall off once construction done. We're subsidising this to the tune of half a billion, but profits will largely be rapatriated to Norway/Israel companies (the joint venture partners).
Not sure where your 100K O&G jobs comes from, but you get many more jobs from renewables (including wave).
Even if you want to 'protect' these 100K jobs, doubling down on this amount of fossil fuel investment - subsidised, foreign-owned, sunset industry - is suicidal both economically and environmentally, no?
Its actually 140K oil and gas jobs. And of course you don't know where it comes from. You don't know the first thing about the oil and gas industry beyond what you get off the internet. Even looking at only 3 companies - BP, Total and Shell, between them they directly employ 20,000 people in the UK and another 25,000+ contractors. So no it is not suicidal either economically or environmentally.
I'm sure the canal builders were freaking out in the early 1800s about the move into railways. Destruction of jobs, untested new technologies, etc. Didn't stop the march of progress.
And BP, Shell and Total are not going away anytime soon. The oil and gas industry is not being canceled by the wokes, don't worry. We're on the hook for fossil fuels for quite some time.
But a strong commitment to changing tack in terms of future Net Zero commitments? That's what Milliband has signalled. Smart and positive. Despite the shrill cries of 'the sky is falling in' from the Telegraph.
(Have they found a buyer yet incidentally?)
I'm instinctively with Richard on this stuff, but that's because I'm from the north of Scotland and have friends in the industry.
But you're right. The new licenses would be fairly small proportion of production going forward, and regardless of whether they are approved there is going to be a massive reduction anyway.
So the fuss people are making on all sides is completely overblown. It won't make much of a difference to gas imports. It's not going to lead to 100,000s job losses. It won't make much of a difference to UK carbon emissions.
What it does suggest is that Labour isn't going to prop up an industry that is on the way out anyway, and is happy to take a great deal on flak on the way to increase the speed of the transition. Remind you of anyone?
That's a strange use of the phrase "prop up". Usually government "propping up" industry involves government shoveling subsidies around. In this case, your "propping up" is merely giving permission for activities which generate stonking amounts of wealth, including loads of tax revenue.
I think technically speaking the high tax relief available for O&G development qualifies as a "subsidy" as it confers an industry specific economic advantage to those developments. That level of relief is not available to other businesses.
That is offset somewhat by the windfall tax, but that is temporary. So the profits from these new developments will be taxed at the original lower rate in the future. Things can change though.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'd suggest that the Supreme Court, if Trump still needs it then assuming he is the next POTUS, will find some weasel words to nullify the Constitution.
Two thirds of Congress and the states are needed to change the US constitution, that is written in black and white. The armed forces also take an oath to uphold the constitution as much as the President
Re-interpret, not change. As we just saw with the patently absurd immunity decision.
Admittedly, getting around the 22nd Amendment would require yet greater contortions. But for a sufficiently motivated Court, it wouldn't be completely impossible.
I'd suggest gaming the "shall be elected" part of it to be the most fruitful avenue
Suspending the Constitution is obviously the route he will go down, probably successfully. He Truthed about doing that in 2020.
A more difficult task in a country split 50/50, and with a military that's not particularly MAGA.
He's more gradualist than his rhetoric, even if the movement is in the same direction.
As I pointed out after Trump was elected in 2016, rights can regress as well as progress, and this might be as a slow a process as gaining rights in the first place. Events have shown I was right, and expect more regression, especially on the rights of women and minorities, and more religious bigotry written into law.
If Trump is elected, America will seem very different (and IMV worse) in 2028 than it is today. And it will be worse still in 2032, as Trump's changes slowly take effect.
Trump won't need to worry about the 22nd. Or the constitution. Remember that the President is above the law - able to do anything He likes officially.
And as Biden is leading the DNC to a defeat in Congress as well, simply pass an Enabling Act. Hell, don't even do that. Write an Enabling Decree. Nobody will challenge it, and anyone who does will be arrested and/or shot.
Then they can truly do God's work and go after the enemies of America. Illegals. Gayers. Liberals. Women.
A GOP-led US is clearly not going to be a reliable friend of the UK. It already advocates policies that will harm the UK's key defence, security and economic interests. Now it is openly hostile to our democratically elected government.
It looks like we are going to be getting a lot closer to our European friends a lot quicker than many might have anticipated.
It will be interesting to see how the big EPC meeting at Blenheim palace at the weekend goes down. Starmer hosts his first major gathering of European leaders.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'd suggest that the Supreme Court, if Trump still needs it then assuming he is the next POTUS, will find some weasel words to nullify the Constitution.
The simplest means, legally, would be running as VP. But that would mean either trusting his pick for figurehead President (unlikely that Trump would), or having a reliable means of disposing of them. Given the powers of a President, that's not the easiest puzzle to solve without drastic means.
He'd probably need to replace Roberts and Barrett to have a sufficiently complaisant Supreme Court to get the required outlandish reinterpretation of the Constitution.
Then again he might be far enough deteriorated, four years down the road, to have lost the will to power.
The Putin solution? I think there are enough recent examples to state that megalomaniacs like Trump don't lose their desire to be in charge with age. Even the mild ones like QEII and Biden.
Presumably if Trump gets elected* the Ukrainians will take off the strait jacket Biden has insisted they wear.
*Is it elected or re-elected?
Also if Trump get re-elected will the SCOTUS rule that the 22nd amendment only applies to two CONSECUTIVE terms. And thus Trump can run a third time? It sounds farfetched now but this Supreme Court have already made some whacky rulings and I wouldn't put it past them.
I am already assuming the SCOTUS will find that the 22nd amendment only applies on the thirty-third of February for people who's surname doesn't begin with 'T'. Or their heirs.
Yeh. I've posted before that if they elect Trump then he'll engineer a third term and I have been derided for it. But this set of judges could come up with god knows what batshit originalist crap and sign it off as overruling or interpreting the 22nd.
The Amendment is clear and it’s hard to see how it can be interpreted differently even by the current Conservative majority. If Trump wants a third term it will have to go through Congress and the state legislatures. The chances of that happening are a very steep hurdle given it needs two thirds of the former and three quarters of the latter to change the constitution.
We'll revisit this in four years time.
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'd suggest that the Supreme Court, if Trump still needs it then assuming he is the next POTUS, will find some weasel words to nullify the Constitution.
Two thirds of Congress and the states are needed to change the US constitution, that is written in black and white. The armed forces also take an oath to uphold the constitution as much as the President
Re-interpret, not change. As we just saw with the patently absurd immunity decision.
Admittedly, getting around the 22nd Amendment would require yet greater contortions. But for a sufficiently motivated Court, it wouldn't be completely impossible.
I'd suggest gaming the "shall be elected" part of it to be the most fruitful avenue
One possible fiddle… the 22nd Amendment says no one shall be ELECTED to the position of President more than twice. Trump could stand as Vance’s VP. Then, 5 minutes after Vance is inaugurated , he resigns making Trump President again.
A GOP-led US is clearly not going to be a reliable friend of the UK. It already advocates policies that will harm the UK's key defence, security and economic interests. Now it is openly hostile to our democratically elected government.
...which is why Liz Truss is a fan. The number of cargo-cult Republicans or "Anglosphere patriots" in British politics is reprehensible. Both Liz Truss and Nigel Farage are in America right now because the election of a foreigner in a foreign election is more important to them than the British.
The are happy to sell out pivotal UK security, defence and economic interests to own the libs and to make money. There is a word for people like them.
How many senior UK Pols are as off their rocker as Fruit Loop Liz? And how many of them actually believe what they are saying? And how many are Tories yammering from their political graves, mainly in need of the money?
It seems to be a thing in circles around the Flint Knappers & Shunters Dildo Gazette (but then they accepted the behaviour of adjudicated attempted rapist Taki for decades.)
Also afaics the Trumpo-loopiness is in some political - interestingly NOT military or foreign policy - circles at the Telegraph.
Is there any way to check if the loss of share in North West Norfolk was compounded by Liz Truss. (The biggest fall in the country)?
I mean South west Norfolk
She had the turnip Taliban guy standing against her, pulled in 7,000 as I recall, which made her defeat by 600-odd from Labour possible.
I think turnip Taliban is a disrespectful way to refer to the Independent candidate James Bagge. I read a profile of him and he was an interesting candidate. He was a staunch member of the local Conservative Association for many years. Establishment background; Eton, army, then law. But very paternalistic Tory; actively involved with a number of local charities. He was one of the "turnip Taliban" who opposed Truss's selection and says that although they were depicted at the time by the press as a bunch of Puritans who objected to her having a much-publicised extra-marital affair, their real objection was that she had no connection with the area and no interest in local issues. They thought she would ignore the constituency and they have been proved right. She only turned up for photo opportunities. Pre-election, she spent more time in America than the constituency.
Bagge deplored her budget and loathes all the MAGA stuff and conspiracy theories she seems to be endorsing recently.
She compounded her defeat by acting in a way that provoked a previously loyal section of local Conservatives to vote against her.
It should be the easiest Conservative gain on the table next week.
The result was designed solely to eject a nutcase, and any other Conservative would have held it - even on a much reduced turnout.
Comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ure_(missile)
Poland have already done a deal on a couple of hundred of the Himars equivalent.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The current generation in Appalachia doesn't have that option. Jobs with no security on a minimum wage that hasn't kept pace with inflation in decades, unaffordable housing, limited educational options.
It isn't sloth that is keeping Appalachian Hillbillies poor now, it's that the opportunities of the 1950s are gone. True of other American communities and cultures too. The American economy only works for people like Trump, Vance and Thiel.
You are just playing at straw men.
He'd decided an American company had a product that was going to be the next big thing in the UK. He ploughed our modest family fortune into buying the stock. The owner took my dad out to dinner and told him, quite bluntly, it was BULLSHIT.
EVERYTHING IN AMERICA IS BULLSHIT.
THE PRODUCT HE WAS SELLING WAS BULLSHIT.
THE PRODUCT MY DAD WAS BUYING WAS BULLSHIT.
EVERYTHING IN AMERICA IS BULLSHIT.
He even gave my old man a bag of badges, which say "BULLSHIT" on them. And nothing else. The American guy found this hilarious.
My father proceeded to lose my family's modest fortune, never in doubt that the owner of this American company was anything but a genius.
I still have hat bag of "BULLSHIT" badges, somewhere. Whenever I'm feeling particularly depressed, or skint, I wear one for the amusement.
And then a strange sobbing sound emerges from somewhere below my nose, but above my chin.
Protectionism is coming to town.
How bad is the R word these days? There is a hilarious name for him on social media.
Four European nations agree to jointly develop long-range cruise missiles
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/four-european-nations-agree-jointly-develop-long-range-cruise-missiles-2024-07-11/
Striking absence: Europe’s missile gap and how to close it
https://ecfr.eu/article/striking-absence-europes-missile-gap-and-how-to-close-it/
Liz Truss
@trussliz
Great to be at @RNC in Milwaukee seeing President Trump get nominated.
The leadership the West needs.
https://x.com/trussliz/status/1812940886793433304
JD Vance: "One of the things you hear people say, even on our side, is that America is the first creedal nation. America is an idea.
America is not just an idea. America is a nation. It is a group of people with a common history and a common future."
Morning Consult / July 14, 2024 / n=11328
Trump (R): 44% (no change on Jul 11)
Biden (D): 42% (no change on Jul 11)
He will certainly try - moving heaven and earth to engineer it. Can the constitution take that level of strain?
I'm the next in line
Honey I'm still free
Take a Vance on me.
Would you like to buy…. Some crypto AI NFTs with novel’ space! launch!
https://x.com/mckaycoppins/status/1812940103116837140
I have a couple of friends who I can think of who falls into the category of 'no online presence whatsoever'. It's not entirely unknown. And yet the idea of either of those two sassytempting is preposterous.
We have to tighten our border controls (as I have said before).
The media has decided to stop talking about it for a while as there's more interesting stuff going on.
And BP, Shell and Total are not going away anytime soon. The oil and gas industry is not being canceled by the wokes, don't worry. We're on the hook for fossil fuels for quite some time.
But a strong commitment to changing tack in terms of future Net Zero commitments? That's what Milliband has signalled. Smart and positive. Despite the shrill cries of 'the sky is falling in' from the Telegraph.
(Have they found a buyer yet incidentally?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBjvUxxXW3E
But you're right. The new licenses would be fairly small proportion of production going forward, and regardless of whether they are approved there is going to be a massive reduction anyway.
So the fuss people are making on all sides is completely overblown. It won't make much of a difference to gas imports. It's not going to lead to 100,000s job losses. It won't make much of a difference to UK carbon emissions.
What it does suggest is that Labour isn't going to prop up an industry that is on the way out anyway, and is happy to take a great deal on flak on the way to increase the speed of the transition. Remind you of anyone?
I bet few Labourites were saying that about the coal industry in the 1980s...
A conspiracy over Epstein is certainly feasible. I'm not saying conspiracies don't happen; just that they (in the form of large, significant conspiracies) are quite rare.
But I stand by my point: the existence of 'curious anomalies' is *not* an indication of a conspiracy. It's an indication of messy real life.
Maggie Miliband
I don't think there's evidence for that? The FBI said they didn't find anything that appeared *related to the shooting*.
And aside from people who just don't use social media of whom I've met lots, there are definitely people who try not to leave a footprint. I've stayed with a guy like that in Texas, huge gun nut. I'm not personally of the paranoid persuasion but there's something to be said for it.
Somehow I don’t think there will be an inquiry into betting patterns in the US markets, nor a bunch of civil servants briefing the press about it every day during the election campaign.
Just as the recently released call and travel logs which show all the Trump conversations with Epstein, and trips to the island, don’t show that Trump had anything to do with the theorised conspiracy around Epstein’s death.
“Fantastically weird” coincidences (they weren’t particularly weird in an under resourced jail system); and the ‘prove this theory wrong” lens is classic conspiracy reasoning.
A Trump mini me isn’t a daft choice from Trump’s POV.
Bagge deplored her budget and loathes all the MAGA stuff and conspiracy theories she seems to be endorsing recently.
She compounded her defeat by acting in a way that provoked a previously loyal section of local Conservatives to vote against her.
The interesting thing is perhaps what happens when he pops his clogs; he is one man, and his family are rubes.
He’s crazy, a liar and bad at campaigning, so he ticks three boxes for Trump (first two go without saying, the last because Trump doesn’t want anyone overshadowing his main campaign message on e-boats, sharks and the judiciary being rigged against him even as they bend over backwards to dismiss entirely legitimate criminal charges against him on spurious grounds).
Given that both Trump and Biden are very elderly and increasingly frail, the VP candidate assumes the same importance as it did for McCain in 2008. McCain’s pick was somewhat more experienced and slightly less crazy than Vance (plus she could pose in a Stars and Stripes bikini carrying a gun, which I’m assuming - hoping! - he won’t). Her behaviour wasn’t the only reason he lost, but it was one of the most important.
Will their adjusted business models generate anything like as much wealth?
Yesterday.
Oh.
https://x.com/adambienkov/status/1813084295780790773?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
The clip doing the rounds of him suggesting that the new Labour government turns the UK into an Islamist state is bonkers even as a joke. It’s the type of exaggeration for effect that teenage boys go in for to impress their fellow virgins.
But that would mean either trusting his pick for figurehead President (unlikely that Trump would), or having a reliable means of disposing of them.
Given the powers of a President, that's not the easiest puzzle to solve without drastic means.
He'd probably need to replace Roberts and Barrett to have a sufficiently complaisant Supreme Court to get the required outlandish reinterpretation of the Constitution.
Then again he might be far enough deteriorated, four years down the road, to have lost the will to power.
As we just saw with the patently absurd immunity decision.
Admittedly, getting around the 22nd Amendment would require yet greater contortions. But for a sufficiently motivated Court, it wouldn't be completely impossible.
I'd suggest gaming the "shall be elected" part of it to be the most fruitful avenue
A GOP-led US is clearly not going to be a reliable friend of the UK. It already advocates policies that will harm the UK's key defence, security and economic interests. Now it is openly hostile to our democratically elected government.
It looks like we are going to be getting a lot closer to our European friends a lot quicker than many might have anticipated.
He's more gradualist than his rhetoric, even if the movement is in the same direction.
NEW THREAD
It's a small world.
That is offset somewhat by the windfall tax, but that is temporary. So the profits from these new developments will be taxed at the original lower rate in the future. Things can change though.
If Trump is elected, America will seem very different (and IMV worse) in 2028 than it is today. And it will be worse still in 2032, as Trump's changes slowly take effect.
And as Biden is leading the DNC to a defeat in Congress as well, simply pass an Enabling Act. Hell, don't even do that. Write an Enabling Decree. Nobody will challenge it, and anyone who does will be arrested and/or shot.
Then they can truly do God's work and go after the enemies of America. Illegals. Gayers. Liberals. Women.
I think there are enough recent examples to state that megalomaniacs like Trump don't lose their desire to be in charge with age. Even the mild ones like QEII and Biden.
It seems to be a thing in circles around the Flint Knappers & Shunters Dildo Gazette (but then they accepted the behaviour of adjudicated attempted rapist Taki for decades.)
Also afaics the Trumpo-loopiness is in some political - interestingly NOT military or foreign policy - circles at the Telegraph.
The result was designed solely to eject a nutcase, and any other Conservative would have held it - even on a much reduced turnout.