What are the issues around several European countries making decisions in parallel and moving to implement.
Obviously Putin's patsies in the new USA Government will start mouthing threats and throwing tantrums.
But if they want to isolate themselves from Europe 1920s (I think) style, then the corollary is that expect European countries to start taking decisions for themselves.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
Only in the context of the grandfather clause.
Nope, it’s in the first part:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Note how the concepts of holding the office, acting as president, and electing president are distinct? And @Andy_Cooke’s comment notes that the original draft did exclude someone elected twice from being president, but it was changed to excluding them from being elected instead.
So you're claiming that the 22nd Amendment is effectively a nullity?
I take the latter point, but that change really just enables someone who's term-limited as president to still be in the cabinet.
Also, in the real world if there's any suggestion that there are shenanigans planned to circumvent the term limits, the Dems will win a landslide. Lawfare against Trump didn't work; neither would lawfare by him.
That assumes that the shenanigans are limited only to term-limits.
Well, there's really two different groups of shenanigans: bending and twisting the rules; and outright illegality. There are certainly enough senior GOP people who expect to have a run at the White House in 2028 to forestall the second group, and almost certainly the first group.
It's way more likely Trump serves less than 8 years as president than more than 8 years.
I don't see a difference. You just need the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution in a way that suits you, and they seem more than capable of doing that on other issues (and that applies to both and left and right-wing causes).
What are the issues around several European countries making decisions in parallel and moving to implement.
Obviously Putin's patsies in the new USA Government will start mouthing threats and throwing tantrums.
But if they want to isolate themselves from Europe 1920s (I think) style, then the corollary is that expect European countries to start taking decisions for themselves.
So let's do it.
If only it was that simple
If we are to have a USA withdrawing from the wider world, as seems fairly clear, then relationships will adjust, and need to adjust. And as always we start from here.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
Only in the context of the grandfather clause.
Nope, it’s in the first part:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Note how the concepts of holding the office, acting as president, and electing president are distinct? And @Andy_Cooke’s comment notes that the original draft did exclude someone elected twice from being president, but it was changed to excluding them from being elected instead.
So you're claiming that the 22nd Amendment is effectively a nullity?
I take the latter point, but that change really just enables someone who's term-limited as president to still be in the cabinet.
Also, in the real world if there's any suggestion that there are shenanigans planned to circumvent the term limits, the Dems will win a landslide. Lawfare against Trump didn't work; neither would lawfare by him.
That assumes that the shenanigans are limited only to term-limits.
Well, there's really two different groups of shenanigans: bending and twisting the rules; and outright illegality. There are certainly enough senior GOP people who expect to have a run at the White House in 2028 to forestall the second group, and almost certainly the first group.
It's way more likely Trump serves less than 8 years as president than more than 8 years.
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
Only in the context of the grandfather clause.
Nope, it’s in the first part:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Note how the concepts of holding the office, acting as president, and electing president are distinct? And @Andy_Cooke’s comment notes that the original draft did exclude someone elected twice from being president, but it was changed to excluding them from being elected instead.
So you're claiming that the 22nd Amendment is effectively a nullity?
I take the latter point, but that change really just enables someone who's term-limited as president to still be in the cabinet.
Also, in the real world if there's any suggestion that there are shenanigans planned to circumvent the term limits, the Dems will win a landslide. Lawfare against Trump didn't work; neither would lawfare by him.
That is explicitly the argument used by the scholar who was summarising all of these:
"According to this argument, if a former two-term President can run for Vice President, the danger exists that a conspiracy between a sham presidential candidate and former President vice-presidential candidate could take hold. Under this feared scenario, the election of such a ticket would trigger the prompt post-election resignation of the sham President and the immediate replacement of that person with the otherwise unelectable former-President Vice President. And because such a power grab—whether pulled off with or without the previous knowledge of the national electorate—would violate the no-more-FDRs core aim of the Twenty Second Amendment, this argument posits that it is right to read the Twelfth and Twenty-Second Amendments as barring the election of former two-term Presidents as Vice-President. See Peabody & Gant, supra note 7, at 622–24 (identifying this argument).
One major problem with this contention is that it would throw out the baby with the bathwater by installing a textually unsupported, across-the-board prohibition to deal with an exceptionally extraordinary case. Assume, for example, a world in which Hillary Clinton is nominated for the presidency and chooses Bill Clinton as her running mate. Obviously, she would not make this choice because she was pursuing the presidency as a sham candidate. Nor has any presidential candidate in American history contemplated anything of the sort. Another difficulty with the argument is that it ignores the good judgment of the American people.
It is farfetched to think that the nation’s voters would fail to detect a self-serving effort to pull a Twenty-Second-Amendment trick on them or to embrace with enthusiasm a presidential ticket openly designed to circumvent the Constitution’s strictures. (Moreover, if voters somehow chose to embrace such a ticket, it would almost surely be only because the most compelling circumstances confronted them—thus placing the value of voter autonomy at its very highest ebb.) For this reason, this argument runs up against the common-sense proposition that constitutional interpreters can and should consider the extent to which ordinary political processes will operate to fend off the worst-case scenarios that prophets of legal doom might concoct."
Of course, this assumes that the US electorate would not be willing to see this happen - or, at least, enough voters therein. I thought not enough would be willing to see President Trump returned, so I'm recusing myself from comment there.
I am going to make a bold prediction. Donald Trump will not become the next US President. I think that his health problems will catch up with him and he will be forced to stand down before January. What odds can I get??
I'll give you 5:1 if you like.
Bet voided if you go to America and hang out on any grassy knolls ...
On the subject of assassination, have started watching the new “Day of the Jackal” series. V good so far. Has a British “Bourne” feel about it. Clearly very expensively made.
I am going to make a bold prediction. Donald Trump will not become the next US President. I think that his health problems will catch up with him and he will be forced to stand down before January. What odds can I get??
I'll give you 5:1 if you like.
Bet voided if you go to America and hang out on any grassy knolls ...
On the subject of assassination, have started watching the new “Day of the Jackal” series. V good so far. Has a British “Bourne” feel about it. Clearly very expensively made.
How does it compare with the Edward Fox version? That was a real classic, if rather slow-moving for today's tastes.
Very difficult to imagine it could be much better.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
If that's how it's gonna be, we'll need a stiff backbone. If it's true that Starmer stopped sending storm shadows because of pressure from Biden it doesn't bode well.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
However, I do reckon all that is moot and that Trump will not be in any state to run in 2028, and is much more likely to have been 25-ed out of it by then
That's quite possible, although I still expect some move by Trump that allows him to continue to solicit campaign donations. One other thing, if Trump is removed by the 25th before two years have passed, would that leave him still eligible to be elected again? Perhaps we ought not to expect any move on the 25th until after the midterms.
The two year limit only applies to a partial term when someone else was elected as president.
I don't understand the hysteria on this which looks to me like paranoia. The 22nd Amendment is crystal clear on this - he's done.
It’s crystal clear no one can be elected president twice. It mentions nothing about other methods of becoming president.
There are no other methods of becoming president.
Resignation or death of a sitting president? The new president isn’t elected.
He can't be elected VP either (12th Amendment), and once you get down to thinking he can succeed via being Speaker of the House or even something lower... nah.
The 12th amendment talks about eligibility to be president, not to be elected president.
Which is the same thing, and it's circular reasoning to pretend otherwise.
After the Electoral College votes, he'll have been elected president twice, and that rules him out from the 2028/9 Electoral College electing him president or VP. And if he tries to claim otherwise, he'll lose enough support from his own side that he will get nowhere.
No, it’s not the same. The 22nd amendment even talks about “holding the office” in other parts. If they had meant holding the office, they would have used that phrase.
Only in the context of the grandfather clause.
Nope, it’s in the first part:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
Note how the concepts of holding the office, acting as president, and electing president are distinct? And @Andy_Cooke’s comment notes that the original draft did exclude someone elected twice from being president, but it was changed to excluding them from being elected instead.
So you're claiming that the 22nd Amendment is effectively a nullity?
I take the latter point, but that change really just enables someone who's term-limited as president to still be in the cabinet.
Also, in the real world if there's any suggestion that there are shenanigans planned to circumvent the term limits, the Dems will win a landslide. Lawfare against Trump didn't work; neither would lawfare by him.
That is explicitly the argument used by the scholar who was summarising all of these:
"According to this argument, if a former two-term President can run for Vice President, the danger exists that a conspiracy between a sham presidential candidate and former President vice-presidential candidate could take hold. Under this feared scenario, the election of such a ticket would trigger the prompt post-election resignation of the sham President and the immediate replacement of that person with the otherwise unelectable former-President Vice President. And because such a power grab—whether pulled off with or without the previous knowledge of the national electorate—would violate the no-more-FDRs core aim of the Twenty Second Amendment, this argument posits that it is right to read the Twelfth and Twenty-Second Amendments as barring the election of former two-term Presidents as Vice-President. See Peabody & Gant, supra note 7, at 622–24 (identifying this argument).
One major problem with this contention is that it would throw out the baby with the bathwater by installing a textually unsupported, across-the-board prohibition to deal with an exceptionally extraordinary case. Assume, for example, a world in which Hillary Clinton is nominated for the presidency and chooses Bill Clinton as her running mate. Obviously, she would not make this choice because she was pursuing the presidency as a sham candidate. Nor has any presidential candidate in American history contemplated anything of the sort. Another difficulty with the argument is that it ignores the good judgment of the American people.
It is farfetched to think that the nation’s voters would fail to detect a self-serving effort to pull a Twenty-Second-Amendment trick on them or to embrace with enthusiasm a presidential ticket openly designed to circumvent the Constitution’s strictures. (Moreover, if voters somehow chose to embrace such a ticket, it would almost surely be only because the most compelling circumstances confronted them—thus placing the value of voter autonomy at its very highest ebb.) For this reason, this argument runs up against the common-sense proposition that constitutional interpreters can and should consider the extent to which ordinary political processes will operate to fend off the worst-case scenarios that prophets of legal doom might concoct."
Of course, this assumes that the US electorate would not be willing to see this happen - or, at least, enough voters therein. I thought not enough would be willing to see President Trump returned, so I'm recusing myself from comment there.
There's also the consequences for the SCOTUS judges if they try it and it fails - it would certainly justify the next Dem president packing the court to marginalise the judges who tried.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
If that's how it's gonna be, we'll need a stiff backbone. If it's true that Starmer stopped sending storm shadows because of pressure from Biden it doesn't bode well.
The problem is this sort of talk does not just reduce the chances of Trump supporting Ukraine; it increases the chances of Trump supporting Russia, perhaps by removing sanctions ASAP. Because Russia isn't the bad guy, it's Ukraine (and the Bidens, obvs.)
Well, I’ve spent a large part of today driving around the main roads, backroads and lanes of South Wales.
I’m very disappointed to note that I didn’t manage to drive on a single one of those legendary 20mph roads on any of my journeys, having to content myself with spotting a couple up narrow residential streets.
I was mis-sold by PB.
You should have come over to Newham - 20 mph on my estate.
To be fair, as I opined to Mrs Stodge, with all the parked vehicles, e-scooters, cyclists and vans, I'd be likely to ever get to 20 mph.
Well, I’ve spent a large part of today driving around the main roads, backroads and lanes of South Wales.
I’m very disappointed to note that I didn’t manage to drive on a single one of those legendary 20mph roads on any of my journeys, having to content myself with spotting a couple up narrow residential streets.
I was mis-sold by PB.
You should have come over to Newham - 20 mph on my estate.
To be fair, as I opined to Mrs Stodge, with all the parked vehicles, e-scooters, cyclists and vans, I'd be likely to ever get to 20 mph.
There's a road in St Neots that has about 100 metres of 20 MPH zone, between 30 MPH sections.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
I am going to make a bold prediction. Donald Trump will not become the next US President. I think that his health problems will catch up with him and he will be forced to stand down before January. What odds can I get??
I'll give you 5:1 if you like.
Bet voided if you go to America and hang out on any grassy knolls ...
On the subject of assassination, have started watching the new “Day of the Jackal” series. V good so far. Has a British “Bourne” feel about it. Clearly very expensively made.
How does it compare with the Edward Fox version? That was a real classic, if rather slow-moving for today's tastes.
Very difficult to imagine it could be much better.
Obviously very different, the Fox one is brilliant and a favourite but this has the advantage of being a series so building the characters and being able to have more plot lines etc.
I’m not usually a huge fan of messing with classics but first episode has been great.
I guess it’s Bourne, The night manager, the MI6 of later bond films if that helps describe. Well paced so far too.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Well, I’ve spent a large part of today driving around the main roads, backroads and lanes of South Wales.
I’m very disappointed to note that I didn’t manage to drive on a single one of those legendary 20mph roads on any of my journeys, having to content myself with spotting a couple up narrow residential streets.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
You would have thought that would have increased the value of a 2005 Clio.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
The “resistance is futile” argument is extremely powerful and Putin is deploying it very effectively at the moment.
After all, who wants blood on their hands prolonging a war when it won’t change the final outcome but many more people will die?
It’s the (successful) argument made by conquering generals since the year dot. Sometimes it is indeed the correct argument. The sad thing about Ukraine is that it need not be. The west could help Ukraine send Russia packing back into, you know, actual Russia, if it so wished.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
That's why I always go to airports by train.
The best train-terminal experience in Britain is Southampton. Hop off on to the platform, amble into the bus station-like terminal and pretty much straight on to the plane.
What are the issues around several European countries making decisions in parallel and moving to implement.
Obviously Putin's patsies in the new USA Government will start mouthing threats and throwing tantrums.
But if they want to isolate themselves from Europe 1920s (I think) style, then the corollary is that expect European countries to start taking decisions for themselves.
So let's do it.
If only it was that simple
If we are to have a USA withdrawing from the wider world, as seems fairly clear, then relationships will adjust, and need to adjust. And as always we start from here.
Why is such a measure not possible?
It is just wishful thinking and the EU itself is bitterly divided with some openly supporters of Putin
Trump has just made everything unpredictable with no easy solutions
I note the Mirror is reporting that Trump would block Mandelson's appointment
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
That's why I always go to airports by train.
The best train-terminal experience in Britain is Southampton. Hop off on to the platform, amble into the bus station-like terminal and pretty much straight on to the plane.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
That's why I always go to airports by train.
The best train-terminal experience in Britain is Southampton. Hop off on to the platform, amble into the bus station-like terminal and pretty much straight on to the plane.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
That's why I always go to airports by train.
The best train-terminal experience in Britain is Southampton. Hop off on to the platform, amble into the bus station-like terminal and pretty much straight on to the plane.
DLR to LCY pretty similar.
LCY had shed too much of its old bus station vibe to my liking. It can take as long as 10 minutes now to get through security into the terminal. But yes, and it always amuses me the business visitors stepping into the black cabs probably heading for an hour in traffic jams to the city not knowing the toy train is right there.
My daily commute is DLR from Deptford bridge. Still fun to sit at the front through the tunnel.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
That's why I always go to airports by train.
The best train-terminal experience in Britain is Southampton. Hop off on to the platform, amble into the bus station-like terminal and pretty much straight on to the plane.
Or cruise ship ???
Is that the same? My parents used to do cruises (they seem to have gone off them recently which is understandable after one of those situations where everyone in the ship gets norovirus and aren’t allowed off).
But they always refused to go from Southampton because they have that amusing sort of Anglophobia that involves trying to go on holiday to places where there aren’t too many Brits. They enjoyed the company of Scandinavians and “nice democrat types” from USonia.
By the way, while you’re here. Where TF are all those 20mph roads you lot promised me?? Can I find some tomorrow on my drive from Mumbles to Brecon?
Paul Mason @paulmasonnews · 7h This one piece of sense from @debmattinson is worth hundreds of hours of hot takes from the "it was Gaza" brigade. The Democrats were told how to win - but they are one of the most useless and self-deluding party machines in the Western world.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
That's why I always go to airports by train.
The best train-terminal experience in Britain is Southampton. Hop off on to the platform, amble into the bus station-like terminal and pretty much straight on to the plane.
Or cruise ship ???
Southampton Airport Parkway is the railway station next to the airport Southampton Central is the railway station in the middle of Southampton, nearest to the port
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
The “resistance is futile” argument is extremely powerful and Putin is deploying it very effectively at the moment.
After all, who wants blood on their hands prolonging a war when it won’t change the final outcome but many more people will die?
It’s the (successful) argument made by conquering generals since the year dot. Sometimes it is indeed the correct argument. The sad thing about Ukraine is that it need not be. The west could help Ukraine send Russia packing back into, you know, actual Russia, if it so wished.
Well I'm very happy for the war to be prolonged with more Russian dead and crippled and more destroyed Russian equipment every day.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
That's why I always go to airports by train.
The best train-terminal experience in Britain is Southampton. Hop off on to the platform, amble into the bus station-like terminal and pretty much straight on to the plane.
Or cruise ship ???
I'm pretty sure that whilst there are still rail tracks to the cruise terminals, the ones along the western docks were never passenger-rated, and the ones to the cruise terminal have not been used for non-tour passenger trains for a couple of decades. I think that's one of the issues: passenger ships now depart from two very different parts of Southampton. When I sailed on a tall ship from the western docks, we passed a berthed cruise liner that towered over us.
If going by train now, you need to get off at Southampton Central and get the bus.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
That's why I always go to airports by train.
The best train-terminal experience in Britain is Southampton. Hop off on to the platform, amble into the bus station-like terminal and pretty much straight on to the plane.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
That's why I always go to airports by train.
The best train-terminal experience in Britain is Southampton. Hop off on to the platform, amble into the bus station-like terminal and pretty much straight on to the plane.
Or cruise ship ???
Southampton Airport Parkway is the railway station next to the airport Southampton Central is the railway station in the middle of Southampton, nearest to the port
And Southampton Airport is really Eastleigh not Southampton.
From the discussions on third term possibilities the other day, one thing occurred to me that I'd quite like put to bed. Whilst the intent of the 22nd Amendment is obvious, could a compliant Supreme Court bypass it by looking at the exact wording?
What I'm thinking about is the immediately obvious "swap President and VP on the ticket." That is, a Vance/Trump ticket, with Vance resigning the day after inauguration (and could then be appointed VP by a succeeding Trump). Because the 22nd states that "no-one can be elected to the office of President more than twice."
Nothing about succeeding outwith election, like Ford, LBJ, Truman, Coolidge, Teddy Roosevelt, Arthur, Johnson, Fillmore, Tyler - albeit some later won election as President, but all initially succeeded without being elected to the office of President. And, of course, what if it went further? Is an ex-President actually prohibited from any office in the line of succession? There seems to be no written legal rule saying "Oh, we'll skip over the Attorney General if it gets that far and a term-limited ex-President is doing the job." Maybe there is and I don't know about it?
"Ah, but you can't run as VP if you're term-limited out as President."
Can't you? The 12th Amendment states that "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." A term-limited President is still constitutionally eligible to be President, as long as he or she gets there without having to be elected. Via a tragedy taking out everyone to the Secretary of Education, for example, and that person being an ex-President. Or anywhere else in the line of succession, for that matter.
And being elected VP does not count as election to be President - otherwise every VP who has been elected on a ticket twice would be ineligible to even run once as President (including Biden, Gore, Bush senior, and Nixon before their first (or only) runs). The implication of the wording that you can serve up to 2 years of someone else's term before your first election as President underlines that.
So - while it looks overwhelmingly obvious that the 22nd Amendment intends for no-one to be President for more than eight (or ten) years, and the implication that serving more than two years of someone else's term invalidates one of those two allowed elections underlines it - it isn't explicit on it. So a compliant SCOTUS could say "technically, the law allows that."
I mean the entire ruling on Presidential Immunity looks similarly bad, so it wouldn't even be the most strained the Roberts Court has been, in my view. So - I'd like someone to tell me that there IS an explicit prohibition that stops that interpretation, because all I've done is wikipedia'd it. (In any case, I reckon it's far more likely that Trump gets 25th'd by Vance long before this even becomes a prospect)
I'd say it's simpler then that. The text states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice..." but it doesn't say that such a person cannot be nominated for election, and cannot have their name on the ballot paper. Nor does it say that such a person cannot be inaugurated to be President.
Now, if Trump is on the ballot paper, and people vote for him, at what point does the Supreme Court intervene?
The electoral votes reach Congress in early January, and maybe Congress rejects those votes because it would be unconstitutional for those votes to elect Trump for a third term. But then, no-one else has 270 electoral votes either, so the choice of President goes to the House. Is the House then free to select Trump as President? Would that count as electing him, or would that process come under some other name?
The common-sense interpretation of the 22nd amendment is obvious, and perhaps this would all be a step too far, but I reckon Trump will announce an intention to run for a third term pretty early - in part because it allows him to continue to raise campaign funds, in part because it would send Democrats completely insane, because even raising the question acts as a loyalty test for Republicans, and it possibly staves off the point at which, as a second term President, he becomes a lame duck.
Trump bent the reality field sufficiently that a majority of Republican politicians had to bend the knee and deny his 2020 defeat, and denied his attempts to overturn the result of that election by means of fraud and violence. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that he could bend reality that they would feel bound to deny the plain intent of the 22nd amendment?
Karma is that his fate will be to end where Biden did.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
Attacking other posters weakens debate on PB. I'm not a fan of Williamglenn, but he's entitled to give his views without being compared with a traitor. The effect is to make open debate less likely.
Personally, I think Ukraine needs a compromise, such as yielding Crimea and the easternmost rpvinces in return for the majority of the country to be free to join the EU and NATO, rather than N more years of conflict. Whether a compromise is in fact available isn't clear, but it needs to be explored. Others feel that no reasonable compromise is possible, and we should step up aid to Ukraine. Both are legitimate views and it gets us nowhere to regard either as treacherous.
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
That's why I always go to airports by train.
The best train-terminal experience in Britain is Southampton. Hop off on to the platform, amble into the bus station-like terminal and pretty much straight on to the plane.
Or cruise ship ???
Is that the same? My parents used to do cruises (they seem to have gone off them recently which is understandable after one of those situations where everyone in the shop gets norovirus and aren’t allowed off).
But they always refused to go from Southampton because they have that amusing sort of Anglophobia that involves trying to go on holiday to places where there aren’t too many Brits. They enjoyed the company of Scandinavians and “nice democrat types” from USonia.
We have sailed many times from Southampton to Norway, the Med and a 28 day round trip to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New England, New York and it was amazing though ve4y rough sea coming back over the Atlantic
However, our cruise and worldwide travel is over but we have many happy memories of our international travel
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
That's why I always go to airports by train.
The best train-terminal experience in Britain is Southampton. Hop off on to the platform, amble into the bus station-like terminal and pretty much straight on to the plane.
How do you feel about Gatwick? Or Birmingham?
Okay, but the airports are too big for the seamless experience. Southampton is like changing from the Jubilee to the Bakerloo at Baker Street.
What are the issues around several European countries making decisions in parallel and moving to implement.
Obviously Putin's patsies in the new USA Government will start mouthing threats and throwing tantrums.
But if they want to isolate themselves from Europe 1920s (I think) style, then the corollary is that expect European countries to start taking decisions for themselves.
So let's do it.
If only it was that simple
If we are to have a USA withdrawing from the wider world, as seems fairly clear, then relationships will adjust, and need to adjust. And as always we start from here.
Why is such a measure not possible?
It is just wishful thinking and the EU itself is bitterly divided with some openly supporters of Putin
Trump has just made everything unpredictable with no easy solutions
I note the Mirror is reporting that Trump would block Mandelson's appointment
Allegedly because Lord Mandelbrot's of his association with the EU.
So that's presumably Cathy Ashton done as well, since she was the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for five years. Has anyone told hin?
Why is Trump so scared of the EU, and why does he think it's any of his business whom we make our Ambassador?
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
Attacking other posters weakens debate on PB. I'm not a fan of Williamglenn, but he's entitled to give his views without being compared with a traitor. The effect is to make open debate less likely.
Personally, I think Ukraine needs a compromise, such as yielding Crimea and the easternmost rpvinces in return for the majority of the country to be free to join the EU and NATO, rather than N more years of conflict. Whether a compromise is in fact available isn't clear, but it needs to be explored. Others feel that no reasonable compromise is possible, and we should step up aid to Ukraine. Both are legitimate views and it gets us nowhere to regard either as treacherous.
I can see the logic if Putin could be trusted.
But so could Neville Chamberlain if Hitler could be trusted.
Neither of them can. They will take what's offered and then demand more anyway.
What are the issues around several European countries making decisions in parallel and moving to implement.
Obviously Putin's patsies in the new USA Government will start mouthing threats and throwing tantrums.
But if they want to isolate themselves from Europe 1920s (I think) style, then the corollary is that expect European countries to start taking decisions for themselves.
So let's do it.
If only it was that simple
If we are to have a USA withdrawing from the wider world, as seems fairly clear, then relationships will adjust, and need to adjust. And as always we start from here.
Why is such a measure not possible?
It is just wishful thinking and the EU itself is bitterly divided with some openly supporters of Putin
Trump has just made everything unpredictable with no easy solutions
I note the Mirror is reporting that Trump would block Mandelson's appointment
Allegedly because Lord Mandelbrot's of his association with the EU.
So that's presumably Cathy Ashton done as well, since she was the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for five years. Has anyone told hin?
Why is Trump so scared of the EU, and why does he think it's any of his business whom we make our Ambassador?
He really is a frightened little mouse, isn't he?
There are many things you could call Trump but little or a mouse do not spring to mind
And yes he is very anti EU though I doubt he is scared of it
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
Attacking other posters weakens debate on PB. I'm not a fan of Williamglenn, but he's entitled to give his views without being compared with a traitor. The effect is to make open debate less likely.
Personally, I think Ukraine needs a compromise, such as yielding Crimea and the easternmost rpvinces in return for the majority of the country to be free to join the EU and NATO, rather than N more years of conflict. Whether a compromise is in fact available isn't clear, but it needs to be explored. Others feel that no reasonable compromise is possible, and we should step up aid to Ukraine. Both are legitimate views and it gets us nowhere to regard either as treacherous.
When you say "easternmost provinces", do you mean the territory of them that Russia now holds, or what Putin wants: all those provinces, even if Ukraine currently holds that territory?
ydoethur said: » show previous quotes “Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.”
Big cities. And Liverpool’s don’t count, they’re out of the centre and modern. All the rest are small cities or large towns with the exception of Bristol.
Neither Wakefield nor Coventry are small cities.
Nor London, for the matter of that.
From my perspective Coventry is a small city. My sister lives there - you can walk across the centre in 15 minutes. Wakefield is even smaller.
A story about Wakefield. I once went there and parked in a nice little landscaped car park near the centre, noting the relation to the spire of the cathedral over the rooftops.
I later discovered that Wakefield Cathedral Spire above the rooftops looks pretty much identical from every side, and that Wakefield centre is surrounded by what seems to be a plethora of identical looking car parks.
Upshot: I walked around Wakefield for the best part of 90 minutes looking for my car before swallowing my pride and calling in help from 50 miles away to be driven around to find it more quickly.
I nearly died of embarrassment.
A friend of mine lost his 2005 Renault Clio somewhere in the Southside of Edinburgh. He found it several weeks later while out on a run - the interior was completely infested with fungi and had to be scrapped.
Airport long stay car parks after you’ve been away for a week, it’s late at night and you just want to get home. The worst.
The car park at Bristol airport isn't that large, but when all the cars are covered in snow it gets a bit tricky to pick your own out.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
Attacking other posters weakens debate on PB. I'm not a fan of Williamglenn, but he's entitled to give his views without being compared with a traitor. The effect is to make open debate less likely.
Personally, I think Ukraine needs a compromise, such as yielding Crimea and the easternmost rpvinces in return for the majority of the country to be free to join the EU and NATO, rather than N more years of conflict. Whether a compromise is in fact available isn't clear, but it needs to be explored. Others feel that no reasonable compromise is possible, and we should step up aid to Ukraine. Both are legitimate views and it gets us nowhere to regard either as treacherous.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
We're not at war with Russia. It might be in our interests that they lose but we're not at war with them any more than we were at war with Prussia during the Franco-Prussian War or the Russians during the Great Northern War. Calling it a proxy war is using Putin's language.
What are the issues around several European countries making decisions in parallel and moving to implement.
Obviously Putin's patsies in the new USA Government will start mouthing threats and throwing tantrums.
But if they want to isolate themselves from Europe 1920s (I think) style, then the corollary is that expect European countries to start taking decisions for themselves.
So let's do it.
If only it was that simple
If we are to have a USA withdrawing from the wider world, as seems fairly clear, then relationships will adjust, and need to adjust. And as always we start from here.
Why is such a measure not possible?
It is just wishful thinking and the EU itself is bitterly divided with some openly supporters of Putin
Trump has just made everything unpredictable with no easy solutions
I note the Mirror is reporting that Trump would block Mandelson's appointment
Allegedly because Lord Mandelbrot's of his association with the EU.
So that's presumably Cathy Ashton done as well, since she was the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for five years. Has anyone told hin?
Why is Trump so scared of the EU, and why does he think it's any of his business whom we make our Ambassador?
He really is a frightened little mouse, isn't he?
Nigel must be feeding him this stuff. I can't see Trump giving a God damn shit about the EU otherwise.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
We're not at war with Russia. It might be in our interests that they lose but we're not at war with them any more than we were at war with Prussia during the Franco-Prussian War or the Russians during the Great Northern War. Calling it a proxy war is using Putin's language.
The Cold War was a war. Currently this is Cold War 2.
What are the issues around several European countries making decisions in parallel and moving to implement.
Obviously Putin's patsies in the new USA Government will start mouthing threats and throwing tantrums.
But if they want to isolate themselves from Europe 1920s (I think) style, then the corollary is that expect European countries to start taking decisions for themselves.
So let's do it.
If only it was that simple
If we are to have a USA withdrawing from the wider world, as seems fairly clear, then relationships will adjust, and need to adjust. And as always we start from here.
Why is such a measure not possible?
It is just wishful thinking and the EU itself is bitterly divided with some openly supporters of Putin
Trump has just made everything unpredictable with no easy solutions
I note the Mirror is reporting that Trump would block Mandelson's appointment
Allegedly because Lord Mandelbrot's of his association with the EU.
So that's presumably Cathy Ashton done as well, since she was the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for five years. Has anyone told hin?
Why is Trump so scared of the EU, and why does he think it's any of his business whom we make our Ambassador?
He really is a frightened little mouse, isn't he?
Nigel must be feeding him this stuff. I can't see Trump giving a God damn shit about the EU otherwise.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
Attacking other posters weakens debate on PB. I'm not a fan of Williamglenn, but he's entitled to give his views without being compared with a traitor. The effect is to make open debate less likely.
Personally, I think Ukraine needs a compromise, such as yielding Crimea and the easternmost rpvinces in return for the majority of the country to be free to join the EU and NATO, rather than N more years of conflict. Whether a compromise is in fact available isn't clear, but it needs to be explored. Others feel that no reasonable compromise is possible, and we should step up aid to Ukraine. Both are legitimate views and it gets us nowhere to regard either as treacherous.
When you say "easternmost provinces", do you mean the territory of them that Russia now holds, or what Putin wants: all those provinces, even if Ukraine currently holds that territory?
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
Attacking other posters weakens debate on PB. I'm not a fan of Williamglenn, but he's entitled to give his views without being compared with a traitor. The effect is to make open debate less likely.
Personally, I think Ukraine needs a compromise, such as yielding Crimea and the easternmost rpvinces in return for the majority of the country to be free to join the EU and NATO, rather than N more years of conflict. Whether a compromise is in fact available isn't clear, but it needs to be explored. Others feel that no reasonable compromise is possible, and we should step up aid to Ukraine. Both are legitimate views and it gets us nowhere to regard either as treacherous.
When you say "easternmost provinces", do you mean the territory of them that Russia now holds, or what Putin wants: all those provinces, even if Ukraine currently holds that territory?
We already have North Koreans in the fight. Why not Poles, Brits, the Baltic republics and even France and Germany? We cannot let Russia win this or allow Ukraine to lose because of Trump's abasement to Putin.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
Attacking other posters weakens debate on PB. I'm not a fan of Williamglenn, but he's entitled to give his views without being compared with a traitor. The effect is to make open debate less likely.
Personally, I think Ukraine needs a compromise, such as yielding Crimea and the easternmost rpvinces in return for the majority of the country to be free to join the EU and NATO, rather than N more years of conflict. Whether a compromise is in fact available isn't clear, but it needs to be explored. Others feel that no reasonable compromise is possible, and we should step up aid to Ukraine. Both are legitimate views and it gets us nowhere to regard either as treacherous.
Perhaps not sensible: what Nick proposes might mean that Ukraine gives up a vast amount of territory that it currently controls. Nick's said this sort of thing before, and as far as I'm aware he's not clarified when he means.
I’m on my 4th city in 4 days and enjoying comparing them. Today it’s Cardiff, then Swansea.
I wrote of the lack of centrepiece cathedrals in British cities. Well this one is of course centred on a castle, but the degree to which the principality stadium dominates the very centre of the city is quite unique. Slap bang in the middle.
I rather like Cardiff. The nightlife was by far the rowdiest and most joyous of the cities I’ve visited this week. Proper Magalluf-on-Taff.
Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.
Wasn’t Tim referring to the lack of centrepiece cathedrals in major cities, seem to recall he gave a nod to cathedral cities as “large towns” with a cathedral which is true really.
Portsmouth is a large city with a prominent Cathedral. Arguably that has been 'industrialised' since Drake's time and earlier by being a major base of the navy.
Nottingham is an important city with no old Cathedral, though the Roman Catholics have a pleasant neo-Gothic one built in the 1840s. Possibly also Newcastle, which is an upgraded parish church. And Sheffield. And Derby. I'm not sure about Leicester. These are all Dioceses created as part of Victorian population growth, and the corollary of the empty monumental wool churches, where the population has left, not arrived.
Don't underestimate parish church cathedrals - some of them are magnificent. I'd put both Derby and Sheffield on that list.
Not modern cathedrals I'd put Liverpool and Coventry at the top of that list, with Coventry on a pinnacle that equals almost anything from the medieval period. Lutyens' Liverpool is a last gasp of medievalism.
For "Cathedrals" in indutrial revolution cities, I'd suggest the place is occupied by those great Victorian town halls - Bradford, Manchester, and others have this phenomenon. In Nottingham they built it on half of the medieval marketplace.
I was going to make the same point as you do in your last paragraph. In the great industrial cities, civic pride in the form of town halls and other civic buildings outgunned religious pride. Leeds town hall, magnificent, is also worth a mention.
Manchester City Hall is a thing of beauty, as is the John Rylands Library.
Impossible to believe but Rochdale too.
Continuing this conversation, I just don't understand why that's impossible to believe.
If someone finds that impossible to believe, it is down to their own ignorance or narrowmindedness - entirely to do with the individual being a chump, not to do with Rochdale.
Such chumps need to be forced to visit the Wakefield Piece Hall, or something similar such as the Boots D10 factory in Beeston, Nottingham.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
Attacking other posters weakens debate on PB. I'm not a fan of Williamglenn, but he's entitled to give his views without being compared with a traitor. The effect is to make open debate less likely.
Personally, I think Ukraine needs a compromise, such as yielding Crimea and the easternmost rpvinces in return for the majority of the country to be free to join the EU and NATO, rather than N more years of conflict. Whether a compromise is in fact available isn't clear, but it needs to be explored. Others feel that no reasonable compromise is possible, and we should step up aid to Ukraine. Both are legitimate views and it gets us nowhere to regard either as treacherous.
Perhaps not sensible: what Nick proposes might mean that Ukraine gives up a vast amount of territory that it currently controls. Nick's said this sort of thing before, and as far as I'm aware he's not clarified when he means.
More his comments on @Williamglenn and whilst he is fairly isolated on here his views are part of the debate despite being unpopular
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
Attacking other posters weakens debate on PB. I'm not a fan of Williamglenn, but he's entitled to give his views without being compared with a traitor. The effect is to make open debate less likely.
Personally, I think Ukraine needs a compromise, such as yielding Crimea and the easternmost rpvinces in return for the majority of the country to be free to join the EU and NATO, rather than N more years of conflict. Whether a compromise is in fact available isn't clear, but it needs to be explored. Others feel that no reasonable compromise is possible, and we should step up aid to Ukraine. Both are legitimate views and it gets us nowhere to regard either as treacherous.
When you say "easternmost provinces", do you mean the territory of them that Russia now holds, or what Putin wants: all those provinces, even if Ukraine currently holds that territory?
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
We're not at war with Russia. It might be in our interests that they lose but we're not at war with them any more than we were at war with Prussia during the Franco-Prussian War or the Russians during the Great Northern War. Calling it a proxy war is using Putin's language.
The Cold War was a war. Currently this is Cold War 2.
No it wasn't. It's a conceptual name for a struggle for influence like 'The Great Game'. Are you saying that the Vietnam War was just a battlefield in a wider war?
Russia is said by Ukrainian intelligence to be on track to produce 30% more artillery ammunition than the EU next year.
This failure is inexcusable. The war will pass the three year mark next year and still Europe has been unable or unwilling to increase armaments production to provide the support that Ukraine needs to win the war.
Ultimately, if Ukraine does lose the war it will be because of these sorts of failures. It will be a defeat by the choice not to provide the necessary support.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
Attacking other posters weakens debate on PB. I'm not a fan of Williamglenn, but he's entitled to give his views without being compared with a traitor. The effect is to make open debate less likely.
Personally, I think Ukraine needs a compromise, such as yielding Crimea and the easternmost rpvinces in return for the majority of the country to be free to join the EU and NATO, rather than N more years of conflict. Whether a compromise is in fact available isn't clear, but it needs to be explored. Others feel that no reasonable compromise is possible, and we should step up aid to Ukraine. Both are legitimate views and it gets us nowhere to regard either as treacherous.
And the Russians should accept the loss of Kursk, of course?
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
Attacking other posters weakens debate on PB. I'm not a fan of Williamglenn, but he's entitled to give his views without being compared with a traitor. The effect is to make open debate less likely.
Personally, I think Ukraine needs a compromise, such as yielding Crimea and the easternmost rpvinces in return for the majority of the country to be free to join the EU and NATO, rather than N more years of conflict. Whether a compromise is in fact available isn't clear, but it needs to be explored. Others feel that no reasonable compromise is possible, and we should step up aid to Ukraine. Both are legitimate views and it gets us nowhere to regard either as treacherous.
That's not a compromise, that's a capitulation. Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum; we should hold them to it.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
We're not at war with Russia. It might be in our interests that they lose but we're not at war with them any more than we were at war with Prussia during the Franco-Prussian War or the Russians during the Great Northern War. Calling it a proxy war is using Putin's language.
The Cold War was a war. Currently this is Cold War 2.
No it wasn't. It's a conceptual name for a struggle for influence like 'The Great Game'. Are you saying that the Vietnam War was just a battlefield in a wider war?
I'd argue that it was a war. It was a war where conflict was performed in many ways aside from direct battles between the main powers (aside from proxy wars such as Vietnam).
Direct military conflict was seen by both sides as being too risky, so they picked other means that went far beyond "a struggle for influence".
I’m on my 4th city in 4 days and enjoying comparing them. Today it’s Cardiff, then Swansea.
I wrote of the lack of centrepiece cathedrals in British cities. Well this one is of course centred on a castle, but the degree to which the principality stadium dominates the very centre of the city is quite unique. Slap bang in the middle.
I rather like Cardiff. The nightlife was by far the rowdiest and most joyous of the cities I’ve visited this week. Proper Magalluf-on-Taff.
Really? Lincoln, York, Worcester, Hereford, Gloucester, Canterbury, Winchester, Exeter, Chester, Norwich, Coventry, Carlisle, Rochester, Bristol, Lichfield, Wakefield, Liverpool all spring to mind without any great effort on my part.
Wasn’t Tim referring to the lack of centrepiece cathedrals in major cities, seem to recall he gave a nod to cathedral cities as “large towns” with a cathedral which is true really.
Portsmouth is a large city with a prominent Cathedral. Arguably that has been 'industrialised' since Drake's time and earlier by being a major base of the navy.
Nottingham is an important city with no old Cathedral, though the Roman Catholics have a pleasant neo-Gothic one built in the 1840s. Possibly also Newcastle, which is an upgraded parish church. And Sheffield. And Derby. I'm not sure about Leicester. These are all Dioceses created as part of Victorian population growth, and the corollary of the empty monumental wool churches, where the population has left, not arrived.
Don't underestimate parish church cathedrals - some of them are magnificent. I'd put both Derby and Sheffield on that list.
Not modern cathedrals I'd put Liverpool and Coventry at the top of that list, with Coventry on a pinnacle that equals almost anything from the medieval period. Lutyens' Liverpool is a last gasp of medievalism.
For "Cathedrals" in indutrial revolution cities, I'd suggest the place is occupied by those great Victorian town halls - Bradford, Manchester, and others have this phenomenon. In Nottingham they built it on half of the medieval marketplace.
I was going to make the same point as you do in your last paragraph. In the great industrial cities, civic pride in the form of town halls and other civic buildings outgunned religious pride. Leeds town hall, magnificent, is also worth a mention.
Manchester City Hall is a thing of beauty, as is the John Rylands Library.
Impossible to believe but Rochdale too.
Continuing this conversation, I just don't understand why that's impossible to believe.
If someone finds that impossible to believe, it is down to their own ignorance or narrowmindedness - entirely to do with the individual being a chump, not to do with Rochdale.
Such chumps need to be forced to visit the Wakefield Piece Hall, or something similar such as the Boots D10 factory in Beeston, Nottingham.
You are right. I am wrong. Mea maxima culpa.
Thanks for that.
We're all being a bit light hearted of course - it's that Saturday feeling.
Russia is said by Ukrainian intelligence to be on track to produce 30% more artillery ammunition than the EU next year.
This failure is inexcusable. The war will pass the three year mark next year and still Europe has been unable or unwilling to increase armaments production to provide the support that Ukraine needs to win the war.
Ultimately, if Ukraine does lose the war it will be because of these sorts of failures. It will be a defeat by the choice not to provide the necessary support.
We chose bat tunnels instead of munition factories.
I wonder if there’s an overlap between people that say certain people should be allowed to post to ensure a debate and if those same people happen to be Tory supporters/anti-Labour. Surely not.
Russia is said by Ukrainian intelligence to be on track to produce 30% more artillery ammunition than the EU next year.
This failure is inexcusable. The war will pass the three year mark next year and still Europe has been unable or unwilling to increase armaments production to provide the support that Ukraine needs to win the war.
Ultimately, if Ukraine does lose the war it will be because of these sorts of failures. It will be a defeat by the choice not to provide the necessary support.
We have relied on the US who we regarded as a dependable friend. That ends in January. They are no longer. We need to act and we need to act now. Last year would have been good (I am not exclusively blaming the current government for this), but right now we need to change gear.
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
We're not at war with Russia. It might be in our interests that they lose but we're not at war with them any more than we were at war with Prussia during the Franco-Prussian War or the Russians during the Great Northern War. Calling it a proxy war is using Putin's language.
The Cold War was a war. Currently this is Cold War 2.
No it wasn't. It's a conceptual name for a struggle for influence like 'The Great Game'. Are you saying that the Vietnam War was just a battlefield in a wider war?
I'd argue that it was a war. It was a war where conflict was performed in many ways aside from direct battles between the main powers (aside from proxy wars such as Vietnam).
Direct military conflict was seen by both sides as being too risky, so they picked other means that went far beyond "a struggle for influence".
I see your point but I just think that definition is unhelpful because it means that we'll constantly be classed as at war with any country who's geopolitical interests we oppose. As I said below it's enormously helpful to Putin to be able to frame his invasion of Ukraine as a proxy war with the West.
I wonder if there’s an overlap between people that say certain people should be allowed to post to ensure a debate and if those same people happen to be Tory supporters/anti-Labour. Surely not.
In my view everyone should be allowed to post on here and it is for the moderators to decide if the posts are appropriate
And @NickPalmer is a former Labour mp if you hadn't noticed
Perhaps an indication of where Trump is going to go with Ukraine can be seen in this Tweet from Musk:
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Do you think the story is false or just inconvenient so shouldn't be discussed?
I see why PB doesn't need a new Saturday Morning Poster any more.
Bit harsh.
We are at war with Russia.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
We're not at war with Russia. It might be in our interests that they lose but we're not at war with them any more than we were at war with Prussia during the Franco-Prussian War or the Russians during the Great Northern War. Calling it a proxy war is using Putin's language.
The Cold War was a war. Currently this is Cold War 2.
No it wasn't. It's a conceptual name for a struggle for influence like 'The Great Game'. Are you saying that the Vietnam War was just a battlefield in a wider war?
I'd argue that it was a war. It was a war where conflict was performed in many ways aside from direct battles between the main powers (aside from proxy wars such as Vietnam).
Direct military conflict was seen by both sides as being too risky, so they picked other means that went far beyond "a struggle for influence".
I see your point but I just think that definition is unhelpful because it means that we'll constantly be classed as at war with any country who's geopolitical interests we oppose. As I said below it's enormously helpful to Putin to be able to frame his invasion of Ukraine as a proxy war with the West.
But it was far, far more than just having a country whose geopolitical interests we oppose. Both sides had horrendous amounts of nuclear weapons pointed at each other, ready to go at a moment's notice. Both economies were essentially on a war footing (especially Russia's), and both sides fostered dissent in each other, often via proxies. Unfriendly acts were far more common between them than friendly ones.
Sadly, Russia is having a proxy war with the west - at Putin's choice. Where do you want to start? In our case, Litvinenko and Salisbury should be considered.
"Nearly 70% of Gaza war dead are women and children, UN says"
It looks like it’s time for another installment in our regular segment, "How to Lie with Statistics about Fatalities in Gaza", because a new "analysis" from @UNHumanRights has just dropped and all the mass media outlets are ecstatic.
I did see that headline on the BBC and think well that's BS....BBC Verify asleep at the wheel....and of course it was misleading fake news that even the Lib Dem dodgy bar chart committee would be ashamed of.
Arizona latest is Trump has pulled further ahead, whilst Lake has drawn closer to becoming a Senator.
Senator Kari Lake. We’ll hear the orgasmic scream all the way from Korea to the UK.
Why is it taking so long and will it declare before Trump becomes President in January
Let’s not trigger Viewcode.
It was sensible, based on what happened last time, other swing states made sure they were done and dusted early and out the spotlight. Arizona I think have law any votes still coming in up to today still count - crazy as it sounds - if so couldn’t bust a gut to declare on the night as votes still coming in.
Arizona latest is Trump has pulled further ahead, whilst Lake has drawn closer to becoming a Senator.
Senator Kari Lake. We’ll hear the orgasmic scream all the way from Korea to the UK.
Why is it taking so long and will it declare before Trump becomes President in January
Let’s not trigger Viewcode.
It was sensible, based on what happened last time, other swing states made sure they were done and dusted early and out the spotlight. Arizona I think have law any votes still coming in up to today still count - crazy as it sounds - if so couldn’t bust a gut to declare on the night as votes still coming in.
If Trump's team really is blocking Mandelson's appointment, it is both hostile and stupid.
Allies don't reject ambassadors. Can you imagine the stink if the UK government refused to accept a US ambassador? (We accepted Joe Kennedy for Christ's sake.)
It's also stupid: Trump should want the highest powered UK ambassador possible. That's Peter Mandelson. Whatever you think of him personally, he has 10x the ability of any of the other proposed candidates.
One of my favourite subjects. Can't believe someone's done a programme on it. There's nothing I like better then visiting somewhere with a guidebook that was published 40 years ago.
"Time Travel A Point of View
Sara Wheeler reflects on the valuable perspective offered by out-of-date guidebooks. They shed light on the life of the early traveler, and reveal how destinations have evolved."
If Trump's team really is blocking Mandelson's appointment, it is both hostile and stupid.
Allies don't reject ambassadors. Can you imagine the stink if the UK government refused to accept a US ambassador? (We accepted Joe Kennedy for Christ's sake.)
It's also stupid: Trump should want the highest powered UK ambassador possible. That's Peter Mandelson. Whatever you think of him personally, he has 10x the ability of any of the other proposed candidates.
I fear what someone said below is correct: that Trump's listened to Farage.
If Trump's team really is blocking Mandelson's appointment, it is both hostile and stupid.
Allies don't reject ambassadors. Can you imagine the stink if the UK government refused to accept a US ambassador? (We accepted Joe Kennedy for Christ's sake.)
It's also stupid: Trump should want the highest powered UK ambassador possible. That's Peter Mandelson. Whatever you think of him personally, he has 10x the ability of any of the other proposed candidates.
The fact it is the Mirror reporting it seems it is possible
Comments
In response to: "The most under-reported story in Washington is how much corrupt Ukrainian cash is trying to buy influence. It wasn’t just Hunter Biden. Most of the warmongers are PAID."
Musk replied: "Yeah"
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1855155485885788315
The law is whatever the court says it is.
Why is such a measure not possible?
"According to this argument, if a former two-term President can run for Vice President, the danger exists that a conspiracy between a sham presidential candidate and former President vice-presidential candidate could take hold. Under this feared scenario, the election of such a ticket would trigger the prompt post-election resignation of the sham President and the immediate replacement of that person with the otherwise unelectable former-President Vice President. And because such a power grab—whether pulled off with or without the previous knowledge of the national electorate—would violate the no-more-FDRs core aim of the Twenty Second Amendment, this argument posits that it is right to read the Twelfth and Twenty-Second Amendments as barring the election of former two-term Presidents as Vice-President. See Peabody & Gant, supra note 7, at 622–24 (identifying this argument).
One major problem with this contention is that it would throw out the baby with the bathwater by installing a textually unsupported, across-the-board prohibition to deal with an exceptionally extraordinary case. Assume, for example, a world in which Hillary Clinton is nominated for the presidency and chooses Bill Clinton as her running mate. Obviously, she would not make this choice because she was pursuing the presidency as a sham candidate. Nor has any presidential candidate in American history contemplated anything of the sort. Another difficulty with the argument is that it ignores the good judgment of the American people.
It is farfetched to think that the nation’s voters would fail to detect a self-serving effort to pull a Twenty-Second-Amendment trick on them or to embrace with enthusiasm a presidential ticket openly designed to circumvent the Constitution’s strictures. (Moreover, if voters somehow chose to embrace such a ticket, it would almost surely be only because the most compelling circumstances confronted them—thus placing the value of voter autonomy at its very highest ebb.) For this reason, this argument runs up against the common-sense proposition that constitutional interpreters can and should consider the extent to which ordinary political processes will operate to fend off the worst-case scenarios that prophets of legal doom might concoct."
Of course, this assumes that the US electorate would not be willing to see this happen - or, at least, enough voters therein. I thought not enough would be willing to see President Trump returned, so I'm recusing myself from comment there.
Very difficult to imagine it could be much better.
To be fair, as I opined to Mrs Stodge, with all the parked vehicles, e-scooters, cyclists and vans, I'd be likely to ever get to 20 mph.
I’m not usually a huge fan of messing with classics but first episode has been great.
I guess it’s Bourne, The night manager, the MI6 of later bond films if that helps describe. Well paced so far too.
Do you think Musk's parroting of this story will help or hinder Ukraine's cause? You know, because your avatar refers to the Ukrainian flag...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c97z7jdz5z7o
With equally good Gelato.
The wine isn’t local, sadly. The wine shop with the stuff from the Vale of Glamorgan (Glyndwr, Llanerch) had closed so it was Co-op time.
It might not look like it, as it is a proxy war, but it is a war nonetheless.
If Williamglenn was a paid shill, I'd at least have respect for the fact he was getting paid...
The use of the word 'warmongers' in that tweet is quite instructive. Implying that Ukraine are the warmongers here, not Russia.
PB's own Lord Haw Haw can do one, as far as I'm concerned.
Does WilliamG have any evidence for his allegation that Ukrainian cash has been paying for “warmongers”?
Perhaps he even thinks Ukraine paid somehow for itself to be invaded?
After all, who wants blood on their hands prolonging a war when it won’t change the final outcome but many more people will die?
It’s the (successful) argument made by conquering generals since the year dot. Sometimes it is indeed the correct argument. The sad thing about Ukraine is that it need not be. The west could help Ukraine send Russia packing back into, you know, actual Russia, if it so wished.
Trump has just made everything unpredictable with no easy solutions
I note the Mirror is reporting that Trump would block Mandelson's appointment
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/donald-trump-could-block-peter-34074843
My daily commute is DLR from Deptford bridge. Still fun to sit at the front through the tunnel.
But they always refused to go from Southampton because they have that amusing sort of Anglophobia that involves trying to go on holiday to places where there aren’t too many Brits. They enjoyed the company of Scandinavians and “nice democrat types” from USonia.
By the way, while you’re here. Where TF are all those 20mph roads you lot promised me?? Can I find some tomorrow on my drive from Mumbles to Brecon?
Paul Mason
@paulmasonnews
·
7h
This one piece of sense from
@debmattinson
is worth hundreds of hours of hot takes from the "it was Gaza" brigade. The Democrats were told how to win - but they are one of the most useless and self-deluding party machines in the Western world.
https://x.com/paulmasonnews/status/1855215449903960255
Southampton Central is the railway station in the middle of Southampton, nearest to the port
If going by train now, you need to get off at Southampton Central and get the bus.
Personally, I think Ukraine needs a compromise, such as yielding Crimea and the easternmost rpvinces in return for the majority of the country to be free to join the EU and NATO, rather than N more years of conflict. Whether a compromise is in fact available isn't clear, but it needs to be explored. Others feel that no reasonable compromise is possible, and we should step up aid to Ukraine. Both are legitimate views and it gets us nowhere to regard either as treacherous.
However, our cruise and worldwide travel is over but we have many happy memories of our international travel
Allegedly because Lord Mandelbrot's of his association with the EU.
So that's presumably Cathy Ashton done as well, since she was the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for five years. Has anyone told hin?
Why is Trump so scared of the EU, and why does he think it's any of his business whom we make our Ambassador?
He really is a frightened little mouse, isn't he?
But so could Neville Chamberlain if Hitler could be trusted.
Neither of them can. They will take what's offered and then demand more anyway.
And yes he is very anti EU though I doubt he is scared of it
Liverpool in box seat
This story from this week might give you pause for thought:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07912lxx33o
This failure is inexcusable. The war will pass the three year mark next year and still Europe has been unable or unwilling to increase armaments production to provide the support that Ukraine needs to win the war.
Ultimately, if Ukraine does lose the war it will be because of these sorts of failures. It will be a defeat by the choice not to provide the necessary support.
Are they trying to win swing voters or repel them even more?
Direct military conflict was seen by both sides as being too risky, so they picked other means that went far beyond "a struggle for influence".
We're all being a bit light hearted of course - it's that Saturday feeling.
But he’s spreading conspiracy theories.
And @NickPalmer is a former Labour mp if you hadn't noticed
Senator Kari Lake. We’ll hear the orgasmic scream all the way from Korea to the UK.
Sadly, Russia is having a proxy war with the west - at Putin's choice. Where do you want to start? In our case, Litvinenko and Salisbury should be considered.
It looks like it’s time for another installment in our regular segment, "How to Lie with Statistics about Fatalities in Gaza", because a new "analysis" from @UNHumanRights has just dropped and all the mass media outlets are ecstatic.
https://x.com/MarkZlochin/status/1854981312366379519
I did see that headline on the BBC and think well that's BS....BBC Verify asleep at the wheel....and of course it was misleading fake news that even the Lib Dem dodgy bar chart committee would be ashamed of.
It was sensible, based on what happened last time, other swing states made sure they were done and dusted early and out the spotlight. Arizona I think have law any votes still coming in up to today still count - crazy as it sounds - if so couldn’t bust a gut to declare on the night as votes still coming in.
Nevada has given its EC to Trump whilst keeping Dem Senator.
I think there is definitely huge incumbency bonus for Senators. Is it 90% chance of re-elected regardless what else is going on?
Allies don't reject ambassadors. Can you imagine the stink if the UK government refused to accept a US ambassador? (We accepted Joe Kennedy for Christ's sake.)
It's also stupid: Trump should want the highest powered UK ambassador possible. That's Peter Mandelson. Whatever you think of him personally, he has 10x the ability of any of the other proposed candidates.
"Time Travel
A Point of View
Sara Wheeler reflects on the valuable perspective offered by out-of-date guidebooks. They shed light on the life of the early traveler, and reveal how destinations have evolved."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0024p3q
I genuinely thought he had been brought back already. I didn't realise they hadn't done that yet.