Talking of conspiracy theories, I hope everyone's surviving Friday the 13th okay so far.
I’m stuck in a desert valley in Canada that I was assured by a certain PBer is “a little bit of paradise” but is actually a big old desert grey desert valley with some nice wine and LOTS of walmarts. Paradise it ain’t
I am now scratching for something to write in the Gazette
Canada has deserts?
That fact alone is worth a piece I would have thought. Who knew?
Okanagan Valley in the BC Interior is most definitely desert country, watered (where irrigated) by the river and it's lake(s).
Fact that it is especially desert-looking in AUGUST, should NOT come as a shock let alone a surprise.
Tip for PB's Parapathetic Traveller - less arid the higher you go, for example northeastward up to Banff (pronounced "BAN-fuh-fuh" by old fans of "F Troop") via Revelstoke and Glacier National Park CN (NOT to be confused with Glacier National Park US.
Though DO be on the lookout for forest fires. AND do NOT throw your fucking cigarette butts out the freaking window!
Trump - as I called - has totally lost his shit and will now sink his own campaign. Whilst the perception was that "45%" would vote for him whatever he said, that's already demonstrably not the case.
Republicans for Harris is a real thing, and its starting to gather momentum. The more that name conservatives declare for the conservative candidate, the more that conservative voters will follow.
Trump will be left with the radicals, the deranged, satan-following evangelicals and the remaining gas-breathing drones. The election is over. Only question now is how big she wins.
Blimey. Wish I had a tenth of your confidence on this one.
My confidence is built on 2 things: 1. Trust in Trump to completely fall apart. That is now happening before our eyes 2. Confidence that Harris will look like the sane choice, even for moderate republicans
There is this obsession with patriotism in America which boggles the mind. But it is a trip wire which makes it really hard for "patriots" who aren't mad to vote for the lunatic who will demolish the thing you are patriotic about.
Trump is falling apart, will only get worse (watch him fire the sane advisors and rely on the core of mentalists screaming that the debate was "rigged" because Harris was given the questions beforehand), and will actively propel more and more conservatives to vote for the conservative candidate - Harris.
Perhaps I will be proven wrong. But I'm feeling pretty good about coming out weeks ago proclaiming that Harris will win bigly.
Trump still on 45-49% in all but one post debate poll suggests it will still be very close, there is not going to be a Harris landslide even if she scrapes home.
Indeed every post debate poll still has Harris below the 51% Biden got in 2020
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
Well bollocks to you all. I am a Trump supporter.
Bring it.
I think Trump is a narcissistic man-child, and I don't want him to win.
That does not mean he won't win. I'd rate Harris' chance of winning at no better than 11/9.
Too many people think that Trump's supporters are suddenly going to see the light, and vote Democratic.
I don't think that. Trumpers gonna Trump and there are loads of them. That's why despite everything he is bang in this election. I don't have it as a 50/50 but I understand why the market does. He's going to get his base plus GOP reliables plus a portion of floaters/independents and that adds up to a big vote.
But it won't be enough imo. He's a weaker older wilder madder candidate than he was in either of his previous runs. The small slice of voters in the middle, the ones who'll decide the election, are going to break against him. Not all of them but a critical mass. It's happening now and will pick up steam.
Come Nov 5th, I predict Harris wins the PV by at least 5 pts and the EC comfortably. I'm very confident of this. I could close out my Big Short on Trump at about flat now (a result given how underwater it was before Biden pulled out) but I'm not going to do that. I feel good about it.
I predict Trump wins the popular vote by 0.5% and Harris wins the EC by 273 to 265
Cheers. That is admirably precise. So you see her holding 3 of the swingers then. MI, WI, GA. That's 273.
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
What's seriously objectionable about your comments is your repeated claims that you know posters minds better than they know themselves. That's just twattery.
I'm sure most would prefer Trump to lose but the Brits are known for their pessimism so the numbers aren't surprising.
I'd be surprised though if most wouldn't try to be objective when scoring the debate.
We're not directly involved so all we have is the kudos of correctly predicting the result or joining the ....damuses
Trump - as I called - has totally lost his shit and will now sink his own campaign. Whilst the perception was that "45%" would vote for him whatever he said, that's already demonstrably not the case.
Republicans for Harris is a real thing, and its starting to gather momentum. The more that name conservatives declare for the conservative candidate, the more that conservative voters will follow.
Trump will be left with the radicals, the deranged, satan-following evangelicals and the remaining gas-breathing drones. The election is over. Only question now is how big she wins.
Blimey. Wish I had a tenth of your confidence on this one.
My confidence is built on 2 things: 1. Trust in Trump to completely fall apart. That is now happening before our eyes 2. Confidence that Harris will look like the sane choice, even for moderate republicans
There is this obsession with patriotism in America which boggles the mind. But it is a trip wire which makes it really hard for "patriots" who aren't mad to vote for the lunatic who will demolish the thing you are patriotic about.
Trump is falling apart, will only get worse (watch him fire the sane advisors and rely on the core of mentalists screaming that the debate was "rigged" because Harris was given the questions beforehand), and will actively propel more and more conservatives to vote for the conservative candidate - Harris.
Perhaps I will be proven wrong. But I'm feeling pretty good about coming out weeks ago proclaiming that Harris will win bigly.
Trump still on 45-49% in all but one post debate poll suggests it will still be very close, there is not going to be a Harris landslide even if she scrapes home.
Indeed every post debate poll still has Harris below the 51% Biden got in 2020
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
Well bollocks to you all. I am a Trump supporter.
Bring it.
I think Trump is a narcissistic man-child, and I don't want him to win.
That does not mean he won't win. I'd rate Harris' chance of winning at no better than 11/9.
Too many people think that Trump's supporters are suddenly going to see the light, and vote Democratic.
Well quite. The US electorate is not a bunch of UK centrist dads. I can see the scene on Nov 6: We planned for Kamala to win and we'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you pesky voters. The "only bed-wetters think Trump will win" rhetoric has persuaded me that Hillary walked it in 2016. What strange tricks the memory plays.
Your memory will tell you that there were a couple of reasons in particular why Hillary lost. What are the comparable ones this cycle ?
I don't know, but Trump's unassailable looking lead on money and immigration, and the too close to call ness of individual state polling, are what have caused me to close my KH position for a very chunky profit. On top of that I go to the states a bit and the single complaint I hear most about the Dems is, they are corrupt. You would not have a clue about this from discussion over here. Trump may be Voldemort, but that doesn't make his opponents Dumbledore
I can only assume that PBers for Harris have remortgaged their houses and borrowed the contents of the client account to pile on her. That's what I would do if I could get evens on something I was that certain about.
(Why does anyone even conduct popular vote polling btw?)
Given what Trump has been up to, I'm surprised the Dems are seen as, effectively, more corrupt. Of course, historically, Democrat-run Chicago and New York were seen as corrupt, and indeed probably were.
The Dems have been having fun and games in New Jersey. They had a Senator who in moral terms (if not perhaps sanity terms) is very Trumpy (as in, convicted of multiple crimes). He has now quit the Senate though.
Democratic nominee Andy Kim, current US Rep., is a reformer who helped drive the crook Menendez the Elder OUT of the US Senate race AND the US Senate.
Another one for @viewcode 's scrapbook. And a quite persuasive thesis.
The New Right Has a Blueprint for Seizing Power. Is JD Vance Executing It? There may be more to the alliance between MAGA and the New Right than political convenience. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/13/jd-vance-new-right-political-movement-00177203 ... In fact, Vance embodies an archetype that has been theorized about at length in New Right-adjacent books and podcasts (many of which Vance has read and listened to). By forging an alliance between the elite “New Right” and the MAGA masses, Vance, according to this reading, could serve as the leader of a new movement to institute an illiberal and explicitly reactionary political order. Though adopting the rhetoric of conservatism populism, this new order would be a fundamentally elitist one: It would expel America’s current ruling elite in order to replace it with a new, more conservative one, drawn from the ranks of the New Right.
The details of this plan differ between the various writers and thinkers that have influenced Vance — people like the Notre Dame political theorist Patrick Deneen, the internet philosopher Curtis Yarvin and the Silicon Valley venture capitalist Peter Thiel. But taken together, their prescriptions amount to a kind of three-step plan for the New Right’s project: Identify a member of the New Right elite who can tap into the energies of an ascendant right-wing populist movement, ride those energies to political power, and then carry out a top-down transformation of American society along illiberal lines. It is, in effect, a plan to accomplish through elite rule what even the MAGA movement has failed to accomplish through democratic control: The creation of a social order built around conservative values, even if those values remain broadly unpopular with the American people...
It certainly rises above conspiracy theory, given they're fairly explicit in their aims. And Thiel has funded Vance's entire, brief political career.
Curtis Yarvin is a complete nut, who makes Trump look rational. That he's taken seriously in their circles is telling.
Thanks for this.
Fascinating.
And yet more reasons to hope to god these people do not win in November.
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
80% of cyclists already hold such a licence, in line with the population in general.
Bikeability for children (formerly cycle proficiency) was cut by the Conservatives, with only half of kids outside London getting the training.
Not 100% and a driving licence is not the same as a cycle licence and cycling proficiency should really be for residential streets and country paths not A roads where a full cycling licence should be required and a test passed before going on
Tying the world up in red tape to sort a problem that by and large does not exist.
Similarly with third party insurance which most people have under their contents or household cover.
it is hardly red tape to ensure cyclists must pass a theory test on the Highway Code and a practical test on the main road like drivers do before they are allowed on an A road and to ensure they respect pedestrians
It is because bikes do not weigh over a ton and travel at 60 mph and as a consequence deaths and serious injury is very rare on a bike. However the opposite is true for a car or truck hence a test and licence is needed.
Where do you want to draw the line? Do I need to take a test and get a licence for walking down the pavement because that is where you are going with this.
No as pedestrians don't walk on motorways or even A roads except at traffic islands
????
I've walked on A roads on no end of occasions (*). A roads vary massively, from dual carriageways to single-track roads with passing places in Yorkshire or the Highlands.
(*) with great care, and occasionally with a certain amount of trepidation. One of the worst was in South Devon, going around one of the rivers.
And you can tell the drivers who grew up in the countryside because they slow right down and give lots of space.
His favourable is close to the Labour GE vote. Makes sense, I suppose.
I'd say those are astonishingly good numbers for Starmer given how dire his press has been
Blair's late 1997 approval numbers were 'astonishingly good.' Starmer's -14% net rating and Labour's voteshare today of 29%, which would be the lowest Labour GE voteshare since Brown 2010, are not good on any definition
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
80% of cyclists already hold such a licence, in line with the population in general.
Bikeability for children (formerly cycle proficiency) was cut by the Conservatives, with only half of kids outside London getting the training.
Not 100% and a driving licence is not the same as a cycle licence and cycling proficiency should really be for residential streets and country paths not A roads where a full cycling licence should be required and a test passed before going on
Tying the world up in red tape to sort a problem that by and large does not exist.
Similarly with third party insurance which most people have under their contents or household cover.
it is hardly red tape to ensure cyclists must pass a theory test on the Highway Code and a practical test on the main road like drivers do before they are allowed on an A road and to ensure they respect pedestrians
It is because bikes do not weigh over a ton and travel at 60 mph and as a consequence deaths and serious injury is very rare on a bike. However the opposite is true for a car or truck hence a test and licence is needed.
Where do you want to draw the line? Do I need to take a test and get a licence for walking down the pavement because that is where you are going with this.
No as pedestrians don't walk on motorways or even A roads except at traffic islands
Cyclists don't cycle on motorways either.
They do on main road A roads
And pedestrians walk down them also. All the time.
You are going around in circles here. You made a distinction between cyclists and pedestrians on Motorways and A roads neither of which holds up. Neither use motorways and both use A roads. They are no different, so do pedestrians need a licence then?
Pedestrians rarely walk on A roads, most of the time they walk on pavements, in residential streets or on rural B roads
We are getting really silly here and I'm sure you must have seen a lot of the countryside but neither pedestrians nor cyclists tend to use major A roads like say the A3 or the A12 (I drive along both a lot and have never seen a cyclist ever because you would be mad to cycle along them). When it comes to normal A roads you get a lot of cyclists and guess what you get a lot of pedestrians as well. They cross them all the time and step on them to pass people and cars parked on the kerb by twats and where there are no pavements they walk down them.
Honestly this is dancing on the top of a pin head.
It is totally mad to licence cyclists or bikes. You are opening a whole can of worms:
At what age do you take your test? Before that does a 5 year old have a provisional licence? Who tests all these people? Can you lose your licence or get it endorsed? Are you going to mandate third party insurance? Most household policies cover 3rd party for non motorised vehicles, but what if you rent a house. Not sure you can take out 3rd party liability that is not associated with another type of insurance unless it is for something like a motor vehicle or boat as it is not financially viable. It is usually a giveaway. How is the bike number plate going to work? What part of the bike constitutes the bike? The frame I suppose as all the other bits are easily changed. Is the Government going to hold a register of all of these. When you take your bike off the road will you SORN it? Will you notify them when you scrap it or sell it? To cover all these costs will you need a road tax? Will it need an MOT?
Where are you going with this?
And the next move will to do all the above for each pair of shoes you buy as a pedestrian.
Talking of conspiracy theories, I hope everyone's surviving Friday the 13th okay so far.
I’m stuck in a desert valley in Canada that I was assured by a certain PBer is “a little bit of paradise” but is actually a big old desert grey desert valley with some nice wine and LOTS of walmarts. Paradise it ain’t
I am now scratching for something to write in the Gazette
Canada has deserts?
That fact alone is worth a piece I would have thought. Who knew?
Okanagan Valley in the BC Interior is most definitely desert country, watered (where irrigated) by the river and it's lake(s).
Fact that it is especially desert-looking in AUGUST, should NOT come as a shock let alone a surprise.
Tip for PB's Parapathetic Traveller - less arid the higher you go, for example northeastward up to Banff (pronounced "BAN-fuh-fuh" by old fans of "F Troop") via Revelstoke and Glacier National Park CN (NOT to be confused with Glacier National Park US.
Though DO be on the lookout for forest fires. AND do NOT throw your fucking cigarette butts out the freaking window!
Our eldest son married his Canadian wife in 2015 at the Ancient Hill Estate Winery in the Okanagan Valley
It was a beautiful summers day and fantastic settling - the wine was good too
Another one for @viewcode 's scrapbook. And a quite persuasive thesis.
The New Right Has a Blueprint for Seizing Power. Is JD Vance Executing It? There may be more to the alliance between MAGA and the New Right than political convenience. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/13/jd-vance-new-right-political-movement-00177203 ... In fact, Vance embodies an archetype that has been theorized about at length in New Right-adjacent books and podcasts (many of which Vance has read and listened to). By forging an alliance between the elite “New Right” and the MAGA masses, Vance, according to this reading, could serve as the leader of a new movement to institute an illiberal and explicitly reactionary political order. Though adopting the rhetoric of conservatism populism, this new order would be a fundamentally elitist one: It would expel America’s current ruling elite in order to replace it with a new, more conservative one, drawn from the ranks of the New Right.
The details of this plan differ between the various writers and thinkers that have influenced Vance — people like the Notre Dame political theorist Patrick Deneen, the internet philosopher Curtis Yarvin and the Silicon Valley venture capitalist Peter Thiel. But taken together, their prescriptions amount to a kind of three-step plan for the New Right’s project: Identify a member of the New Right elite who can tap into the energies of an ascendant right-wing populist movement, ride those energies to political power, and then carry out a top-down transformation of American society along illiberal lines. It is, in effect, a plan to accomplish through elite rule what even the MAGA movement has failed to accomplish through democratic control: The creation of a social order built around conservative values, even if those values remain broadly unpopular with the American people...
It certainly rises above conspiracy theory, given they're fairly explicit in their aims. And Thiel has funded Vance's entire, brief political career.
Curtis Yarvin is a complete nut, who makes Trump look rational. That he's taken seriously in their circles is telling.
Thank you for that @Nigelb. Believe it or not I do bookmark these (eg "PB-political-Christianity") but I'm not sure I can fit your article into that category: it's more a Project2025 thing.
As for ones I can get done by November, there's the Blob one, one on using a curve to assess predictions, and possibly another one. Then by Dec 31st there's a syntactic analysis of the Cass report, one on growth as a bad indicator. I'll try to get "Solarpunk II" done but I don't know when. Busy, busy, busy...
> Analysis of the Cass report
Are we sure we want to go there? It's been ever so peaceful!
Now, Iowa is not going to go Blue. But the interactions I had with people made it very clear to me that Trump is still in the running. Here are two anecdotes:
(1) An Uber driver who told me all about the immigrant gang problem the US has, and repeated the (much debunked) story about a Venezuelan gang taking over an apartment complex in Colorado.
(2) A liberal business owner worrying about the Democrats introducing a tax on unrealized capital gains.
The first of these was probably always going to vote Trump. The second was - I suspect - liberal in social policy, but worried about taxes and the economy under the Democrats.
My view is that it remains very tight: Harris might have the slight edge, but it is ever so slight. If she wins, it will almost certainly be because of high turnout of women and younger voters due to Republicans implementing abortion policies off the charts of what most Americans believe in.
If Haley had been the GOP candidate she would be measuring the Oval Office drapes now (provided she didn't leak too many Trump voters to RFK Jr). Trump and Vance are the main reason Harris could still win, narrowly.
I doubt she will be more than a 1 term President if she does though
Well, it depends, doesn't it?
Assume Harris wins.
Now, will the Republicans find a Haley like character to lead them into the 2028 Presidential Election, or will it be Don Jr?
Now, Iowa is not going to go Blue. But the interactions I had with people made it very clear to me that Trump is still in the running. Here are two anecdotes:
(1) An Uber driver who told me all about the immigrant gang problem the US has, and repeated the (much debunked) story about a Venezuelan gang taking over an apartment complex in Colorado.
(2) A liberal business owner worrying about the Democrats introducing a tax on unrealized capital gains.
The first of these was probably always going to vote Trump. The second was - I suspect - liberal in social policy, but worried about taxes and the economy under the Democrats.
My view is that it remains very tight: Harris might have the slight edge, but it is ever so slight. If she wins, it will almost certainly be because of high turnout of women and younger voters due to Republicans implementing abortion policies off the charts of what most Americans believe in.
If Haley had been the GOP candidate she would be measuring the Oval Office drapes now (provided she didn't leak too many Trump voters to RFK Jr). Trump and Vance are the main reason Harris could still win, narrowly.
I doubt she will be more than a 1 term President if she does though
Well, it depends, doesn't it?
Assume Harris wins.
Now, will the Republicans find a Haley like character to lead them into the 2028 Presidential Election, or will it be Don Jr?
No, if Trump and Vance lose I suspect the 2028 GOP candidate will be DeSantis.
It would then take him to lose too and probably another GOP presidential election defeat after that for the GOP to consider a more centrist candidate like Haley.
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
80% of cyclists already hold such a licence, in line with the population in general.
Bikeability for children (formerly cycle proficiency) was cut by the Conservatives, with only half of kids outside London getting the training.
Not 100% and a driving licence is not the same as a cycle licence and cycling proficiency should really be for residential streets and country paths not A roads where a full cycling licence should be required and a test passed before going on
Tying the world up in red tape to sort a problem that by and large does not exist.
Similarly with third party insurance which most people have under their contents or household cover.
it is hardly red tape to ensure cyclists must pass a theory test on the Highway Code and a practical test on the main road like drivers do before they are allowed on an A road and to ensure they respect pedestrians
It is because bikes do not weigh over a ton and travel at 60 mph and as a consequence deaths and serious injury is very rare on a bike. However the opposite is true for a car or truck hence a test and licence is needed.
Where do you want to draw the line? Do I need to take a test and get a licence for walking down the pavement because that is where you are going with this.
No as pedestrians don't walk on motorways or even A roads except at traffic islands
Cyclists don't cycle on motorways either.
They do on main road A roads
And pedestrians walk down them also. All the time.
You are going around in circles here. You made a distinction between cyclists and pedestrians on Motorways and A roads neither of which holds up. Neither use motorways and both use A roads. They are no different, so do pedestrians need a licence then?
Pedestrians rarely walk on A roads, most of the time they walk on pavements, in residential streets or on rural B roads
We are getting really silly here and I'm sure you must have seen a lot of the countryside but neither pedestrians nor cyclists tend to use major A roads like say the A3 or the A12 (I drive along both a lot and have never seen a cyclist ever because you would be mad to cycle along them). When it comes to normal A roads you get a lot of cyclists and guess what you get a lot of pedestrians as well. They cross them all the time and step on them to pass people and cars parked on the kerb by twats and where there are no pavements they walk down them.
Honestly this is dancing on the top of a pin head.
It is totally mad to licence cyclists or bikes. You are opening a whole can of worms:
At what age do you take your test? Before that does a 5 year old have a provisional licence? Who tests all these people? Can you lose your licence or get it endorsed? Are you going to mandate third party insurance? Most household policies cover 3rd party for non motorised vehicles, but what if you rent a house. Not sure you can take out 3rd party liability that is not associated with another type of insurance unless it is for something like a motor vehicle or boat as it is not financially viable. It is usually a giveaway. How is the bike number plate going to work? What part of the bike constitutes the bike? The frame I suppose as all the other bits are easily changed. Is the Government going to hold a register of all of these. When you take your bike off the road will you SORN it? Will you notify them when you scrap it or sell it? To cover all these costs will you need a road tax? Will it need an MOT?
Where are you going with this?
And the next move will to do all the above for each pair of shoes you buy as a pedestrian.
We are in La La land.
17 like cars, it would only be needed to cycle on A roads so not relevant to children. Test centres can test cyclists as they do motorists.
You can lose your licence or get it endorsed. 3rd party insurance for injury to pedestrians should be mandatory.
Motorbikes have number plates. Yes it will need to have an MOT and they could pay road tax too and help fund road maintenance.
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
Should you also need a license to cross a road as a pedestrian?
No as pedestrians if they hit a car, van, lorry or indeed a bike will always come off worst.
They would be advised to read the Highway Code though
It's very much 50/50 with cyclists vs pedestrians, the cyclists of my acquaintance who've collided with pedestrians after they've walked across them have come off worse. The result of trying to take avoiding action and going over the handlebars, cyclists are best advised to hit pedestrians who step out on them full on.
Anyway, no surprise to see you take the kneejerk evidence-free position on reducing road deaths. You could eliminate all road deaths caused by cyclists and most years that would reduce road deaths by zero. However start actively policing false number plates, lack of MOTs and insurance, with the byproduct of sweeping up disqualified drivers, then it might make a difference.
Now, Iowa is not going to go Blue. But the interactions I had with people made it very clear to me that Trump is still in the running. Here are two anecdotes:
(1) An Uber driver who told me all about the immigrant gang problem the US has, and repeated the (much debunked) story about a Venezuelan gang taking over an apartment complex in Colorado.
(2) A liberal business owner worrying about the Democrats introducing a tax on unrealized capital gains.
The first of these was probably always going to vote Trump. The second was - I suspect - liberal in social policy, but worried about taxes and the economy under the Democrats.
My view is that it remains very tight: Harris might have the slight edge, but it is ever so slight. If she wins, it will almost certainly be because of high turnout of women and younger voters due to Republicans implementing abortion policies off the charts of what most Americans believe in.
If Haley had been the GOP candidate she would be measuring the Oval Office drapes now (provided she didn't leak too many Trump voters to RFK Jr). Trump and Vance are the main reason Harris could still win, narrowly.
I doubt she will be more than a 1 term President if she does though
Well, it depends, doesn't it?
Assume Harris wins.
Now, will the Republicans find a Haley like character to lead them into the 2028 Presidential Election, or will it be Don Jr?
Which of those do you think would have the better chance of defeating Harris in 2028?
I suspect that many of Trump's most fervent supporters might be reluctant to vote for someone they'd deride as a RINO.
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
80% of cyclists already hold such a licence, in line with the population in general.
Bikeability for children (formerly cycle proficiency) was cut by the Conservatives, with only half of kids outside London getting the training.
Not 100% and a driving licence is not the same as a cycle licence and cycling proficiency should really be for residential streets and country paths not A roads where a full cycling licence should be required and a test passed before going on
Tying the world up in red tape to sort a problem that by and large does not exist.
Similarly with third party insurance which most people have under their contents or household cover.
it is hardly red tape to ensure cyclists must pass a theory test on the Highway Code and a practical test on the main road like drivers do before they are allowed on an A road and to ensure they respect pedestrians
It is because bikes do not weigh over a ton and travel at 60 mph and as a consequence deaths and serious injury is very rare on a bike. However the opposite is true for a car or truck hence a test and licence is needed.
Where do you want to draw the line? Do I need to take a test and get a licence for walking down the pavement because that is where you are going with this.
No as pedestrians don't walk on motorways or even A roads except at traffic islands
Cyclists don't cycle on motorways either.
They do on main road A roads
And pedestrians walk down them also. All the time.
You are going around in circles here. You made a distinction between cyclists and pedestrians on Motorways and A roads neither of which holds up. Neither use motorways and both use A roads. They are no different, so do pedestrians need a licence then?
Pedestrians rarely walk on A roads, most of the time they walk on pavements, in residential streets or on rural B roads
We are getting really silly here and I'm sure you must have seen a lot of the countryside but neither pedestrians nor cyclists tend to use major A roads like say the A3 or the A12 (I drive along both a lot and have never seen a cyclist ever because you would be mad to cycle along them). When it comes to normal A roads you get a lot of cyclists and guess what you get a lot of pedestrians as well. They cross them all the time and step on them to pass people and cars parked on the kerb by twats and where there are no pavements they walk down them.
Honestly this is dancing on the top of a pin head.
It is totally mad to licence cyclists or bikes. You are opening a whole can of worms:
At what age do you take your test? Before that does a 5 year old have a provisional licence? Who tests all these people? Can you lose your licence or get it endorsed? Are you going to mandate third party insurance? Most household policies cover 3rd party for non motorised vehicles, but what if you rent a house. Not sure you can take out 3rd party liability that is not associated with another type of insurance unless it is for something like a motor vehicle or boat as it is not financially viable. It is usually a giveaway. How is the bike number plate going to work? What part of the bike constitutes the bike? The frame I suppose as all the other bits are easily changed. Is the Government going to hold a register of all of these. When you take your bike off the road will you SORN it? Will you notify them when you scrap it or sell it? To cover all these costs will you need a road tax? Will it need an MOT?
Where are you going with this?
And the next move will to do all the above for each pair of shoes you buy as a pedestrian.
We are in La La land.
17 like cars, it would only be needed to cycle on A roads so not relevant to children. Test centres can test cyclists as they do motorists.
You can lose your licence or get it endorsed. 3rd party insurance for injury to pedestrians should be mandatory.
Motorbikes have number plates. Yes it will need to have an MOT and they could pay road tax too and help fund road maintenance.
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
Should you also need a license to cross a road as a pedestrian?
No as pedestrians if they hit a car, van, lorry or indeed a bike will always come off worst.
They would be advised to read the Highway Code though
It's very much 50/50 with cyclists vs pedestrians, the cyclists of my acquaintance who've collided with pedestrians after they've walked across them have come off worse. The result of trying to take avoiding action and going over the handlebars, cyclists are best advised to hit pedestrians who step out on them full on.
Anyway, no surprise to see you take the kneejerk evidence-free position on reducing road deaths. You could eliminate all road deaths caused by cyclists and most years that would reduce road deaths by zero. However start actively policing false number plates, lack of MOTs and insurance, with the byproduct of sweeping up disqualified drivers, then it might make a difference.
You could do the latter too but I have yet to hear of a cyclist killed by being hit by a pedestrian, there are plenty of cases now though of pedestrians being killed or seriously injured after being hit by a cyclist
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
What's seriously objectionable about your comments is your repeated claims that you know posters minds better than they know themselves. That's just twattery.
I'm sure most would prefer Trump to lose but the Brits are known for their pessimism so the numbers aren't surprising.
I'd be surprised though if most wouldn't try to be objective when scoring the debate.
We're not directly involved so all we have is the kudos of correctly predicting the result or joining the ....damuses
It would be quite worrying if there weren't a strong PB consensus hoping (as opposed to predicting) that Donald Trump loses the election. Certainly that wouldn't be a place I'd want to spend much time in. But we do have half a dozen or so posters who'd rather Trump won. That's ok because if it were zero it would smack of 'gated community' and get a touch boring. So all in all, yes, a tick for PB on this topic of WH24.
Now, Iowa is not going to go Blue. But the interactions I had with people made it very clear to me that Trump is still in the running. Here are two anecdotes:
(1) An Uber driver who told me all about the immigrant gang problem the US has, and repeated the (much debunked) story about a Venezuelan gang taking over an apartment complex in Colorado.
(2) A liberal business owner worrying about the Democrats introducing a tax on unrealized capital gains.
The first of these was probably always going to vote Trump. The second was - I suspect - liberal in social policy, but worried about taxes and the economy under the Democrats.
My view is that it remains very tight: Harris might have the slight edge, but it is ever so slight. If she wins, it will almost certainly be because of high turnout of women and younger voters due to Republicans implementing abortion policies off the charts of what most Americans believe in.
If Haley had been the GOP candidate she would be measuring the Oval Office drapes now (provided she didn't leak too many Trump voters to RFK Jr). Trump and Vance are the main reason Harris could still win, narrowly.
I doubt she will be more than a 1 term President if she does though
Well, it depends, doesn't it?
Assume Harris wins.
Now, will the Republicans find a Haley like character to lead them into the 2028 Presidential Election, or will it be Don Jr?
Which of those do you think would have the better chance of defeating Harris in 2028?
I suspect that many of Trump's most fervent supporters might be reluctant to vote for someone they'd deride as a RINO.
If Harris' poll numbers are bad I doubt she runs again though Haley would likely be the GOP's best shot but as you say she is considered too RINO. She probably would have won this year if the GOP nominee
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
Should you also need a license to cross a road as a pedestrian?
No as pedestrians if they hit a car, van, lorry or indeed a bike will always come off worst.
They would be advised to read the Highway Code though
It's very much 50/50 with cyclists vs pedestrians, the cyclists of my acquaintance who've collided with pedestrians after they've walked across them have come off worse. The result of trying to take avoiding action and going over the handlebars, cyclists are best advised to hit pedestrians who step out on them full on.
Anyway, no surprise to see you take the kneejerk evidence-free position on reducing road deaths. You could eliminate all road deaths caused by cyclists and most years that would reduce road deaths by zero. However start actively policing false number plates, lack of MOTs and insurance, with the byproduct of sweeping up disqualified drivers, then it might make a difference.
You could do the latter too but I have yet to hear of a cyclist killed by being hit by a pedestrian, there are plenty of cases now though of pedestrians being killed or seriously injured after being hit by a cyclist
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
Should you also need a license to cross a road as a pedestrian?
No as pedestrians if they hit a car, van, lorry or indeed a bike will always come off worst.
They would be advised to read the Highway Code though
It's very much 50/50 with cyclists vs pedestrians, the cyclists of my acquaintance who've collided with pedestrians after they've walked across them have come off worse. The result of trying to take avoiding action and going over the handlebars, cyclists are best advised to hit pedestrians who step out on them full on.
Anyway, no surprise to see you take the kneejerk evidence-free position on reducing road deaths. You could eliminate all road deaths caused by cyclists and most years that would reduce road deaths by zero. However start actively policing false number plates, lack of MOTs and insurance, with the byproduct of sweeping up disqualified drivers, then it might make a difference.
You could do the latter too but I have yet to hear of a cyclist killed by being hit by a pedestrian, there are plenty of cases now though of pedestrians being killed or seriously injured after being hit by a cyclist
You also can’t mandate that cyclists follow speed limits because not all bikes have a speedometer and good luck making that mandatory
You can, speedometers on bikes should be mandatory and we can certainly use speed cameras to catch cyclists doing say over 20mph or 30mph in a 20mph or 30mph speed limit residential area
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
80% of cyclists already hold such a licence, in line with the population in general.
Bikeability for children (formerly cycle proficiency) was cut by the Conservatives, with only half of kids outside London getting the training.
Not 100% and a driving licence is not the same as a cycle licence and cycling proficiency should really be for residential streets and country paths not A roads where a full cycling licence should be required and a test passed before going on
Tying the world up in red tape to sort a problem that by and large does not exist.
Similarly with third party insurance which most people have under their contents or household cover.
it is hardly red tape to ensure cyclists must pass a theory test on the Highway Code and a practical test on the main road like drivers do before they are allowed on an A road and to ensure they respect pedestrians
It is because bikes do not weigh over a ton and travel at 60 mph and as a consequence deaths and serious injury is very rare on a bike. However the opposite is true for a car or truck hence a test and licence is needed.
Where do you want to draw the line? Do I need to take a test and get a licence for walking down the pavement because that is where you are going with this.
No as pedestrians don't walk on motorways or even A roads except at traffic islands
Cyclists don't cycle on motorways either.
They do on main road A roads
And pedestrians walk down them also. All the time.
You are going around in circles here. You made a distinction between cyclists and pedestrians on Motorways and A roads neither of which holds up. Neither use motorways and both use A roads. They are no different, so do pedestrians need a licence then?
Pedestrians rarely walk on A roads, most of the time they walk on pavements, in residential streets or on rural B roads
We are getting really silly here and I'm sure you must have seen a lot of the countryside but neither pedestrians nor cyclists tend to use major A roads like say the A3 or the A12 (I drive along both a lot and have never seen a cyclist ever because you would be mad to cycle along them). When it comes to normal A roads you get a lot of cyclists and guess what you get a lot of pedestrians as well. They cross them all the time and step on them to pass people and cars parked on the kerb by twats and where there are no pavements they walk down them.
Honestly this is dancing on the top of a pin head.
It is totally mad to licence cyclists or bikes. You are opening a whole can of worms:
At what age do you take your test? Before that does a 5 year old have a provisional licence? Who tests all these people? Can you lose your licence or get it endorsed? Are you going to mandate third party insurance? Most household policies cover 3rd party for non motorised vehicles, but what if you rent a house. Not sure you can take out 3rd party liability that is not associated with another type of insurance unless it is for something like a motor vehicle or boat as it is not financially viable. It is usually a giveaway. How is the bike number plate going to work? What part of the bike constitutes the bike? The frame I suppose as all the other bits are easily changed. Is the Government going to hold a register of all of these. When you take your bike off the road will you SORN it? Will you notify them when you scrap it or sell it? To cover all these costs will you need a road tax? Will it need an MOT?
Where are you going with this?
And the next move will to do all the above for each pair of shoes you buy as a pedestrian.
We are in La La land.
On third party, my current bike insurance (for theft etc) throws it in as standard, but you can also through the same company get only 3rd party bike insurance - just checked and £1m is £16.21, £2m £20.93 and £5m £22.42. Not sure who buys that without insuring the bike (it was standard on my cover, which covered bike and accessories and some costs for me in case of bike problems, taxi etc for ~£40).
And the point of that - well, that it exists, I guess. Not sure who buys it, though, if anyone! Most of that is admin fees, I expect.
The only viable way to do bike licensing is to chip us all (as in, the whole population) and adjust traffic enforcement cameras to identify infringers via the chip, I guess. Maybe automatic buttock recognition cameras for the MAMILs...
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
Should you also need a license to cross a road as a pedestrian?
No as pedestrians if they hit a car, van, lorry or indeed a bike will always come off worst.
They would be advised to read the Highway Code though
It's very much 50/50 with cyclists vs pedestrians, the cyclists of my acquaintance who've collided with pedestrians after they've walked across them have come off worse. The result of trying to take avoiding action and going over the handlebars, cyclists are best advised to hit pedestrians who step out on them full on.
Anyway, no surprise to see you take the kneejerk evidence-free position on reducing road deaths. You could eliminate all road deaths caused by cyclists and most years that would reduce road deaths by zero. However start actively policing false number plates, lack of MOTs and insurance, with the byproduct of sweeping up disqualified drivers, then it might make a difference.
You could do the latter too but I have yet to hear of a cyclist killed by being hit by a pedestrian, there are plenty of cases now though of pedestrians being killed or seriously injured after being hit by a cyclist
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
What's seriously objectionable about your comments is your repeated claims that you know posters minds better than they know themselves. That's just twattery.
I'm sure most would prefer Trump to lose but the Brits are known for their pessimism so the numbers aren't surprising.
I'd be surprised though if most wouldn't try to be objective when scoring the debate.
We're not directly involved so all we have is the kudos of correctly predicting the result or joining the ....damuses
It would be quite worrying if there weren't a strong PB consensus hoping (as opposed to predicting) that Donald Trump loses the election. Certainly that wouldn't be a place I'd want to spend much time in. But we do have half a dozen or so posters who'd rather Trump won. That's ok because if it were zero it would smack of 'gated community' and get a touch boring. So all in all, yes, a tick for PB on this topic of WH24.
I think only five and one of them has only 'come out' today. But credit for batting in such difficult conditions.....Sandpit, Topping (NEW) Leon, Darkage and Willy Glenn......... (does this count as doxxing?)
I wondered on here a few days ago what would happen to the Republicans after Trump lost the election. On 'The Rest is Politics US' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmvGyQlHRE4 Katty Kay answered that they would probably persist with the same strategy, possibly with Tucker Carlson replacing Trump. She reckons it takes approx 20 years for populist movements to die. Later Anthony Scaramucci predicted that Trump would not challenge the result because he would be sentenced to jail for his existing court case. Instead he would try to negotiate 'no jail time for a former President'.
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
Should you also need a license to cross a road as a pedestrian?
No as pedestrians if they hit a car, van, lorry or indeed a bike will always come off worst.
They would be advised to read the Highway Code though
It's very much 50/50 with cyclists vs pedestrians, the cyclists of my acquaintance who've collided with pedestrians after they've walked across them have come off worse. The result of trying to take avoiding action and going over the handlebars, cyclists are best advised to hit pedestrians who step out on them full on.
Anyway, no surprise to see you take the kneejerk evidence-free position on reducing road deaths. You could eliminate all road deaths caused by cyclists and most years that would reduce road deaths by zero. However start actively policing false number plates, lack of MOTs and insurance, with the byproduct of sweeping up disqualified drivers, then it might make a difference.
You could do the latter too but I have yet to hear of a cyclist killed by being hit by a pedestrian, there are plenty of cases now though of pedestrians being killed or seriously injured after being hit by a cyclist
That was a travesty. She should never have been convicted.
I can't remember who it was, but some lovely poster on here was *convinced* that that stretch of pavement was a cycle path. Which it wasn't, either in reality or practically. And I should know, as I've been down it a fair few times.
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
Also pedestrians should have to pass a test before being allowed to walk on main roads
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
80% of cyclists already hold such a licence, in line with the population in general.
Bikeability for children (formerly cycle proficiency) was cut by the Conservatives, with only half of kids outside London getting the training.
Not 100% and a driving licence is not the same as a cycle licence and cycling proficiency should really be for residential streets and country paths not A roads where a full cycling licence should be required and a test passed before going on
Tying the world up in red tape to sort a problem that by and large does not exist.
Similarly with third party insurance which most people have under their contents or household cover.
it is hardly red tape to ensure cyclists must pass a theory test on the Highway Code and a practical test on the main road like drivers do before they are allowed on an A road and to ensure they respect pedestrians
It is because bikes do not weigh over a ton and travel at 60 mph and as a consequence deaths and serious injury is very rare on a bike. However the opposite is true for a car or truck hence a test and licence is needed.
Where do you want to draw the line? Do I need to take a test and get a licence for walking down the pavement because that is where you are going with this.
No as pedestrians don't walk on motorways or even A roads except at traffic islands
Do you know what an A road is ?
There are myriad A roads.
From the A1 (which even when not designated a motorway is a very fast road), to city A roads that may be a dual carriage way, and city A roads that will have traffic lights and pedestrian crossings every couple of hundred yards & be limited to 20 mph at crtain times and places.
You will see pedestrians walking all over city A roads - unless of course you don't drive or cycle and have no idea.
Another one for @viewcode 's scrapbook. And a quite persuasive thesis.
The New Right Has a Blueprint for Seizing Power. Is JD Vance Executing It? There may be more to the alliance between MAGA and the New Right than political convenience. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/13/jd-vance-new-right-political-movement-00177203 ... In fact, Vance embodies an archetype that has been theorized about at length in New Right-adjacent books and podcasts (many of which Vance has read and listened to). By forging an alliance between the elite “New Right” and the MAGA masses, Vance, according to this reading, could serve as the leader of a new movement to institute an illiberal and explicitly reactionary political order. Though adopting the rhetoric of conservatism populism, this new order would be a fundamentally elitist one: It would expel America’s current ruling elite in order to replace it with a new, more conservative one, drawn from the ranks of the New Right.
The details of this plan differ between the various writers and thinkers that have influenced Vance — people like the Notre Dame political theorist Patrick Deneen, the internet philosopher Curtis Yarvin and the Silicon Valley venture capitalist Peter Thiel. But taken together, their prescriptions amount to a kind of three-step plan for the New Right’s project: Identify a member of the New Right elite who can tap into the energies of an ascendant right-wing populist movement, ride those energies to political power, and then carry out a top-down transformation of American society along illiberal lines. It is, in effect, a plan to accomplish through elite rule what even the MAGA movement has failed to accomplish through democratic control: The creation of a social order built around conservative values, even if those values remain broadly unpopular with the American people...
It certainly rises above conspiracy theory, given they're fairly explicit in their aims. And Thiel has funded Vance's entire, brief political career.
Curtis Yarvin is a complete nut, who makes Trump look rational. That he's taken seriously in their circles is telling.
Thank you for that @Nigelb. Believe it or not I do bookmark these (eg "PB-political-Christianity") but I'm not sure I can fit your article into that category: it's more a Project2025 thing.
As for ones I can get done by November, there's the Blob one, one on using a curve to assess predictions, and possibly another one. Then by Dec 31st there's a syntactic analysis of the Cass report, one on growth as a bad indicator. I'll try to get "Solarpunk II" done but I don't know when. Busy, busy, busy...
> Analysis of the Cass report
Are we sure we want to go there? It's been ever so peaceful!
Yes, because i) I promised and ii) it's not what you think. Here's the intro
"The Cass Report was issued in X 2024 after a X-year review. The discussions were usually conducted in somewhat anguished tones by politicians and subject-matter experts, and its advocates and detractors use phrases like "good" and "bad", "scientific" and "discredited", and variations thereof. But very few people discuss what it actually says. Which raises the question: is there a way a non-expert can understand complex documents without being an expert in its subject? I contend that we can using syntactics. Let me explain.
Semantics vs Syntactics Discussions in the political sphere use terms such as "good" and "bad". Such terms are referred to as "semantic" - they have meaning and carry weight. But there is another branch of language called "syntactics": the syntax and structure of language. A syntactic analysis of a document does not need to know anything about the subject of a document, just the syntax of the language it is written in..."
The article will then consider concepts such as words, phrases, sentences etc, build a wordle, introduce the concept of a packet and hence construct a flow chart, look at things like statistically improbable phrases, and even (if I have time) check the structure to see if the writing style is characteristic of a single individual or more than one. Hopefully it will provide the reader a method that they can use to analyse documents quickly
About time, you should also need a cycling licence and pass a test to ride a bike on a main road as you do to drive a car or lorry or van or ride a motorbike
80% of cyclists already hold such a licence, in line with the population in general.
Bikeability for children (formerly cycle proficiency) was cut by the Conservatives, with only half of kids outside London getting the training.
Not 100% and a driving licence is not the same as a cycle licence and cycling proficiency should really be for residential streets and country paths not A roads where a full cycling licence should be required and a test passed before going on
Tying the world up in red tape to sort a problem that by and large does not exist.
Similarly with third party insurance which most people have under their contents or household cover.
it is hardly red tape to ensure cyclists must pass a theory test on the Highway Code and a practical test on the main road like drivers do before they are allowed on an A road and to ensure they respect pedestrians
It is because bikes do not weigh over a ton and travel at 60 mph and as a consequence deaths and serious injury is very rare on a bike. However the opposite is true for a car or truck hence a test and licence is needed.
Where do you want to draw the line? Do I need to take a test and get a licence for walking down the pavement because that is where you are going with this.
No as pedestrians don't walk on motorways or even A roads except at traffic islands
Do you know what an A road is ?
There are myriad A roads.
From the A1 (which even when not designated a motorway is a very fast road), to city A roads that may be a dual carriage way, and city A roads that will have traffic lights and pedestrian crossings every couple of hundred yards & be limited to 20 mph at crtain times and places.
You will see pedestrians walking all over city A roads - unless of course you don't drive or cycle and have no idea.
Although it is not 'walking in the road'; some stretches of the A1 have pavement alongside; not just in London, but from St Neots to Sandy and, as I saw today from Buckden to Little Paxton.
The A1 in that area *really* needs bypassing, with houses directly on the route...
Comments
Fact that it is especially desert-looking in AUGUST, should NOT come as a shock let alone a surprise.
Tip for PB's Parapathetic Traveller - less arid the higher you go, for example northeastward up to Banff (pronounced "BAN-fuh-fuh" by old fans of "F Troop") via Revelstoke and Glacier National Park CN (NOT to be confused with Glacier National Park US.
Though DO be on the lookout for forest fires. AND do NOT throw your fucking cigarette butts out the freaking window!
numbers aren't surprising.
I'd be surprised though if most wouldn't try to be objective when scoring the debate.
We're not directly involved so all we have is the kudos of correctly predicting the result or joining the ....damuses
Fascinating.
And yet more reasons to hope to god these people do not win in November.
And also yet more reasons why they are "weird".
Honestly this is dancing on the top of a pin head.
It is totally mad to licence cyclists or bikes. You are opening a whole can of worms:
At what age do you take your test?
Before that does a 5 year old have a provisional licence?
Who tests all these people?
Can you lose your licence or get it endorsed?
Are you going to mandate third party insurance? Most household policies cover 3rd party for non motorised vehicles, but what if you rent a house. Not sure you can take out 3rd party liability that is not associated with another type of insurance unless it is for something like a motor vehicle or boat as it is not financially viable. It is usually a giveaway.
How is the bike number plate going to work? What part of the bike constitutes the bike? The frame I suppose as all the other bits are easily changed. Is the Government going to hold a register of all of these.
When you take your bike off the road will you SORN it?
Will you notify them when you scrap it or sell it?
To cover all these costs will you need a road tax?
Will it need an MOT?
Where are you going with this?
And the next move will to do all the above for each pair of shoes you buy as a pedestrian.
We are in La La land.
It was a beautiful summers day and fantastic settling - the wine was good too
Are we sure we want to go there? It's been ever so peaceful!
Assume Harris wins.
Now, will the Republicans find a Haley like character to lead them into the 2028 Presidential Election, or will it be Don Jr?
https://x.com/BarbaraHershey8/status/1834254492281569313/photo/1
It would then take him to lose too and probably another GOP presidential election defeat after that for the GOP to consider a more centrist candidate like Haley.
You can lose your licence or get it endorsed. 3rd party insurance for injury to pedestrians should be mandatory.
Motorbikes have number plates. Yes it will need to have an MOT and they could pay road tax too and help fund road maintenance.
Anyway, no surprise to see you take the kneejerk evidence-free position on reducing road deaths. You could eliminate all road deaths caused by cyclists and most years that would reduce road deaths by zero. However start actively policing false number plates, lack of MOTs and insurance, with the byproduct of sweeping up disqualified drivers, then it might make a difference.
I suspect that many of Trump's most fervent supporters might be reluctant to vote for someone they'd deride as a RINO.
His handlers must have persuaded him he is Full of Win.
And keeping him in the dark on the polling.
Dozens who used Horizon's predecessor Capture claim they were wrongfully accused of stealing money from their Post Office branches."
https://news.sky.com/story/investigation-into-potential-second-post-office-scandal-will-be-positive-for-sub-postmasters-13213974
FYI, Okanogan County is largest in area in WA State (5,266.2 square miles) almost the size of the State of Connecticutt (5,543 sq mi).
https://news.sky.com/story/woman-who-caused-cyclist-to-fall-into-road-in-huntingdon-jailed-for-manslaughter-12823901#
The cyclist was killed when she hit a car after falling into the road
What odds will you give me on him losing (PV/EC)?
And the point of that - well, that it exists, I guess. Not sure who buys it, though, if anyone! Most of that is admin fees, I expect.
The only viable way to do bike licensing is to chip us all (as in, the whole population) and adjust traffic enforcement cameras to identify infringers via the chip, I guess. Maybe automatic buttock recognition cameras for the MAMILs...
NEW THREAD
AND NO, I AM NOT EVEN REMOTELY SORRY
(The key point for me was whether contact was made - the conviction was overturned on that point, I believe)
On 'The Rest is Politics US' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmvGyQlHRE4 Katty Kay answered that they would probably persist with the same strategy, possibly with Tucker Carlson replacing Trump. She reckons it takes approx 20 years for populist movements to die. Later Anthony Scaramucci predicted that Trump would not challenge the result because he would be sentenced to jail for his existing court case. Instead he would try to negotiate 'no jail time for a former President'.
I can't remember who it was, but some lovely poster on here was *convinced* that that stretch of pavement was a cycle path. Which it wasn't, either in reality or practically. And I should know, as I've been down it a fair few times.
There are myriad A roads.
From the A1 (which even when not designated a motorway is a very fast road), to city A roads that may be a dual carriage way, and city A roads that will have traffic lights and pedestrian crossings every couple of hundred yards & be limited to 20 mph at crtain times and places.
You will see pedestrians walking all over city A roads - unless of course you don't drive or cycle and have no idea.
"The Cass Report was issued in X 2024 after a X-year review. The discussions were usually conducted in somewhat anguished tones by politicians and subject-matter experts, and its advocates and detractors use phrases like "good" and "bad", "scientific" and "discredited", and variations thereof. But very few people discuss what it actually says. Which raises the question: is there a way a non-expert can understand complex documents without being an expert in its subject? I contend that we can using syntactics. Let me explain.
Semantics vs Syntactics
Discussions in the political sphere use terms such as "good" and "bad". Such terms are referred to as "semantic" - they have meaning and carry weight. But there is another branch of language called "syntactics": the syntax and structure of language. A syntactic analysis of a document does not need to know anything about the subject of a document, just the syntax of the language it is written in..."
The article will then consider concepts such as words, phrases, sentences etc, build a wordle, introduce the concept of a packet and hence construct a flow chart, look at things like statistically improbable phrases, and even (if I have time) check the structure to see if the writing style is characteristic of a single individual or more than one. Hopefully it will provide the reader a method that they can use to analyse documents quickly
The A1 in that area *really* needs bypassing, with houses directly on the route...