It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
+1
Also agreed. I think the Musk Twitter purchase should be seen in this light too. It is not an economic business transaction but a geopolitical one for someone who wants to be a world king.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
How does the US political system so often turn out these very close results - in terms of national vote share (ignoring the exaggeration of the Electoral College) - when almost every other country sees its parties rise and fall far more dramatically?
Polarisation. This wasn't the case under say Reagan, people were winning by healthy margins.
Lots of people now are locked in, they will only vote Republican never Democrat and vice versa, or sit on their hands. A large chunk are still voting for x, despite the candidate and you don't really have the opportunity to do a Lib Dem protest vote.
The Libertarian Party’s total fcukup in their candidate selection, gave room for Ron Paul to endorse Trump. That was possibly worth 1%, but a vital 1%.
With Jon Tester having been defeated the traditional populist Dem wing in the Plains and Rockies is pretty much extinct.
As is the old KKK Dem wing in the southern states.
Likewise the liberal wing of the GOP in the north east now consists of little more than Gov Phil Scott of Vermont.
But the southern unionist hillbilly GOP wing in Appalachia - long the least important of the party 'wings' - is perhaps now the now dominant political philosophy in the country.
Thinking about it, I am relieved the result was so clearcut and quick to be known. There is absolutely no room for doubt: the US wanted Trump; it was a positive vote for massive change. This level of clarity is important. You play the hand you are given and we know very clearly what is in front of us. That is a good thing.
And even though it doesn't actually matter for the election, if Trump does win the PV (looking pretty likely now) it will take away one thing that is opponents would use to attempt to delegitimise him.
Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?
Probably because you haven't a history of repaying debt. I always pay off in full monthly, but what they're looking for is repaying actual debt. One's credit history would be better if one stayed behind a bit.
Doubtless someone else has already described this better than I could.
Quite often if one of your other cards is branded but run underneath by Barclaycard, they will not take you on as it may be limited to one 'Barclaycard' per person.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
Yes - so actually not really a polling failure at all? Within MOE?
The polling and models were all fine. I think we got lead up the garden path with early female voting. Nothing more to it than women getting things done ahead of time and men tending to leave things till the last minute, to grossly stereotype and oversimplify. The outlier selzer poll ( Which I think was a rare true outlier) led us up an abortion garden path that frankly looked plausible with the data as it was. But the evidence was there in front of us with the voting registration data being particularly GOP heavy that we perhaps should have paid more attention to rather than the "snorkellers" 😂
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Vance will win it, easily
He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.
Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.
PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
I didn’t notice that, apologies
But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB
Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough
Fair enough. I personally do not care if white British become a minority (they are likely to remain a plurality in any case). If you, Nigerians or the Japanese don't want that, fair enough. But for me the content of a person's character is more important than the colour of their skin.
I have this theory that one of the drivers of history is that children grow up to believe the convenient stories that adults tell them about the world. In the 1890s people talked about Empire as a civilising mission, as a way to help other people towards being independent. Fifty years later Atlee was in part motivated towards Indian independence as a fulfillment of this historic mission.
Similarly my generation grew up being told, apparently by people who did not actually believe this to be the case, that everyone is different and that respecting each other's differences were correct and moral things to do. My generation will tell new lies (in the sense that a lie is a thing that we do not truly believe) and so on and so on.
Can you blame me if I don't care whether white Britons become a minority?
Merely arguing about this gets me banned. As does discussing “that technology”. Or posting more than 1 photo
And so on and so on
I realise this is a perverse form of flattery. I am simultaneously smart, exceedingly articulate and notably well informed, and possessed of no false modesty; also I have a lot of free time which enables me to beat up people on this site (yay for me!), but also allows me to dominate discussions (and I can genuinely see how that irritates others)
See. I’m also ultra self aware. So I’m happy to sometimes back off certain debates in the interests of general decorum. Including this debate
My round!
I think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
All those extra women clearly didn’t vote the way we hoped.
As someone on Twitter said last night, perhaps women buy eggs and bread more often than they get abortions.
Also, I'm not sure the sort of religiosity which so abhors abortions is confined to men.
Correct. The Christian conservative woman group in the US is way bigger than it would be in the UK, and they’re all voting against abortions.
The “pro-choice” campaign of the Clinton-era was replaced by a repulsive-to-many pro-abortion campaign, that says abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible.
It seems to me that we now live in an oligarchs' world who rule in concert with favoured "big men" with whom they have Faustian pacts. This is as true of the US as it is of Russia and China. And, as we see, smaller countries like Georgia are little more than playthings of second-division oligarchs. We are governed by them, receive our news through them, and they totally influence the process by which the leaders are selected. They themselves live in a completely different universe where they have licence to do pretty well anything they want - so long as the pact holds. The UK, still, because of our history, culture, and institutions, looks increasingly like a kind of leftover relic of a bygone era. Thank god. We should enjoy it while we can.
+1
Also agreed. I think the Musk Twitter purchase should be seen in this light too. It is not an economic business transaction but a geopolitical one for someone who wants to be a world king.
And it wasn't all his own money. Fellow billionaires and the Saudis provided a good deal.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
How does the US political system so often turn out these very close results - in terms of national vote share (ignoring the exaggeration of the Electoral College) - when almost every other country sees its parties rise and fall far more dramatically?
Polarisation. This wasn't the case under say Reagan, people were winning by healthy margins.
Lots of people now are locked in, they will only vote Republican never Democrat and vice versa, or sit on their hands. A large chunk are still voting for x, despite the candidate and you don't really have the opportunity to do a Lib Dem protest vote.
The exit poll said 80% of people had decided their vote by the end of September. I think it was only 2-3% who were still deciding in the last few days of the election.
That it is relatively static is more understandable than that it has settled at close to 50:50
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
How does the US political system so often turn out these very close results - in terms of national vote share (ignoring the exaggeration of the Electoral College) - when almost every other country sees its parties rise and fall far more dramatically?
The electoral college bias has changed somewhat this election. We await fuller results to see what it is but I think it's pretty much non existent now
Twice during Sir Keir Starmer’s first dinner with Donald Trump at the end of September, the former president turned to the prime minister and said: “You’re a liberal, so we won’t always agree but we can work together.” At the end of the meal, he looked at Starmer and said: “You and I are friends.” Starmer’s team breathed a sigh of relief. With America set to choose a new commander-in-chief, personal relationships could define the future of the transatlantic alliance.
An even bigger hit with Trump than the buttoned-up Starmer, however, was David Lammy, the foreign secretary. Lammy laughed in the right places at Trump’s jokes and the former president personally offered him a second portion of food, a moment of both levity and symbolism as a man accused of neo-fascist tendencies bonded with the descendant of slaves.
And whilst I do not wish for or want to predict a souring in US/UK relations, I would mention it came before Starmer then sanctioned the activities of Labour staffers door knocking for Kamala.
Labour and the Democrats are sister parties and it is totally normal for them to help each other out and has always happened.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
Just talk me through that.
Are you just referring to the PV? Trump over 3% ahead therefore 1.5% swing?
If so, you are not allowing for the thinking that Harris needed a - what - 2 to 3%? - lead in the PV to have any chance of winning the Electoral College.
If the above is right, Trump was ahead more than you say.
Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?
Probably because you haven't a history of repaying debt. I always pay off in full monthly, but what they're looking for is repaying actual debt. One's credit history would be better if one stayed behind a bit.
Doubtless someone else has already described this better than I could.
Quite often if one of your other cards is branded but run underneath by Barclaycard, they will not take you on as it may be limited to one 'Barclaycard' per person.
In the US they want to see multiple things: - multiple types of credit (credit cards, car loans, mortgages, home equity loans, equipment loans) - no late payments - age of accounts (switching banks or CC companies frequently hurts) - low overall credit to earnings
Probably not a full list, but it's reasonably diverse.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
How does the US political system so often turn out these very close results - in terms of national vote share (ignoring the exaggeration of the Electoral College) - when almost every other country sees its parties rise and fall far more dramatically?
The electoral college bias has changed somewhat this election. We await fuller results to see what it is but I think it's pretty much non existent now
The swings in the four big states were much higher than in the swing states.
Trump's vote will be pretty inefficient geographically.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Vance will win it, easily
He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.
Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.
PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
I didn’t notice that, apologies
But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB
Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough
Fair enough. I personally do not care if white British become a minority (they are likely to remain a plurality in any case). If you, Nigerians or the Japanese don't want that, fair enough. But for me the content of a person's character is more important than the colour of their skin.
I have this theory that one of the drivers of history is that children grow up to believe the convenient stories that adults tell them about the world. In the 1890s people talked about Empire as a civilising mission, as a way to help other people towards being independent. Fifty years later Atlee was in part motivated towards Indian independence as a fulfillment of this historic mission.
Similarly my generation grew up being told, apparently by people who did not actually believe this to be the case, that everyone is different and that respecting each other's differences were correct and moral things to do. My generation will tell new lies (in the sense that a lie is a thing that we do not truly believe) and so on and so on.
Can you blame me if I don't care whether white Britons become a minority?
Merely arguing about this gets me banned. As does discussing “that technology”. Or posting more than 1 photo
And so on and so on
I realise this is a perverse form of flattery. I am simultaneously smart, exceedingly articulate and notably well informed, and possessed of no false modesty; also I have a lot of free time which enables me to beat up people on this site (yay for me!), but also allows me to dominate discussions (and I can genuinely see how that irritates others)
See. I’m also ultra self aware. So I’m happy to sometimes back off certain debates in the interests of general decorum. Including this debate
My round!
I think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Vance will win it, easily
He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.
Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.
PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
I didn’t notice that, apologies
But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB
Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough
Fair enough. I personally do not care if white British become a minority (they are likely to remain a plurality in any case). If you, Nigerians or the Japanese don't want that, fair enough. But for me the content of a person's character is more important than the colour of their skin.
I have this theory that one of the drivers of history is that children grow up to believe the convenient stories that adults tell them about the world. In the 1890s people talked about Empire as a civilising mission, as a way to help other people towards being independent. Fifty years later Atlee was in part motivated towards Indian independence as a fulfillment of this historic mission.
Similarly my generation grew up being told, apparently by people who did not actually believe this to be the case, that everyone is different and that respecting each other's differences were correct and moral things to do. My generation will tell new lies (in the sense that a lie is a thing that we do not truly believe) and so on and so on.
Can you blame me if I don't care whether white Britons become a minority?
Merely arguing about this gets me banned. As does discussing “that technology”. Or posting more than 1 photo
And so on and so on
I realise this is a perverse form of flattery. I am simultaneously smart, exceedingly articulate and notably well informed, and possessed of no false modesty; also I have a lot of free time which enables me to beat up people on this site (yay for me!), but also allows me to dominate discussions (and I can genuinely see how that irritates others)
See. I’m also ultra self aware. So I’m happy to sometimes back off certain debates in the interests of general decorum. Including this debate
My round!
I think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
I suppose we all think the things we say are right, or we wouldn't say those things.
My wife frequently complains that "you always think you're right" to which I always say "of course I do, any other position would be completely illogical." It turns out that this is not a helpful response, in her view.
I think what people appreciate is other people being interested in why they think they are right.
I do think I can sometimes elicit more interesting responses by asking questions than by simply stating a contrary view.
Twice during Sir Keir Starmer’s first dinner with Donald Trump at the end of September, the former president turned to the prime minister and said: “You’re a liberal, so we won’t always agree but we can work together.” At the end of the meal, he looked at Starmer and said: “You and I are friends.” Starmer’s team breathed a sigh of relief. With America set to choose a new commander-in-chief, personal relationships could define the future of the transatlantic alliance.
An even bigger hit with Trump than the buttoned-up Starmer, however, was David Lammy, the foreign secretary. Lammy laughed in the right places at Trump’s jokes and the former president personally offered him a second portion of food, a moment of both levity and symbolism as a man accused of neo-fascist tendencies bonded with the descendant of slaves.
And whilst I do not wish for or want to predict a souring in US/UK relations, I would mention it came before Starmer then sanctioned the activities of Labour staffers door knocking for Kamala.
Labour and the Democrats are sister parties and it is totally normal for them to help each other out and has always happened.
OTOH, the Democrats are NOT actually part of the Progressive Alliance.
The Republicans and the UK Tories are both members of the International Democracy Union (renamed from International Democrat Union).
With Jon Tester having been defeated the traditional populist Dem wing in the Plains and Rockies is pretty much extinct.
As is the old KKK Dem wing in the southern states.
Likewise the liberal wing of the GOP in the north east now consists of little more than Gov Phil Scott of Vermont.
But the southern unionist hillbilly GOP wing in Appalachia - long the least important of the party 'wings' - is perhaps now the now dominant political philosophy in the country.
Is it, or is it just a convenient skin for the new oligarchs ?
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
How does the US political system so often turn out these very close results - in terms of national vote share (ignoring the exaggeration of the Electoral College) - when almost every other country sees its parties rise and fall far more dramatically?
Polarisation. This wasn't the case under say Reagan, people were winning by healthy margins.
Lots of people now are locked in, they will only vote Republican never Democrat and vice versa, or sit on their hands. A large chunk are still voting for x, despite the candidate and you don't really have the opportunity to do a Lib Dem protest vote.
The exit poll said 80% of people had decided their vote by the end of September. I think it was only 2-3% who were still deciding in the last few days of the election.
That it is relatively static is more understandable than that it has settled at close to 50:50
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
Here that result would take you to a hung Parliament and a week or two of negotiations leading to a weak coalition.
That's yet another problem with the Presidential system - it's winner take all, whether the win is by one EC vote or 400. Our system is much better in that respect.
Our system has given untramelled power to a party polling under 34%.
Matt Walsh from The Daily Wire has bought up a significant amount of MSNBC advertising today, for his documentary “Am I Racist?” Which discusses in depth how the DEI industry has f***ed up America.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
Just talk me through that.
Are you just referring to the PV? Trump over 3% ahead therefore 1.5% swing?
If so, you are not allowing for the thinking that Harris needed a - what - 2 to 3%? - lead in the PV to have any chance of winning the Electoral College.
If the above is right, Trump was ahead more than you say.
That was the received wisdom going in, but it turned out not to be true - she lost most of the swing states by less than she lost the PV:
Wisconsin she was down by just 0.9% PA by 3% (so 1.5% would just about have done it) GA by 2% NC by 3% MI by 2%
So if she'd had a uniform 1.6% swing, she'd be looking quite pretty.
Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?
Probably because you haven't a history of repaying debt. I always pay off in full monthly, but what they're looking for is repaying actual debt. One's credit history would be better if one stayed behind a bit.
Doubtless someone else has already described this better than I could.
Quite often if one of your other cards is branded but run underneath by Barclaycard, they will not take you on as it may be limited to one 'Barclaycard' per person.
In the US they want to see multiple things: - multiple types of credit (credit cards, car loans, mortgages, home equity loans, equipment loans) - no late payments - age of accounts (switching banks or CC companies frequently hurts) - low overall credit to earnings
Probably not a full list, but it's reasonably diverse.
These credit rating agencies are absolute bastards. You can never really get to the bottom of their involvement in your life, nor can you ever fix the complete nonsense that they perpetuate about you.
Some years ago I worked for a company that used one of them for some reason or other, and looked myself up. Instead of being pretty outstanding (which is the truth), they had me on some lowly rating. I worked out that it was because they were mixing my finances with those of a neighbour.
I've also recently had a utility company randomly assign me to a bill at a neighbours flat.
I'd say something like 'evisceration is too good for them', but I think that's far too kind.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Vance will win it, easily
He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.
Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.
PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
I didn’t notice that, apologies
But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB
Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough
Fair enough. I personally do not care if white British become a minority (they are likely to remain a plurality in any case). If you, Nigerians or the Japanese don't want that, fair enough. But for me the content of a person's character is more important than the colour of their skin.
I have this theory that one of the drivers of history is that children grow up to believe the convenient stories that adults tell them about the world. In the 1890s people talked about Empire as a civilising mission, as a way to help other people towards being independent. Fifty years later Atlee was in part motivated towards Indian independence as a fulfillment of this historic mission.
Similarly my generation grew up being told, apparently by people who did not actually believe this to be the case, that everyone is different and that respecting each other's differences were correct and moral things to do. My generation will tell new lies (in the sense that a lie is a thing that we do not truly believe) and so on and so on.
Can you blame me if I don't care whether white Britons become a minority?
Merely arguing about this gets me banned. As does discussing “that technology”. Or posting more than 1 photo
And so on and so on
I realise this is a perverse form of flattery. I am simultaneously smart, exceedingly articulate and notably well informed, and possessed of no false modesty; also I have a lot of free time which enables me to beat up people on this site (yay for me!), but also allows me to dominate discussions (and I can genuinely see how that irritates others)
See. I’m also ultra self aware. So I’m happy to sometimes back off certain debates in the interests of general decorum. Including this debate
My round!
I think one of the reasons you are banned from 'discussing' certain things is that you don't want to discuss, you merely want to continually assert that you are right.
I suppose we all think the things we say are right, or we wouldn't say those things.
My wife frequently complains that "you always think you're right" to which I always say "of course I do, any other position would be completely illogical." It turns out that this is not a helpful response, in her view.
I think what people appreciate is other people being interested in why they think they are right.
I do think I can sometimes elicit more interesting responses by asking questions than by simply stating a contrary view.
DecisionDesk now thinks the House will be 223-212 in favour of the Republicans, having thought overnight that it might go the other way. That’s a better margin than they have already.
With Jon Tester having been defeated the traditional populist Dem wing in the Plains and Rockies is pretty much extinct.
As is the old KKK Dem wing in the southern states.
Likewise the liberal wing of the GOP in the north east now consists of little more than Gov Phil Scott of Vermont.
But the southern unionist hillbilly GOP wing in Appalachia - long the least important of the party 'wings' - is perhaps now the now dominant political philosophy in the country.
Is it, or is it just a convenient skin for the new oligarchs ?
No, they are different and both trying to use the other for their own benefit.
Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?
Probably because you haven't a history of repaying debt. I always pay off in full monthly, but what they're looking for is repaying actual debt. One's credit history would be better if one stayed behind a bit.
Doubtless someone else has already described this better than I could.
Quite often if one of your other cards is branded but run underneath by Barclaycard, they will not take you on as it may be limited to one 'Barclaycard' per person.
In the US they want to see multiple things: - multiple types of credit (credit cards, car loans, mortgages, home equity loans, equipment loans) - no late payments - age of accounts (switching banks or CC companies frequently hurts) - low overall credit to earnings
Probably not a full list, but it's reasonably diverse.
These credit rating agencies are absolute bastards. You can never really get to the bottom of their involvement in your life, nor can you ever fix the complete nonsense that they perpetuate about you.
Some years ago I worked for a company that used one of them for some reason or other, and looked myself up. Instead of being pretty outstanding (which is the truth), they had me on some lowly rating. I worked out that it was because they were mixing my finances with those of a neighbour.
I've also recently had a utility company randomly assign me to a bill at a neighbours flat.
I'd say something like 'evisceration is too good for them', but I think that's far too kind.
I found that they had some random dude in Arizona on my credit report. The real kicker is they would not let me see my credit report because I could not 'correctly' state which addresses I had lived in (as they had that buggers' address as my address of record) Took a report to the police re ID theft to resolve that one.
Twice during Sir Keir Starmer’s first dinner with Donald Trump at the end of September, the former president turned to the prime minister and said: “You’re a liberal, so we won’t always agree but we can work together.” At the end of the meal, he looked at Starmer and said: “You and I are friends.” Starmer’s team breathed a sigh of relief. With America set to choose a new commander-in-chief, personal relationships could define the future of the transatlantic alliance.
An even bigger hit with Trump than the buttoned-up Starmer, however, was David Lammy, the foreign secretary. Lammy laughed in the right places at Trump’s jokes and the former president personally offered him a second portion of food, a moment of both levity and symbolism as a man accused of neo-fascist tendencies bonded with the descendant of slaves.
And whilst I do not wish for or want to predict a souring in US/UK relations, I would mention it came before Starmer then sanctioned the activities of Labour staffers door knocking for Kamala.
Labour and the Democrats are sister parties and it is totally normal for them to help each other out and has always happened.
It seems a weird complaint. Tories have always gone to help Republicans and Democrats. The LDs have helped the Democrats. Farage has helped the Republicans. It has always happened and is reciprocated. The LDs even use the Democrats s/w.
It is as if people didn't know this nor spotted Farage in America.
This is also funny: CNN alalyst Scott Jennings trying to explain what the f*** just happened to a bunch of coastal liberals who all think life is just awesome right now.
"This is a mandate to do what you said you were gonna do. Get the economy working again for regular working-class Americans."
"Fix immigration, try to get crime under control. Try to reduce the chaos in the world. This, this is a mandate from the American people to do that."
"I think I'm interpreting the results tonight as the revenge of just a regular old working-class American, the anonymous American who has been crushed, insulted, condescended to, they're not garbage, they're not Nazis."
Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?
Probably because you haven't a history of repaying debt. I always pay off in full monthly, but what they're looking for is repaying actual debt. One's credit history would be better if one stayed behind a bit.
Doubtless someone else has already described this better than I could.
Quite often if one of your other cards is branded but run underneath by Barclaycard, they will not take you on as it may be limited to one 'Barclaycard' per person.
In the US they want to see multiple things: - multiple types of credit (credit cards, car loans, mortgages, home equity loans, equipment loans) - no late payments - age of accounts (switching banks or CC companies frequently hurts) - low overall credit to earnings
Probably not a full list, but it's reasonably diverse.
These credit rating agencies are absolute bastards. You can never really get to the bottom of their involvement in your life, nor can you ever fix the complete nonsense that they perpetuate about you.
Some years ago I worked for a company that used one of them for some reason or other, and looked myself up. Instead of being pretty outstanding (which is the truth), they had me on some lowly rating. I worked out that it was because they were mixing my finances with those of a neighbour.
I've also recently had a utility company randomly assign me to a bill at a neighbours flat.
I'd say something like 'evisceration is too good for them', but I think that's far too kind.
I get very occasional warning letters from debt collection outfits addressed to the previous occupants (squatters) from 13 years ago. Once someone even turned up at the door. We politely tell them the old residents no longer live here. But I do wonder if that’s why one or two ratings agencies have me on a meh score while others are at full marks.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Vance will win it, easily
He’s confident, articulate, clever and plausible and the western world is swinging right for the next 20-30 years
If not Vance for whatever reason I can see Tulsi being the first female president running under a very broad Republican umbrella depending on what Trump gives her to do in the next 4 years
I imagine Vance winning will be another of @leon's predictions that he will conveniently forget, like all the others highlighted today that he forgot about. I'm surprised he can ever find his house keys.
Please do not ever directly address me again, thank you
Oh come on @leon we get on and banter with one another. Are you going soft or something or just winding me up.
PS I hope you noticed I was one of the few who did not support your ban.
I didn’t notice that, apologies
But if you did kick back against my ban, then Thankyou. It was ridiculous. I was expressing normal human sentiments - and also embracing my white privilege and fragility - albeit ironically. Something which escaped 98% of PB
Anyway, yes, I’m only bantering (bit busy with admin in korea)
Wanting more babies only of the same colour as you is not "expressing normal human sentiments". It's racism.
What I asked for was this: I do not wish the white British to become a racial minority in their own British homeland, no more than the Nigerians would wish to become an ethnic minority in Nigeria nor the Japanese in Japan - and fair enough
The fact you find this “racist” says more about your diseased mind than anything else
Note the wording here: Nigerians in Nigeria. Japanese in Japan. But it's "white British" in Britain. This is racism.
How many Nigerians are not black? And how many Japanese are not yellow (as it were)?
In this country there are millions of people who have a different coloured skin from that of the original inhabitants. I see nothing "racist" about Leon's making a distinction between two groups.
You see nothing racist in saying British babies should be white? That's fucking nuts.
What about "there ain't no black in the union jack"? Just a factual description, right?
I never said anything about what colour British babies should be. Just that some babies are "white", as everybody was 100 years ago; the default position. And others have more pigment in their skin. I don't think that saying that is in any way racist. If a poster on PB wishes to make a distinction between two groups, I do not see that that is inherently racist.
You were defending Leon who said he wanted more white British babies. This is is obviously racist. there's no way it's in some kind of grey area, or 'it depends on the context', and as for your 'make a distinction between the two groups' - 'make a distinction' my hairy arse!
Also not 'everybody' was white 100 years ago. wtf.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
All those extra women clearly didn’t vote the way we hoped.
As someone on Twitter said last night, perhaps women buy eggs and bread more often than they get abortions.
Also, I'm not sure the sort of religiosity which so abhors abortions is confined to men.
Correct. The Christian conservative woman group in the US is way bigger than it would be in the UK, and they’re all voting against abortions.
The “pro-choice” campaign of the Clinton-era was replaced by a repulsive-to-many pro-abortion campaign, that says abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible.
Interesting - I've literally never heard anyone say "abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible" are you sure you haven't lost your mind?
NEWS: I am told by officials that Nye County, one of the larger rurals, had an issue last night and will soon post thousands of votes. This could cost Rosen her Senate seat if not enough Clark ballots make up for it. https://x.com/RalstonReports/status/1854205509534114103
Losing the Nevada senate seat would put paid to the Democrats' hopes of retaking the Senate anytime soon.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
Just talk me through that.
Are you just referring to the PV? Trump over 3% ahead therefore 1.5% swing?
If so, you are not allowing for the thinking that Harris needed a - what - 2 to 3%? - lead in the PV to have any chance of winning the Electoral College.
If the above is right, Trump was ahead more than you say.
That was the received wisdom going in, but it turned out not to be true - she lost most of the swing states by less than she lost the PV:
Wisconsin she was down by just 0.9% PA by 3% (so 1.5% would just about have done it) GA by 2% NC by 3% MI by 2%
So if she'd had a uniform 1.6% swing, she'd be looking quite pretty.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
Just talk me through that.
Are you just referring to the PV? Trump over 3% ahead therefore 1.5% swing?
If so, you are not allowing for the thinking that Harris needed a - what - 2 to 3%? - lead in the PV to have any chance of winning the Electoral College.
If the above is right, Trump was ahead more than you say.
That was the received wisdom going in, but it turned out not to be true - she lost most of the swing states by less than she lost the PV:
Wisconsin she was down by just 0.9% PA by 3% (so 1.5% would just about have done it) GA by 2% NC by 3% MI by 2%
So if she'd had a uniform 1.6% swing, she'd be looking quite pretty.
Surely we don't yet know the popular vote margin?
At the moment 51.0% for Trump v. 47.5% for Harris.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
Here that result would take you to a hung Parliament and a week or two of negotiations leading to a weak coalition.
That's yet another problem with the Presidential system - it's winner take all, whether the win is by one EC vote or 400. Our system is much better in that respect.
Our system has given untramelled power to a party polling under 34%.
You can't legislate a majority of votes into existence where none exists.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
Just talk me through that.
Are you just referring to the PV? Trump over 3% ahead therefore 1.5% swing?
If so, you are not allowing for the thinking that Harris needed a - what - 2 to 3%? - lead in the PV to have any chance of winning the Electoral College.
If the above is right, Trump was ahead more than you say.
That was the received wisdom going in, but it turned out not to be true - she lost most of the swing states by less than she lost the PV:
Wisconsin she was down by just 0.9% PA by 3% (so 1.5% would just about have done it) GA by 2% NC by 3% MI by 2%
So if she'd had a uniform 1.6% swing, she'd be looking quite pretty.
Surely we don't yet know the popular vote margin?
At the moment 51.0% for Trump v. 47.5% for Harris.
Which will change... I don't think we know yet if she lost the tipping point state by less than the national popular vote, do we?
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
Just talk me through that.
Are you just referring to the PV? Trump over 3% ahead therefore 1.5% swing?
If so, you are not allowing for the thinking that Harris needed a - what - 2 to 3%? - lead in the PV to have any chance of winning the Electoral College.
If the above is right, Trump was ahead more than you say.
That was the received wisdom going in, but it turned out not to be true - she lost most of the swing states by less than she lost the PV:
Wisconsin she was down by just 0.9% PA by 3% (so 1.5% would just about have done it) GA by 2% NC by 3% MI by 2%
So if she'd had a uniform 1.6% swing, she'd be looking quite pretty.
Surely we don't yet know the popular vote margin?
At the moment 51.0% for Trump v. 47.5% for Harris.
Which will change... I don't think we know yet if she lost the tipping point state by less than the national popular vote, do we?
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
All those extra women clearly didn’t vote the way we hoped.
As someone on Twitter said last night, perhaps women buy eggs and bread more often than they get abortions.
Also, I'm not sure the sort of religiosity which so abhors abortions is confined to men.
Correct. The Christian conservative woman group in the US is way bigger than it would be in the UK, and they’re all voting against abortions.
The “pro-choice” campaign of the Clinton-era was replaced by a repulsive-to-many pro-abortion campaign, that says abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible.
Interesting - I've literally never heard anyone say "abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible" are you sure you haven't lost your mind?
Because we use different words to mean the same thing.
Start with Tim Walz and the legalisation of 40-week abortions in Minnesota.
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Buttigieg is one of the 'guilty men' who claimed Biden was good for another four years.
Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?
Probably because you haven't a history of repaying debt. I always pay off in full monthly, but what they're looking for is repaying actual debt. One's credit history would be better if one stayed behind a bit.
Doubtless someone else has already described this better than I could.
Quite often if one of your other cards is branded but run underneath by Barclaycard, they will not take you on as it may be limited to one 'Barclaycard' per person.
In the US they want to see multiple things: - multiple types of credit (credit cards, car loans, mortgages, home equity loans, equipment loans) - no late payments - age of accounts (switching banks or CC companies frequently hurts) - low overall credit to earnings
Probably not a full list, but it's reasonably diverse.
These credit rating agencies are absolute bastards. You can never really get to the bottom of their involvement in your life, nor can you ever fix the complete nonsense that they perpetuate about you.
Some years ago I worked for a company that used one of them for some reason or other, and looked myself up. Instead of being pretty outstanding (which is the truth), they had me on some lowly rating. I worked out that it was because they were mixing my finances with those of a neighbour.
I've also recently had a utility company randomly assign me to a bill at a neighbours flat.
I'd say something like 'evisceration is too good for them', but I think that's far too kind.
I get very occasional warning letters from debt collection outfits addressed to the previous occupants (squatters) from 13 years ago. Once someone even turned up at the door. We politely tell them the old residents no longer live here. But I do wonder if that’s why one or two ratings agencies have me on a meh score while others are at full marks.
It's been a long time since I felt any great warmth towards any company. The old days of 'ah, Mr Omnium, what can we do for you today' are long gone. My local curry house is perhaps the only remaining bastion of good feeling.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
All those extra women clearly didn’t vote the way we hoped.
As someone on Twitter said last night, perhaps women buy eggs and bread more often than they get abortions.
Also, I'm not sure the sort of religiosity which so abhors abortions is confined to men.
Correct. The Christian conservative woman group in the US is way bigger than it would be in the UK, and they’re all voting against abortions.
The “pro-choice” campaign of the Clinton-era was replaced by a repulsive-to-many pro-abortion campaign, that says abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible.
Interesting - I've literally never heard anyone say "abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible" are you sure you haven't lost your mind?
Because we use different words to mean the same thing.
Start with Tim Walz and the legalisation of 40-week abortions in Minnesota.
Can you imagine the circumstances under which a woman who has carried a child to term might end up having an abortion?
Imagine if Trump had lost by the same margin and hadn’t conceded. We’d be hearing no end to it at this point.
The difference is that Trump not conceding actually happened.
One reason candidates no longer concede very early is that it can affect down-ticket races. If voting is still going on, you don't want your presidential supporters to stop queueing because you need their votes for town dog-warden.
"Jon Sopel: The moment I knew the ‘bro’ vote won it for Trump
By using his egotistical persona to get out the young, male (aka ‘bro’) vote, Trump has defied the laws of political gravity to win in places where Republicans are usually goners, says Jon Sopel in Washington DC" [pw]
As the US starts early with these sorts of things, so shall I.
2028 Democratic nominee.
Has to be one of Buttigieg, Whitmer, Newsom or Shapiro, at this stage, I’d imagine. Walz might give it a go, but I’m not convinced.
Out of that crowd, my money would be on Buttigieg.
Walz is surely out, no house effect for Minnesota and Harris' numbers stalled/Trump's went up after he was picked for VP. Given the importance of the rustbelt (Yes PA was the swing state) not Newsom (Iowa is close enough I think).
So one of Buttigieg, Whitmer or Shapiro.
Buttigieg is one of the 'guilty men' who claimed Biden was good for another four years.
Michelle Obama may also fancy her chances.
However I suspect how much impact Trump's tariffs have on US inflation and combined with retaliatory tariffs from China and the EU and Brazil etc on US exports will be of more impact on the 2028 election than who the Democratic candidate is.
Trump can't run again anyway so it will likely be up to Vance or DeSantis to try and defend his legacy
Imagine if Trump had lost by the same margin and hadn’t conceded. We’d be hearing no end to it at this point.
Exclusive sneak preview of Harris' speech this evening:
"Fellow Americans, thank you for your patience. I expect you have been wondering why you have not heard from me in nearly 24 hours since the election results started coming through last night. Believe me, I wish I could have spoken to you all earlier, but you will hopefully soon understand the meaning of the delay.
What I am about to say to you may shock you. Many of you will be inclined not to believe it. But it is true, and you need to hear it.
During the past 3 weeks Federal law enforcement agencies have been investigating what can only be described as a massive, unprecedented and highly organised conspiracy to manipulate and falsify the results of this presidential election. Over the next hours and days we will be making public the overwhelming body of evidence, which as you will see implicates my rival presidential candidate, many other senior Republicans, and the richest man on the planet.
Moments ago federal law enforcement officers and units of military intelligence made a series of arrests, and those individuals are now in custody. That is why I am standing here flanked by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and my colleagues from the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr Wray, I'd like to invite you to come to the lectern to speak further on this matter".
So a 1.2% swing would have won her the election as things stand. Not sure whether those gaps will close or widen as the final votes are counted. Maybe it'll be less than 1% in the end.
Imagine if Trump had lost by the same margin and hadn’t conceded. We’d be hearing no end to it at this point.
The difference is that Trump not conceding actually happened.
One reason candidates no longer concede very early is that it can affect down-ticket races. If voting is still going on, you don't want your presidential supporters to stop queueing because you need their votes for town dog-warden.
Or more likely the state to stop counting the votes
Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?
Probably because you haven't a history of repaying debt. I always pay off in full monthly, but what they're looking for is repaying actual debt. One's credit history would be better if one stayed behind a bit.
Doubtless someone else has already described this better than I could.
Quite often if one of your other cards is branded but run underneath by Barclaycard, they will not take you on as it may be limited to one 'Barclaycard' per person.
In the US they want to see multiple things: - multiple types of credit (credit cards, car loans, mortgages, home equity loans, equipment loans) - no late payments - age of accounts (switching banks or CC companies frequently hurts) - low overall credit to earnings
Probably not a full list, but it's reasonably diverse.
These credit rating agencies are absolute bastards. You can never really get to the bottom of their involvement in your life, nor can you ever fix the complete nonsense that they perpetuate about you.
Some years ago I worked for a company that used one of them for some reason or other, and looked myself up. Instead of being pretty outstanding (which is the truth), they had me on some lowly rating. I worked out that it was because they were mixing my finances with those of a neighbour.
I've also recently had a utility company randomly assign me to a bill at a neighbours flat.
I'd say something like 'evisceration is too good for them', but I think that's far too kind.
I get very occasional warning letters from debt collection outfits addressed to the previous occupants (squatters) from 13 years ago. Once someone even turned up at the door. We politely tell them the old residents no longer live here. But I do wonder if that’s why one or two ratings agencies have me on a meh score while others are at full marks.
It's been a long time since I felt any great warmth towards any company. The old days of 'ah, Mr Omnium, what can we do for you today' are long gone. My local curry house is perhaps the only remaining bastion of good feeling.
Once you realise that companies aren't your friend, they don't want to feed and nourish you, supply your heat and light or water, they don't want to help you get online or communicate with friends, they don't want to clothe you, house you, or lend you money, all they want is to rinse you thoroughly and then wring every last penny out of you to give to their shareholders, then you can choose far more easily where you spend your money. Brand loyalty is for idiots.
Re why Trump[ won the US election, I have nothing more to add to what I wrote on here yesterday morning outlining why I thought he would win more handsomely than what was expected, and that he would end up 306-312 votes. But I will say this. I think this election was a classic case where many bettors let their hearts rule their heads. None of what I posted yesterday morning was genius insight, it was merely stepping back and looking at the data points fairly dispassionately. Anyone who did that should have made decent money from last night
(my only regret is not being more aggressive but hey ho - I let myself be part influenced particularly re the GA female vote).
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
All those extra women clearly didn’t vote the way we hoped.
As someone on Twitter said last night, perhaps women buy eggs and bread more often than they get abortions.
Also, I'm not sure the sort of religiosity which so abhors abortions is confined to men.
Correct. The Christian conservative woman group in the US is way bigger than it would be in the UK, and they’re all voting against abortions.
The “pro-choice” campaign of the Clinton-era was replaced by a repulsive-to-many pro-abortion campaign, that says abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible.
Interesting - I've literally never heard anyone say "abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible" are you sure you haven't lost your mind?
Because we use different words to mean the same thing.
Start with Tim Walz and the legalisation of 40-week abortions in Minnesota.
This is palpable nonsense. Making it legal to do something that would do huge damage to both your mental and physical health and end the life of a being inside you that is nearly born is, understandably, controversial (though why this should be in the realms of the legal system I have no idea).
To equate that with it 'being awesome' is utterly puerile.
Re why Trump[ won the US election, I have nothing more to add to what I wrote on here yesterday morning outlining why I thought he would win more handsomely than what was expected, and that he would end up 306-312 votes. But I will say this. I think this election was a classic case where many bettors let their hearts rule their heads. None of what I posted yesterday morning was genius insight, it was merely stepping back and looking at the data points fairly dispassionately. Anyone who did that should have made decent money from last night
(my only regret is not being more aggressive but hey ho - I let myself be part influenced particularly re the GA female vote).
I still think the result was extremely hard to call. It was obvious that Trump was popular, but not so obvious that he'd get his vote out sufficiently.
One thing I don't understand, is the confidence placed in women bringing it home for Harris with their higher propensity to vote, when surely any good polling would have weighted for likelihood to vote anyway.
To me the fundamental miscalculation Harris made is that women would turn out to vote for her above and beyond what they did for Biden and in a way to make any losses in men to Trump as less significant.
This seems like an INCREDIBLY risky strategy to me. But perhaps that was the only one she had?
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
All those extra women clearly didn’t vote the way we hoped.
As someone on Twitter said last night, perhaps women buy eggs and bread more often than they get abortions.
Also, I'm not sure the sort of religiosity which so abhors abortions is confined to men.
Correct. The Christian conservative woman group in the US is way bigger than it would be in the UK, and they’re all voting against abortions.
The “pro-choice” campaign of the Clinton-era was replaced by a repulsive-to-many pro-abortion campaign, that says abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible.
Interesting - I've literally never heard anyone say "abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible" are you sure you haven't lost your mind?
Because we use different words to mean the same thing.
Start with Tim Walz and the legalisation of 40-week abortions in Minnesota.
Can you imagine the circumstances under which a woman who has carried a child to term might end up having an abortion?
Doesn't need imagination, they could look up the case on Ireland of the women who died from a partial miscarriage because the Doctors wouldn't intervene as it "would be an abortion".
Though imo it's more about frightening poor women away from normal medical treatment during pregnancy in case they're accused of illegally aborting their foetus if they miscarry than about a pro-life ideology.
Any finance wizzes know why despite having a perfect payment history, a very high salary relative to age and evidence over several credit cards that I always pay in full every month, Barclaycard would reject my application but Lloyds have pre-approved me?
Probably because you haven't a history of repaying debt. I always pay off in full monthly, but what they're looking for is repaying actual debt. One's credit history would be better if one stayed behind a bit.
Doubtless someone else has already described this better than I could.
Quite often if one of your other cards is branded but run underneath by Barclaycard, they will not take you on as it may be limited to one 'Barclaycard' per person.
In the US they want to see multiple things: - multiple types of credit (credit cards, car loans, mortgages, home equity loans, equipment loans) - no late payments - age of accounts (switching banks or CC companies frequently hurts) - low overall credit to earnings
Probably not a full list, but it's reasonably diverse.
These credit rating agencies are absolute bastards. You can never really get to the bottom of their involvement in your life, nor can you ever fix the complete nonsense that they perpetuate about you.
Some years ago I worked for a company that used one of them for some reason or other, and looked myself up. Instead of being pretty outstanding (which is the truth), they had me on some lowly rating. I worked out that it was because they were mixing my finances with those of a neighbour.
I've also recently had a utility company randomly assign me to a bill at a neighbours flat.
I'd say something like 'evisceration is too good for them', but I think that's far too kind.
I get very occasional warning letters from debt collection outfits addressed to the previous occupants (squatters) from 13 years ago. Once someone even turned up at the door. We politely tell them the old residents no longer live here. But I do wonder if that’s why one or two ratings agencies have me on a meh score while others are at full marks.
It's been a long time since I felt any great warmth towards any company. The old days of 'ah, Mr Omnium, what can we do for you today' are long gone. My local curry house is perhaps the only remaining bastion of good feeling.
Once you realise that companies aren't your friend, they don't want to feed and nourish you, supply your heat and light or water, they don't want to help you get online or communicate with friends, they don't want to clothe you, house you, or lend you money, all they want is to rinse you thoroughly and then wring every last penny out of you to give to their shareholders, then you can choose far more easily where you spend your money. Brand loyalty is for idiots.
Dead right. However the business model that said - know your customer, work with your customer, cultivate your customer (or whatever) - isn't wrong. Just seemingly absent now.
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
Just talk me through that.
Are you just referring to the PV? Trump over 3% ahead therefore 1.5% swing?
If so, you are not allowing for the thinking that Harris needed a - what - 2 to 3%? - lead in the PV to have any chance of winning the Electoral College.
If the above is right, Trump was ahead more than you say.
That was the received wisdom going in, but it turned out not to be true - she lost most of the swing states by less than she lost the PV:
Wisconsin she was down by just 0.9% PA by 3% (so 1.5% would just about have done it) GA by 2% NC by 3% MI by 2%
So if she'd had a uniform 1.6% swing, she'd be looking quite pretty.
Surely we don't yet know the popular vote margin?
At the moment 51.0% for Trump v. 47.5% for Harris.
The betting market definitely didn't pick that, Trump was at 4 yesterday
I think enough people in the USA vote totally on their own selfish reasons now rather than the public good or what's accepted as the right thing to do. I'm not sure how else to explain away voting for a rapist, racist grifting bully with the most appalling language and attitude. I fear that it's going to take many years to roll this back.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 12m One thing from last night is how good an early indicator of how things were going to go nationally that 5-minutes-updating live Florida count was. That could be worth remembering for future elections.
I think enough people in the USA vote totally on their own selfish reasons now rather than the public good or what's accepted as the right thing to do. I'm not sure how else to explain away voting for a rapist, racist grifting bully with the most appalling language and attitude. I fear that it's going to take many years to roll this back.
We aren't quite as bad as that in the UK but give it time.
I think enough people in the USA vote totally on their own selfish reasons now rather than the public good or what's accepted as the right thing to do. I'm not sure how else to explain away voting for a rapist, racist grifting bully with the most appalling language and attitude. I fear that it's going to take many years to roll this back.
We aren't quite as bad as that in the UK but give it time.
Surely most people in most countries will vote in their perceived self-interest?
If the USA does do the 'drill, baby, drill' thing and increase energy output wouldn't the financial benefit spread everywhere ?
Oil is fungible, prices are set at the margin etc.
If he does that [and it seems quite likely], it does rather emphasise that the UK paying 22 billion to pump some of the results back into a hole might not be a good use of money.
I think enough people in the USA vote totally on their own selfish reasons now rather than the public good or what's accepted as the right thing to do. I'm not sure how else to explain away voting for a rapist, racist grifting bully with the most appalling language and attitude. I fear that it's going to take many years to roll this back.
Trump is a phenomena whether we like to accept it or not . He of course had a lot of luck in how he first became President , without covid he would likely have had two consecutive terms . I can’t think of another politician who had such an endless supply of Teflon .
I think enough people in the USA vote totally on their own selfish reasons now rather than the public good or what's accepted as the right thing to do. I'm not sure how else to explain away voting for a rapist, racist grifting bully with the most appalling language and attitude. I fear that it's going to take many years to roll this back.
We aren't quite as bad as that in the UK but give it time.
Surely most people in most countries will vote in their perceived self-interest?
even when it runs counter to what you consider is the right thing to do?
It was close. Harris was about a 1.5% swing away from winning.
All those extra women clearly didn’t vote the way we hoped.
As someone on Twitter said last night, perhaps women buy eggs and bread more often than they get abortions.
Also, I'm not sure the sort of religiosity which so abhors abortions is confined to men.
Correct. The Christian conservative woman group in the US is way bigger than it would be in the UK, and they’re all voting against abortions.
The “pro-choice” campaign of the Clinton-era was replaced by a repulsive-to-many pro-abortion campaign, that says abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible.
Interesting - I've literally never heard anyone say "abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible" are you sure you haven't lost your mind?
Because we use different words to mean the same thing.
Start with Tim Walz and the legalisation of 40-week abortions in Minnesota.
Can you imagine the circumstances under which a woman who has carried a child to term might end up having an abortion?
Doesn't need imagination, they could look up the case on Ireland of the women who died from a partial miscarriage because the Doctors wouldn't intervene as it "would be an abortion".
Though imo it's more about frightening poor women away from normal medical treatment during pregnancy in case they're accused of illegally aborting their foetus if they miscarry than about a pro-life ideology.
There have already been cases in the us of women dying as doctors are scared of being prosecuted
I think enough people in the USA vote totally on their own selfish reasons now rather than the public good or what's accepted as the right thing to do. I'm not sure how else to explain away voting for a rapist, racist grifting bully with the most appalling language and attitude. I fear that it's going to take many years to roll this back.
We aren't quite as bad as that in the UK but give it time.
Surely most people in most countries will vote in their perceived self-interest?
even when it runs counter to what you consider is the right thing to do?
Surely doing what you think is the right thing is still self interest, depending on what value you put on your conscience.
I think enough people in the USA vote totally on their own selfish reasons now rather than the public good or what's accepted as the right thing to do. I'm not sure how else to explain away voting for a rapist, racist grifting bully with the most appalling language and attitude. I fear that it's going to take many years to roll this back.
We aren't quite as bad as that in the UK but give it time.
Surely most people in most countries will vote in their perceived self-interest?
It would be nice to think that wasn't true and I'm sure it isn't true for many who look at the society or global good. It certainly isn't true for me. I quite happily pay more tax or give up my time for no gain. And of course many give to charity for no personal gain, other than satisfaction.
I think enough people in the USA vote totally on their own selfish reasons now rather than the public good or what's accepted as the right thing to do. I'm not sure how else to explain away voting for a rapist, racist grifting bully with the most appalling language and attitude. I fear that it's going to take many years to roll this back.
Partly, a lot of voters don't know all this stuff. Partly, they discount it because it was all a long time ago. Partly, it's a two horse race so they have to vote for their guy anyway simply to keep the other guy out.
Kamala had a much bigger warchest. Kamala ran many more adverts. Kamala had a far better ground game with far more activists. And she lost.
But hold on, that is the conventional wisdom here too, and as recently as July was used to explain Labour's landslide on a smaller vote than Corbyn's, and the LibDems getting dozens more seats than Reform for less votes.
The problem is that I just don’t know how you even formulate a campaign to defeat Trump.
It seems like Covid was the only thing that could.
Joe Biden beat Trump. You can imagine an alternative history where Biden and not Hillary stood in 2016, defeated Trump twice, served two terms before passing the torch to Kamala.
I think enough people in the USA vote totally on their own selfish reasons now rather than the public good or what's accepted as the right thing to do. I'm not sure how else to explain away voting for a rapist, racist grifting bully with the most appalling language and attitude. I fear that it's going to take many years to roll this back.
You think only Americans vote based on self-interest? And that this is somehow wrong? How strange!
I think enough people in the USA vote totally on their own selfish reasons now rather than the public good or what's accepted as the right thing to do. I'm not sure how else to explain away voting for a rapist, racist grifting bully with the most appalling language and attitude. I fear that it's going to take many years to roll this back.
We aren't quite as bad as that in the UK but give it time.
Surely most people in most countries will vote in their perceived self-interest?
even when it runs counter to what you consider is the right thing to do?
Surely doing what you think is the right thing is still self interest, depending on what value you put on your conscience.
that's not self interest, that's doing things for the common good where it deviates from your self interest.
For example I am married to a pensioner who has lost her wfa. I don't mind that as such because I pay for the fuel from my pension/income and she just used the wfa money for christmas presents. I consider the common good to be to get the economy back on track. I also support NI rises for employers as they are quite happy to make profits based on the workers, and would get rid of them in a heart beat with very little consultation if it fitted their plans. I also consider that me and my wife should be paying NI on our pensions because it is the right thing to do.
Comments
As is the old KKK Dem wing in the southern states.
Likewise the liberal wing of the GOP in the north east now consists of little more than Gov Phil Scott of Vermont.
But the southern unionist hillbilly GOP wing in Appalachia - long the least important of the party 'wings' - is perhaps now the now dominant political philosophy in the country.
Only leaving about eleventy thousand, but meh.
Quite often if one of your other cards is branded but run underneath by Barclaycard, they will not take you on as it may be limited to one 'Barclaycard' per person.
The outlier selzer poll ( Which I think was a rare true outlier) led us up an abortion garden path that frankly looked plausible with the data as it was. But the evidence was there in front of us with the voting registration data being particularly GOP heavy that we perhaps should have paid more attention to rather than the "snorkellers" 😂
The “pro-choice” campaign of the Clinton-era was replaced by a repulsive-to-many pro-abortion campaign, that says abortions are awesome and we should have as many as posssible.
Fellow billionaires and the Saudis provided a good deal.
Fortunately Trump's leads are too big to be overturned even if it allows a few Dem Senators to hold on.
Are you just referring to the PV? Trump over 3% ahead therefore 1.5% swing?
If so, you are not allowing for the thinking that Harris needed a - what - 2 to 3%? - lead in the PV to have any chance of winning the Electoral College.
If the above is right, Trump was ahead more than you say.
- multiple types of credit (credit cards, car loans, mortgages, home equity loans, equipment loans)
- no late payments
- age of accounts (switching banks or CC companies frequently hurts)
- low overall credit to earnings
Probably not a full list, but it's reasonably diverse.
Trump's vote will be pretty inefficient geographically.
Almost every backbench Labour MP on the speaking list had been programmed to attack her. Far from diminishing her, they made her more significant..."
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14049439/Kemi-Badenoch-QUENTIN-LETTS-new-Tory-leader-PMQs.html
The Republicans and the UK Tories are both members of the International Democracy Union (renamed from International Democrat Union).
Matt Walsh from The Daily Wire has bought up a significant amount of MSNBC advertising today, for his documentary “Am I Racist?” Which discusses in depth how the DEI industry has f***ed up America.
https://x.com/mattwalshblog/status/1854184478723145984
Wisconsin she was down by just 0.9%
PA by 3% (so 1.5% would just about have done it)
GA by 2%
NC by 3%
MI by 2%
So if she'd had a uniform 1.6% swing, she'd be looking quite pretty.
Some years ago I worked for a company that used one of them for some reason or other, and looked myself up. Instead of being pretty outstanding (which is the truth), they had me on some lowly rating. I worked out that it was because they were mixing my finances with those of a neighbour.
I've also recently had a utility company randomly assign me to a bill at a neighbours flat.
I'd say something like 'evisceration is too good for them', but I think that's far too kind.
Hispanic men are racist and black men are sexist. This is why Kamala lost per MSNBC this morning:
https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1854207945665286294
Bad Al tried this line last night, with black men don't like trans people.
All seems very racist.
It is as if people didn't know this nor spotted Farage in America.
Harris is on 47.4%, compared with Biden's 51.3% in 2020
https://x.com/collinrugg/status/1854203271713538235
"This is a mandate to do what you said you were gonna do. Get the economy working again for regular working-class Americans."
"Fix immigration, try to get crime under control. Try to reduce the chaos in the world. This, this is a mandate from the American people to do that."
"I think I'm interpreting the results tonight as the revenge of just a regular old working-class American, the anonymous American who has been crushed, insulted, condescended to, they're not garbage, they're not Nazis."
Also not 'everybody' was white 100 years ago. wtf.
https://x.com/RalstonReports/status/1854205509534114103
Losing the Nevada senate seat would put paid to the Democrats' hopes of retaking the Senate anytime soon.
I don't think we know yet if she lost the tipping point state by less than the national popular vote, do we?
Start with Tim Walz and the legalisation of 40-week abortions in Minnesota.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1972300/just-stop-oil-us-embassy-london-donald-trump-election
One reason candidates no longer concede very early is that it can affect down-ticket races. If voting is still going on, you don't want your presidential supporters to stop queueing because you need their votes for town dog-warden.
By using his egotistical persona to get out the young, male (aka ‘bro’) vote, Trump has defied the laws of political gravity to win in places where Republicans are usually goners, says Jon Sopel in Washington DC" [pw]
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-victory-election-president-bro-vote-b2642252.html
However I suspect how much impact Trump's tariffs have on US inflation and combined with retaliatory tariffs from China and the EU and Brazil etc on US exports will be of more impact on the 2028 election than who the Democratic candidate is.
Trump can't run again anyway so it will likely be up to Vance or DeSantis to try and defend his legacy
"Fellow Americans, thank you for your patience. I expect you have been wondering why you have not heard from me in nearly 24 hours since the election results started coming through last night. Believe me, I wish I could have spoken to you all earlier, but you will hopefully soon understand the meaning of the delay.
What I am about to say to you may shock you. Many of you will be inclined not to believe it. But it is true, and you need to hear it.
During the past 3 weeks Federal law enforcement agencies have been investigating what can only be described as a massive, unprecedented and highly organised conspiracy to manipulate and falsify the results of this presidential election. Over the next hours and days we will be making public the overwhelming body of evidence, which as you will see implicates my rival presidential candidate, many other senior Republicans, and the richest man on the planet.
Moments ago federal law enforcement officers and units of military intelligence made a series of arrests, and those individuals are now in custody. That is why I am standing here flanked by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and my colleagues from the United States military and Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr Wray, I'd like to invite you to come to the lectern to speak further on this matter".
Oil is fungible, prices are set at the margin etc.
WI 0.8%
MI 1.5%
PA 2.3%
So a 1.2% swing would have won her the election as things stand. Not sure whether those gaps will close or widen as the final votes are counted. Maybe it'll be less than 1% in the end.
https://edition.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president?election-data-id=2024-PG&election-painting-mode=projection-with-lead&filter-key-races=false&filter-flipped=false&filter-remaining=false
(my only regret is not being more aggressive but hey ho - I let myself be part influenced particularly re the GA female vote).
To equate that with it 'being awesome' is utterly puerile.
But all the next GOP targets are in the 5% range - MN, NH, NJ, NM.
One thing I don't understand, is the confidence placed in women bringing it home for Harris with their higher propensity to vote, when surely any good polling would have weighted for likelihood to vote anyway.
This seems like an INCREDIBLY risky strategy to me. But perhaps that was the only one she had?
Though imo it's more about frightening poor women away from normal medical treatment during pregnancy in case they're accused of illegally aborting their foetus if they miscarry than about a pro-life ideology.
Most people just aren’t that interested . I really haven’t a clue how this Trump term will play out , I don’t think anyone does .
I feel for Kamala Harris , she was given a hospital pass . One thing in hindsight that was probably a mistake was focusing her campaign on Trump .
The fact is everyone already had their views about him and it might have been better to make the campaign all about the American people .
And ironically the abortion ballot initiatives could have hurt the Dems , some people who are pro abortion and GOP could vote for both .
It seems like Covid was the only thing that could.
@andrew_lilico
·
12m
One thing from last night is how good an early indicator of how things were going to go nationally that 5-minutes-updating live Florida count was. That could be worth remembering for future elections.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/1854230540120883392
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/doj-moving-wind-trump-criminal-cases-takes-office-rcna178930
NEW THREAD
Kamala had a much bigger warchest. Kamala ran many more adverts. Kamala had a far better ground game with far more activists. And she lost.
But hold on, that is the conventional wisdom here too, and as recently as July was used to explain Labour's landslide on a smaller vote than Corbyn's, and the LibDems getting dozens more seats than Reform for less votes.
For example I am married to a pensioner who has lost her wfa. I don't mind that as such because I pay for the fuel from my pension/income and she just used the wfa money for christmas presents. I consider the common good to be to get the economy back on track. I also support NI rises for employers as they are quite happy to make profits based on the workers, and would get rid of them in a heart beat with very little consultation if it fitted their plans. I also consider that me and my wife should be paying NI on our pensions because it is the right thing to do.