Dunno if DJTJ, who is basically Hunter Biden not on crack, has the sort of energy and work ethic required for a presidential campaign. If he's going to do it, then he should have a PAC set up now and be raising money, schmoozing donors, etc. He conspicuously isn't. The other road block is the guylinered psycho JDV who will, without doubt, run against DJTJ if there is an open primary.
Ivanka is more likely, as DJT at least seems to like her.
From the Bluesky side, it had stabilised post Musk's end of the pier show at just under a million posts per day, and last night was at just over 28 million users, ticking up at perhaps 60-70k per day. https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
As of this morning, it is at 29.2 million accounts, so that is plus one million in 4 days - 250k per day. Obviously encouraged by Trump, and by Musk's gesture politics. And up from ~250k in August 2024.
So on this trend minus a chunk, for it being a flurry, we'll be looking at ~50 million accounts by Easter, and numbers plus which communities / opinion leaders / organisations shift to Bluesky will make it clearer whether this will be a broader ecosystem.
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
Or, of course, Boris might have, against all precedent, done the right thing for the right reasons?
If they thought it was going to be over 'quickly', the easiest course would have been not to help Ukraine, and position ourselves ready to deal with the new reality of an emboldened Russia.
But we did the right thing, and stood up against Putin's imperialism and fascism.
“Manufacturers have entered the New Year in a grim mood. Confidence has evaporated over the last three months as orders have dropped,” said Ben Jones, economist at the business group.
“A fall in domestic deliveries comes amid widespread concerns over the impact of the increase in National Insurance contributions, minimum wages and changes to employment law on firms’ operating costs.”
Much of the global manufacturing sector is struggling with German industry gripped by high energy prices, weak demand and stiff competition from Chinese car manufacturers, while China itself is also battling against an economic slump caused in part by a property crisis.
I am leaving end of next month where I work, Yesterday due to fallin order book and no real sign of an uptick they announced compulsory redundancies. I have been there over a decade and this has never happened before. The assumption is orders will pick up but this has been said for 12 months and it just does not happen and no sign of it happening. We sell consumables and equipment. We have not had an order for a piece of equipment for over 12 months now. Our customers have simply got no capex expenditure at the moment. We have only had a few enquiries too.
The equipment we sell is the route to market for alot of our consumables. The razor and the razorblades analogy and it is just not happening.
Reeves is definitely now making the right noises about growth and seems to be pivoting into the right approach however the damage has been done in the past 6 months.
I'm afraid I have lirrle confidence in Reeves. She has put growth in to reverse gear and the impact of her policies have yet to feed fully through. She evidently had no plan to get the economy growing and Labour is now trying to put one together and will have an internal battle to straighten things out first. The Net Zero versus growth dichotomy is just the first. Sad fact is Reeves will need to reverse lots of her policies ( see non doms ) and its whether she has the courage to recognise she was wrong and change. I doubt it.
She does seem to be doing a partial reverse on non doms and is now being attacked from the left as a consequence.
She needs to do far more but over the last week, week and a half, she does seem to be doing some positive things on growth.
I get the lack of confidence. She has done little to gain any and we are reaping the consequences of the doom and gloom rhetoric when labour came to power however if she does turn it around and does start doing positive things on growth then she has much to gain.
The Left need a reality check. If you want a world-class NHS, you need rich people to pay for it (even if they don't use it).
Chasing the rich away may give warm fuzzy feelings to the Left. Until they have to start explaining the closure of hospital wards. Utter pillocks.
Their solution will be "wealth tax now" and demand the rich pay their "fair share"
TUSC on Twitter was one of the strongest critics. We need a new party of the left apparently, as Reeves is a Tory.
There is a view on the left, or a part of it, that the wealthy pay no tax at all.
“Manufacturers have entered the New Year in a grim mood. Confidence has evaporated over the last three months as orders have dropped,” said Ben Jones, economist at the business group.
“A fall in domestic deliveries comes amid widespread concerns over the impact of the increase in National Insurance contributions, minimum wages and changes to employment law on firms’ operating costs.”
Much of the global manufacturing sector is struggling with German industry gripped by high energy prices, weak demand and stiff competition from Chinese car manufacturers, while China itself is also battling against an economic slump caused in part by a property crisis.
I am leaving end of next month where I work, Yesterday due to fallin order book and no real sign of an uptick they announced compulsory redundancies. I have been there over a decade and this has never happened before. The assumption is orders will pick up but this has been said for 12 months and it just does not happen and no sign of it happening. We sell consumables and equipment. We have not had an order for a piece of equipment for over 12 months now. Our customers have simply got no capex expenditure at the moment. We have only had a few enquiries too.
The equipment we sell is the route to market for alot of our consumables. The razor and the razorblades analogy and it is just not happening.
Reeves is definitely now making the right noises about growth and seems to be pivoting into the right approach however the damage has been done in the past 6 months.
I'm afraid I have lirrle confidence in Reeves. She has put growth in to reverse gear and the impact of her policies have yet to feed fully through. She evidently had no plan to get the economy growing and Labour is now trying to put one together and will have an internal battle to straighten things out first. The Net Zero versus growth dichotomy is just the first. Sad fact is Reeves will need to reverse lots of her policies ( see non doms ) and its whether she has the courage to recognise she was wrong and change. I doubt it.
She does seem to be doing a partial reverse on non doms and is now being attacked from the left as a consequence.
She needs to do far more but over the last week, week and a half, she does seem to be doing some positive things on growth.
I get the lack of confidence. She has done little to gain any and we are reaping the consequences of the doom and gloom rhetoric when labour came to power however if she does turn it around and does start doing positive things on growth then she has much to gain.
The Left need a reality check. If you want a world-class NHS, you need rich people to pay for it (even if they don't use it).
Chasing the rich away may give warm fuzzy feelings to the Left. Until they have to start explaining the closure of hospital wards. Utter pillocks.
Their solution will be "wealth tax now" and demand the rich pay their "fair share"
TUSC on Twitter was one of the strongest critics. We need a new party of the left apparently, as Reeves is a Tory.
There is a view on the left, or a part of it, that the wealthy pay no tax at all.
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
I absolutely see that, but we are once again 'doing extra' to 'show leadership'. We don't have to go around signing 100 year pacts ffs. Other countries looking at this and our deindustrialisation in the face of Net Zero are apparently meant to get pricked consciences like they're at a Live Aid concert and start throwing their money at it like us, whereas they're actually just thinking "what an absurd bunch of c****."
I’m in a rural Burmese town - Twantay - which is so rural I don’t think they’ve seen a white person for 40 years
Walk down the street and people run out of the shops to have a look. One guy did a dangerous u-turn just to have a second glimpse. Children almost faint
I mean, it could be my ruthless good looks but I don’t think so
Possibly the last white person here was George Orwell. A copper stationed in Twantay in the 1920s
Wasn't that the experience that turned him into an anti-imperialist and socialist?
In which case, we can expect a different SeanT returning home...
Also helped turn Orwell into one of the most important writers of the 20th century, so…
I'm not sure he was there for a bit of paid tourism, though.
Wouldn’t call it tourism particularly. Burma is quite a challenging place to be at the mo, in multiple ways
For a start you’re basically stuck in Rangoon*. When I first got here I checked flights to Bagan and Mandalay and inle. There were a few but all departing at 7am daily or earlier. Like they didn’t want tourists to use them
Now even those flights are gone. There are zero domestic flights in Burma. Overland travel is an enormous hassle and there are military checkpoints everywhere - don’t think you’d get far
As a result there are zero tourists. I’ve just spent seven hours walking around Rangoon and going o see some nearby towns. In all that time I glimpsed one - one! - white European face other than my own
I doubt that can be said of any similarly sized city on Earth
*everyone here uses the names “Rangoon” and “Burma”. I suspect it’s a sly dig at the regime, so I’m happy to join in
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
Given the degree of damage being inflicted upon both the military power and the military prestige of Russia, the expenditure on the part of the UK government looks like the bargain of the century.
One day something is going to Twitter but I don't think it's going to be Bluesky. Bluesky's inauguration week core stats - unique daily likers, unique daily posters, total likes, total posts - are about 15% to 20% down on the late November peak. Those numbers don't feel like the numbers of a platform in the mists of going exponential off the back of a wave of outrage.
People may be creating accounts, but they don't seem to be doing that much with them.
Bluesky has, whether intentionally or not, positioned itself as the platform for the left. I don't see how it breaks out of that to become actually significant.
Not everyone is on social media for the politics. It breaks out by attracting more of the rest of the world.
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
John Healey on TV this morning verbally fellating Trump for his leadership on the situation between the two was bizarre.
I’m in a rural Burmese town - Twantay - which is so rural I don’t think they’ve seen a white person for 40 years
Walk down the street and people run out of the shops to have a look. One guy did a dangerous u-turn just to have a second glimpse. Children almost faint
I mean, it could be my ruthless good looks but I don’t think so
Possibly the last white person here was George Orwell. A copper stationed in Twantay in the 1920s
Wasn't that the experience that turned him into an anti-imperialist and socialist?
In which case, we can expect a different SeanT returning home...
Also helped turn Orwell into one of the most important writers of the 20th century, so…
I'm not sure he was there for a bit of paid tourism, though.
Wouldn’t call it tourism particularly. Burma is quite a challenging place to be at the mo, in multiple ways
For a start you’re basically stuck in Rangoon*. When I first got here I checked flights to Bagan and Mandalay and inle. There were a few but all departing at 7am daily or earlier. Like they didn’t want tourists to use them
Now even those flights are gone. There are zero domestic flights in Burma. Overland travel is an enormous hassle and there are military checkpoints everywhere - don’t think you’d get far
As a result there are zero tourists. I’ve just spent seven hours walking around Rangoon and going o see some nearby towns. In all that time I glimpsed one - one! - white European face other than my own
I doubt that can be said of any similarly sized city on Earth
*everyone here uses the names “Rangoon” and “Burma”. I suspect it’s a sly dig at the regime, so I’m happy to join in
From the Bluesky side, it had stabilised post Musk's end of the pier show at just under a million posts per day, and last night was at just over 28 million users, ticking up at perhaps 60-70k per day. https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
As of this morning, it is at 29.2 million accounts, so that is plus one million in 4 days - 250k per day. Obviously encouraged by Trump, and by Musk's gesture politics. And up from ~250k in August 2024.
So on this trend minus a chunk, for it being a flurry, we'll be looking at ~50 million accounts by Easter, and numbers plus which communities / opinion leaders / organisations shift to Bluesky will make it clearer whether this will be a broader ecosystem.
I am quite happy with twitter. I think there is much ramping of bluesky going on but twitter has first mover advantage.
We will see but I think it is a lot of hoping from Bluesky fans and Bluesky does not seem especially welcoming of diverse views.
Twitter is definitely getting harder to use. Maybe it's more obvious to me as I'm not on there every day, but following conversations of replies seems much more difficult than it used to be.
What annoys me is when I go onto it there is an interesting post, or one that seems to be, and it just reloads and I Cannot find it.
I use it far less than I used to but it still interests me.
I have been using Claude and Perplexity recently quite a bit.
I know that to many he can do nothing right, but Trump asking his assistant to give the pen with which he signed the order to release the documents related to the deaths of his father and his uncle, to RFK Jr, was a class move.
He pardoned large numbers of Jan 6 rioters who had violently assaulted police officers (having said he wouldn't). Giving a pen to his political ally doesn't re-balance the scales all that much.
The vast majority of those pardoned were not violent, and those who were violent and arrested on the day had already spent four years incarcerated.
Many others were guilty of nothing except possibly a misdemeanour trespassing, but have been held in custody without trial for years,
As I said, he pardoned large numbers of Jan 6 rioters who had violently assaulted police officers. That some Jan 6 rioters had been less violent does not excuse Trump's pardon of those who were.
defiyantlyfree on Twitter, who you describe as "One investigator", calls herself "Insurrection Barbie". She's a hardcore, hard right, MAGA activist. She's not exactly some independent commentator.
There were a few dozen rioters, and 1,500 non-violent people who have just received pardons.
It was a "Mostly peaceful" demonstration so surely those demonising it should excuse it ?
From the Bluesky side, it had stabilised post Musk's end of the pier show at just under a million posts per day, and last night was at just over 28 million users, ticking up at perhaps 60-70k per day. https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
As of this morning, it is at 29.2 million accounts, so that is plus one million in 4 days - 250k per day. Obviously encouraged by Trump, and by Musk's gesture politics. And up from ~250k in August 2024.
So on this trend minus a chunk, for it being a flurry, we'll be looking at ~50 million accounts by Easter, and numbers plus which communities / opinion leaders / organisations shift to Bluesky will make it clearer whether this will be a broader ecosystem.
For bluesky to truly succeed it desperately needs a lot of centrist and, especially, right wing accounts to move
I see no sign of that. Bluesky is actively hostile to these people
So we will end up with two different but similar Twitter-like places and even less interaction between left and right. Not good
Actively hostile?
(Looks at twitter DMs). I could bring Police Scotland to a shuddering halt if I were to report every violent threat I've received on twitter. The blame for this division lies squarely with the social media firm that allows someone who advocates for a beaver reintroductions or a cycle lane here or there to receive that volume of abuse.
Sure, but conversely if Bluesky ever does take off with a wide range of opinion then you will get that on Bluesky as well (indeed there are already early reports of bullying and harrassment on Bluesky - which could be seen as a good sign of its growth)
I've just joined blue-sky, and I'm underwhelmed. None of the sports people/ companies I'm interested in have a presence there. My favourite bike brand isn't on it, other brands have an account, but no posts or media. Barely even a decent conspiracy theory nutjob on there. Hopefully, it'll pick up.
I created a Bluesky account but don't go on there. Doesn't look particularly appealing! As for Twitter, I'm enjoying the calming effect of not being exposed to fact-free shithousery.
Debate is crucial to politics and society. I've had my own journey from Blairite to give Corbyn a try to Social Democrat - those evolutions happen thanks to debate.
My problem with Twitter and the alt-left/alt-right is that we're not debating based on facts or evidence or science or rationale. Something is said which is demonstrably not true which becomes the credo of that politics. Disagree and be disowned. Happened extensively with those Momentum wazzocks inside Labour, and now here we are with Truss issuing "I didn't crash the economy" letters despite having to fire, u-turn and resign because she demonstrably did. And then otherwise seemingly sensible people repeating this revisionism as if its not only true but is CLEARLY the only possible truth.
This is why I feel at home in the LibDems. We have some proper rows over policy. But they're not facts vs fiction. We agree where we are - which is more than some Labour and Tory people can manage - and then debate what we do about it.
I’m in a rural Burmese town - Twantay - which is so rural I don’t think they’ve seen a white person for 40 years
Walk down the street and people run out of the shops to have a look. One guy did a dangerous u-turn just to have a second glimpse. Children almost faint
I mean, it could be my ruthless good looks but I don’t think so
Possibly the last white person here was George Orwell. A copper stationed in Twantay in the 1920s
Wasn't that the experience that turned him into an anti-imperialist and socialist?
In which case, we can expect a different SeanT returning home...
Also helped turn Orwell into one of the most important writers of the 20th century, so…
I'm not sure he was there for a bit of paid tourism, though.
Wouldn’t call it tourism particularly. Burma is quite a challenging place to be at the mo, in multiple ways
For a start you’re basically stuck in Rangoon*. When I first got here I checked flights to Bagan and Mandalay and inle. There were a few but all departing at 7am daily or earlier. Like they didn’t want tourists to use them
Now even those flights are gone. There are zero domestic flights in Burma. Overland travel is an enormous hassle and there are military checkpoints everywhere - don’t think you’d get far
As a result there are zero tourists. I’ve just spent seven hours walking around Rangoon and going o see some nearby towns. In all that time I glimpsed one - one! - white European face other than my own
I doubt that can be said of any similarly sized city on Earth
*everyone here uses the names “Rangoon” and “Burma”. I suspect it’s a sly dig at the regime, so I’m happy to join in
Arduous tourism, then.
As long as you - I - stick to the incredibly cheap 5 star hotel (Park Royal, £42 a night) with the lavish pool, nice gym, pleasant bar and fantastic food from 3 restaurants it’s not excessively arduous
But step outside….
I’m leaving in a couple of days. Back to Bangers
I’m going to miss it, I suspect; the oddness. The crows - so many crows. The mildewed imperial ruins. The shy smiles. The brilliant fish curry. The FANTASTIC cakes - what is that about? Why does Rangoon have the best patisserie in the world - a hangover from British imperial tea times? French chefs stopping over on the way home from Vietnam?
And the beautiful women with the weird yellow paste on their faces. And the very serious chanting in the shrines and pagodas. And the dystopian nightlife when an entire street will be blackout dark apart from the excellent tapas bar at the end
I’m in a rural Burmese town - Twantay - which is so rural I don’t think they’ve seen a white person for 40 years
Walk down the street and people run out of the shops to have a look. One guy did a dangerous u-turn just to have a second glimpse. Children almost faint
I mean, it could be my ruthless good looks but I don’t think so
Possibly the last white person here was George Orwell. A copper stationed in Twantay in the 1920s
Wasn't that the experience that turned him into an anti-imperialist and socialist?
In which case, we can expect a different SeanT returning home...
Also helped turn Orwell into one of the most important writers of the 20th century, so…
I'm not sure he was there for a bit of paid tourism, though.
Wouldn’t call it tourism particularly. Burma is quite a challenging place to be at the mo, in multiple ways
For a start you’re basically stuck in Rangoon*. When I first got here I checked flights to Bagan and Mandalay and inle. There were a few but all departing at 7am daily or earlier. Like they didn’t want tourists to use them
Now even those flights are gone. There are zero domestic flights in Burma. Overland travel is an enormous hassle and there are military checkpoints everywhere - don’t think you’d get far
As a result there are zero tourists. I’ve just spent seven hours walking around Rangoon and going o see some nearby towns. In all that time I glimpsed one - one! - white European face other than my own
I doubt that can be said of any similarly sized city on Earth
*everyone here uses the names “Rangoon” and “Burma”. I suspect it’s a sly dig at the regime, so I’m happy to join in
Arduous tourism, then.
As long as you - I - stick to the incredibly cheap 5 star hotel (Park Royal, £42 a night) with the lavish pool, nice gym, pleasant bar and fantastic food from 3 restaurants it’s not excessively arduous
But step outside….
I’m leaving in a couple of days. Back to Bangers
I’m going to miss it, I suspect; the oddness. The crows - so many crows. The mildewed imperial ruins. The shy smiles. The brilliant fish curry. The FANTASTIC cakes - what is that about? Why does Rangoon have the best patisserie in the world - a hangover from British imperial tea times? French chefs stopping over on the way home from Vietnam?
And the beautiful women with the weird yellow paste on their faces. And the very serious chanting in the shrines and pagodas. And the dystopian nightlife when an entire street will be blackout dark apart from the excellent tapas bar at the end
I’m going to miss the strangeness
This is what Theodore Dalrymple wrote about the place a few years ago.
"Writing about a film from Burma, he recalls his time in the country many years previous under its military dictatorships, a “tyranny tempered by laziness and incompetence. It was xenophobic and self-serving and I ought to have hated it.” Yet, Dalrymple writes: “Instead I loved it. The country had an indefinable charm that any modernization would destroy once and for all; the charm was as delicate and irrecoverable as the blush of a grape. I looked at the country aesthetically, not politically or economically. No doubt this was very superficial: people do not live in museums for the delectation of occasional visitors. I have little doubt that if I had to live there, I would have detested the government and done what little I could to rid the country of it. But still I could not be as enthusiastic as I ought to have been about the prospect of democratic change.”"
Wildly off-topic, but can I express just a little sympathy for the place in which Mr & Mrs Rudakubana find themselves. It's reasonably clear that the father tried to stop his son, at least twice, so had some idea of what was happening. Now they've got to live with what he did for the rest if their lives. It's not as if they're called Smith, either!
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
Given the degree of damage being inflicted upon both the military power and the military prestige of Russia, the expenditure on the part of the UK government looks like the bargain of the century.
Why?
Russia has lost its frontline and best military equipment and soldiers. They are fighting with the second line now - large quantities of reworked ancient kit. The stockpiles of ancient tanks, APCs and SPGs has been massively depleted as well. The airforce is massively reduced as well. Production of new weapons is a trickle, and they are relying on North Korea for support. The Russian navy has taken massive losses as well.
On the international arms market, their reputation has completely collapsed. Russian tanks are associated with turret tossing.
All for the "cost", to the UK (among the rest), of mostly near time expired munitions and some training.
Putin would now, definitely, lose a war against... Poland.
Utterly OT, but I'm mildly amused (with suitably dinky numbers) my podcast (Undercutters) remains slightly more popular in Germany than the UK.
Is this where we go now instead of PB channel 2? I hadn't realised.
Mr. JS, I post transcripts (with links to audio at the bottom) at my blog, which is also where I put up the pre-qualifying and pre-race betting posts (NB no tips in the podcast):
Utterly OT, but I'm mildly amused (with suitably dinky numbers) my podcast (Undercutters) remains slightly more popular in Germany than the UK.
Is this where we go now instead of PB channel 2? I hadn't realised.
Mr. JS, I post transcripts (with links to audio at the bottom) at my blog, which is also where I put up the pre-qualifying and pre-race betting posts (NB no tips in the podcast):
I’m in a rural Burmese town - Twantay - which is so rural I don’t think they’ve seen a white person for 40 years
Walk down the street and people run out of the shops to have a look. One guy did a dangerous u-turn just to have a second glimpse. Children almost faint
I mean, it could be my ruthless good looks but I don’t think so
Possibly the last white person here was George Orwell. A copper stationed in Twantay in the 1920s
Wasn't that the experience that turned him into an anti-imperialist and socialist?
In which case, we can expect a different SeanT returning home...
Also helped turn Orwell into one of the most important writers of the 20th century, so…
I'm not sure he was there for a bit of paid tourism, though.
Wouldn’t call it tourism particularly. Burma is quite a challenging place to be at the mo, in multiple ways
For a start you’re basically stuck in Rangoon*. When I first got here I checked flights to Bagan and Mandalay and inle. There were a few but all departing at 7am daily or earlier. Like they didn’t want tourists to use them
Now even those flights are gone. There are zero domestic flights in Burma. Overland travel is an enormous hassle and there are military checkpoints everywhere - don’t think you’d get far
As a result there are zero tourists. I’ve just spent seven hours walking around Rangoon and going o see some nearby towns. In all that time I glimpsed one - one! - white European face other than my own
I doubt that can be said of any similarly sized city on Earth
*everyone here uses the names “Rangoon” and “Burma”. I suspect it’s a sly dig at the regime, so I’m happy to join in
Arduous tourism, then.
As long as you - I - stick to the incredibly cheap 5 star hotel (Park Royal, £42 a night) with the lavish pool, nice gym, pleasant bar and fantastic food from 3 restaurants it’s not excessively arduous
But step outside….
I’m leaving in a couple of days. Back to Bangers
I’m going to miss it, I suspect; the oddness. The crows - so many crows. The mildewed imperial ruins. The shy smiles. The brilliant fish curry. The FANTASTIC cakes - what is that about? Why does Rangoon have the best patisserie in the world - a hangover from British imperial tea times? French chefs stopping over on the way home from Vietnam?
And the beautiful women with the weird yellow paste on their faces. And the very serious chanting in the shrines and pagodas. And the dystopian nightlife when an entire street will be blackout dark apart from the excellent tapas bar at the end
I’m going to miss the strangeness
This is what Theodore Dalrymple wrote about the place a few years ago.
"Writing about a film from Burma, he recalls his time in the country many years previous under its military dictatorships, a “tyranny tempered by laziness and incompetence. It was xenophobic and self-serving and I ought to have hated it.” Yet, Dalrymple writes: “Instead I loved it. The country had an indefinable charm that any modernization would destroy once and for all; the charm was as delicate and irrecoverable as the blush of a grape. I looked at the country aesthetically, not politically or economically. No doubt this was very superficial: people do not live in museums for the delectation of occasional visitors. I have little doubt that if I had to live there, I would have detested the government and done what little I could to rid the country of it. But still I could not be as enthusiastic as I ought to have been about the prospect of democratic change.”"
Utterly OT, but I'm mildly amused (with suitably dinky numbers) my podcast (Undercutters) remains slightly more popular in Germany than the UK.
Is this where we go now instead of PB channel 2? I hadn't realised.
Mr. JS, I post transcripts (with links to audio at the bottom) at my blog, which is also where I put up the pre-qualifying and pre-race betting posts (NB no tips in the podcast):
I've always been pretty good at getting work done and sticking to it, but shit at marketing/self-promotion so it's great to get subscriptions/ratings etc.
Currently trying to work out whether to do a Predictions episode before or after testing.
I know that to many he can do nothing right, but Trump asking his assistant to give the pen with which he signed the order to release the documents related to the deaths of his father and his uncle, to RFK Jr, was a class move.
Because Trump promised RFK Jr that he would declassify the files, and the pen used to sign the document now becomes a family heirloom.
Why is that a 'class move' ?
I mean, I know you think anything Trump and the GOP does is golden, but even you're sifting the dregs now.
Jeez, why do you make things personal again?
If someone close to me was running for office and made a specific pledge to me about something to do with my family, being presented with the pen used to sign the order would be a massive privilege.
RFK Jr saw both his father and his uncle assassinated.
And Trump pardons political violence. If my relatives had been assassinated, I'd be more worried about that.
Carter, Clinton and Obama all freed people for acts of political violence and terrorism.
Lone wolves, or attempts to overturn federal democratic institutions. Your man supported the latter.
Left wing political violence in the US was rather more serious than you imply.
@CLondoner92 #TfL Freedom of Information release: Proposed London Overground line names in 2015 when Boris Johnson was Mayor "We can confirm that a total of £10,175 was spent on customer research on the proposed line name changes."
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
I’m in a rural Burmese town - Twantay - which is so rural I don’t think they’ve seen a white person for 40 years
Walk down the street and people run out of the shops to have a look. One guy did a dangerous u-turn just to have a second glimpse. Children almost faint
I mean, it could be my ruthless good looks but I don’t think so
Possibly the last white person here was George Orwell. A copper stationed in Twantay in the 1920s
Wasn't that the experience that turned him into an anti-imperialist and socialist?
In which case, we can expect a different SeanT returning home...
Also helped turn Orwell into one of the most important writers of the 20th century, so…
I'm not sure he was there for a bit of paid tourism, though.
Wouldn’t call it tourism particularly. Burma is quite a challenging place to be at the mo, in multiple ways
For a start you’re basically stuck in Rangoon*. When I first got here I checked flights to Bagan and Mandalay and inle. There were a few but all departing at 7am daily or earlier. Like they didn’t want tourists to use them
Now even those flights are gone. There are zero domestic flights in Burma. Overland travel is an enormous hassle and there are military checkpoints everywhere - don’t think you’d get far
As a result there are zero tourists. I’ve just spent seven hours walking around Rangoon and going o see some nearby towns. In all that time I glimpsed one - one! - white European face other than my own
I doubt that can be said of any similarly sized city on Earth
*everyone here uses the names “Rangoon” and “Burma”. I suspect it’s a sly dig at the regime, so I’m happy to join in
Arduous tourism, then.
As long as you - I - stick to the incredibly cheap 5 star hotel (Park Royal, £42 a night) with the lavish pool, nice gym, pleasant bar and fantastic food from 3 restaurants it’s not excessively arduous
But step outside….
I’m leaving in a couple of days. Back to Bangers
I’m going to miss it, I suspect; the oddness. The crows - so many crows. The mildewed imperial ruins. The shy smiles. The brilliant fish curry. The FANTASTIC cakes - what is that about? Why does Rangoon have the best patisserie in the world - a hangover from British imperial tea times? French chefs stopping over on the way home from Vietnam?
And the beautiful women with the weird yellow paste on their faces. And the very serious chanting in the shrines and pagodas. And the dystopian nightlife when an entire street will be blackout dark apart from the excellent tapas bar at the end
I’m going to miss the strangeness
This is what Theodore Dalrymple wrote about the place a few years ago.
"Writing about a film from Burma, he recalls his time in the country many years previous under its military dictatorships, a “tyranny tempered by laziness and incompetence. It was xenophobic and self-serving and I ought to have hated it.” Yet, Dalrymple writes: “Instead I loved it. The country had an indefinable charm that any modernization would destroy once and for all; the charm was as delicate and irrecoverable as the blush of a grape. I looked at the country aesthetically, not politically or economically. No doubt this was very superficial: people do not live in museums for the delectation of occasional visitors. I have little doubt that if I had to live there, I would have detested the government and done what little I could to rid the country of it. But still I could not be as enthusiastic as I ought to have been about the prospect of democratic change.”"
Somewhere I've always wanted to go, but never managed it. Doubt if I will now, of course. Bit nervous, too, of the stories which come through to Thailand of what's going on there.
I know that to many he can do nothing right, but Trump asking his assistant to give the pen with which he signed the order to release the documents related to the deaths of his father and his uncle, to RFK Jr, was a class move.
Because Trump promised RFK Jr that he would declassify the files, and the pen used to sign the document now becomes a family heirloom.
Why is that a 'class move' ?
I mean, I know you think anything Trump and the GOP does is golden, but even you're sifting the dregs now.
Jeez, why do you make things personal again?
If someone close to me was running for office and made a specific pledge to me about something to do with my family, being presented with the pen used to sign the order would be a massive privilege.
RFK Jr saw both his father and his uncle assassinated.
And Trump pardons political violence. If my relatives had been assassinated, I'd be more worried about that.
Carter, Clinton and Obama all freed people for acts of political violence and terrorism.
Lone wolves, or attempts to overturn federal democratic institutions. Your man supported the latter.
Left wing political violence in the US was rather more serious than you imply.
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
From the Bluesky side, it had stabilised post Musk's end of the pier show at just under a million posts per day, and last night was at just over 28 million users, ticking up at perhaps 60-70k per day. https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
As of this morning, it is at 29.2 million accounts, so that is plus one million in 4 days - 250k per day. Obviously encouraged by Trump, and by Musk's gesture politics. And up from ~250k in August 2024.
So on this trend minus a chunk, for it being a flurry, we'll be looking at ~50 million accounts by Easter, and numbers plus which communities / opinion leaders / organisations shift to Bluesky will make it clearer whether this will be a broader ecosystem.
For bluesky to truly succeed it desperately needs a lot of centrist and, especially, right wing accounts to move
I see no sign of that. Bluesky is actively hostile to these people
So we will end up with two different but similar Twitter-like places and even less interaction between left and right. Not good
Actively hostile?
(Looks at twitter DMs). I could bring Police Scotland to a shuddering halt if I were to report every violent threat I've received on twitter. The blame for this division lies squarely with the social media firm that allows someone who advocates for a beaver reintroductions or a cycle lane here or there to receive that volume of abuse.
Sure, but conversely if Bluesky ever does take off with a wide range of opinion then you will get that on Bluesky as well (indeed there are already early reports of bullying and harrassment on Bluesky - which could be seen as a good sign of its growth)
I've just joined blue-sky, and I'm underwhelmed. None of the sports people/ companies I'm interested in have a presence there. My favourite bike brand isn't on it, other brands have an account, but no posts or media. Barely even a decent conspiracy theory nutjob on there. Hopefully, it'll pick up.
I created a Bluesky account but don't go on there. Doesn't look particularly appealing! As for Twitter, I'm enjoying the calming effect of not being exposed to fact-free shithousery.
Debate is crucial to politics and society. I've had my own journey from Blairite to give Corbyn a try to Social Democrat - those evolutions happen thanks to debate.
My problem with Twitter and the alt-left/alt-right is that we're not debating based on facts or evidence or science or rationale. Something is said which is demonstrably not true which becomes the credo of that politics. Disagree and be disowned. Happened extensively with those Momentum wazzocks inside Labour, and now here we are with Truss issuing "I didn't crash the economy" letters despite having to fire, u-turn and resign because she demonstrably did. And then otherwise seemingly sensible people repeating this revisionism as if its not only true but is CLEARLY the only possible truth.
This is why I feel at home in the LibDems. We have some proper rows over policy. But they're not facts vs fiction. We agree where we are - which is more than some Labour and Tory people can manage - and then debate what we do about it.
I’m in a rural Burmese town - Twantay - which is so rural I don’t think they’ve seen a white person for 40 years
Walk down the street and people run out of the shops to have a look. One guy did a dangerous u-turn just to have a second glimpse. Children almost faint
I mean, it could be my ruthless good looks but I don’t think so
Possibly the last white person here was George Orwell. A copper stationed in Twantay in the 1920s
Wasn't that the experience that turned him into an anti-imperialist and socialist?
In which case, we can expect a different SeanT returning home...
Also helped turn Orwell into one of the most important writers of the 20th century, so…
I'm not sure he was there for a bit of paid tourism, though.
Wouldn’t call it tourism particularly. Burma is quite a challenging place to be at the mo, in multiple ways
For a start you’re basically stuck in Rangoon*. When I first got here I checked flights to Bagan and Mandalay and inle. There were a few but all departing at 7am daily or earlier. Like they didn’t want tourists to use them
Now even those flights are gone. There are zero domestic flights in Burma. Overland travel is an enormous hassle and there are military checkpoints everywhere - don’t think you’d get far
As a result there are zero tourists. I’ve just spent seven hours walking around Rangoon and going o see some nearby towns. In all that time I glimpsed one - one! - white European face other than my own
I doubt that can be said of any similarly sized city on Earth
*everyone here uses the names “Rangoon” and “Burma”. I suspect it’s a sly dig at the regime, so I’m happy to join in
Arduous tourism, then.
As long as you - I - stick to the incredibly cheap 5 star hotel (Park Royal, £42 a night) with the lavish pool, nice gym, pleasant bar and fantastic food from 3 restaurants it’s not excessively arduous
But step outside….
I’m leaving in a couple of days. Back to Bangers
I’m going to miss it, I suspect; the oddness. The crows - so many crows. The mildewed imperial ruins. The shy smiles. The brilliant fish curry. The FANTASTIC cakes - what is that about? Why does Rangoon have the best patisserie in the world - a hangover from British imperial tea times? French chefs stopping over on the way home from Vietnam?
And the beautiful women with the weird yellow paste on their faces. And the very serious chanting in the shrines and pagodas. And the dystopian nightlife when an entire street will be blackout dark apart from the excellent tapas bar at the end
I’m going to miss the strangeness
This is what Theodore Dalrymple wrote about the place a few years ago.
"Writing about a film from Burma, he recalls his time in the country many years previous under its military dictatorships, a “tyranny tempered by laziness and incompetence. It was xenophobic and self-serving and I ought to have hated it.” Yet, Dalrymple writes: “Instead I loved it. The country had an indefinable charm that any modernization would destroy once and for all; the charm was as delicate and irrecoverable as the blush of a grape. I looked at the country aesthetically, not politically or economically. No doubt this was very superficial: people do not live in museums for the delectation of occasional visitors. I have little doubt that if I had to live there, I would have detested the government and done what little I could to rid the country of it. But still I could not be as enthusiastic as I ought to have been about the prospect of democratic change.”"
Somewhere I've always wanted to go, but never managed it. Doubt if I will now, of course. Bit nervous, too, of the stories which come through to Thailand of what's going on there.
On the road South, where the isthmus becomes rexy curious, there's an ancient wooden signpost down a track which simply says "Burma". Unlike Robert Frost I didn't take it.
@CLondoner92 #TfL Freedom of Information release: Proposed London Overground line names in 2015 when Boris Johnson was Mayor "We can confirm that a total of £10,175 was spent on customer research on the proposed line name changes."
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
Given the degree of damage being inflicted upon both the military power and the military prestige of Russia, the expenditure on the part of the UK government looks like the bargain of the century.
Why?
Russia has lost its frontline and best military equipment and soldiers. They are fighting with the second line now - large quantities of reworked ancient kit. The stockpiles of ancient tanks, APCs and SPGs has been massively depleted as well. The airforce is massively reduced as well. Production of new weapons is a trickle, and they are relying on North Korea for support. The Russian navy has taken massive losses as well.
On the international arms market, their reputation has completely collapsed. Russian tanks are associated with turret tossing.
All for the "cost", to the UK (among the rest), of mostly near time expired munitions and some training.
Putin would now, definitely, lose a war against... Poland.
Been saying this for ages. The Ukraine war has ended Russia as a conventional military power. The only fly in the ointment is that they know far better than anyone other than Ukraine what drones can do. We need to catch up with that fast. The quid pro quo of us training up Ukrainians is that they promise to train up us when this is over.
From the Bluesky side, it had stabilised post Musk's end of the pier show at just under a million posts per day, and last night was at just over 28 million users, ticking up at perhaps 60-70k per day. https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
As of this morning, it is at 29.2 million accounts, so that is plus one million in 4 days - 250k per day. Obviously encouraged by Trump, and by Musk's gesture politics. And up from ~250k in August 2024.
So on this trend minus a chunk, for it being a flurry, we'll be looking at ~50 million accounts by Easter, and numbers plus which communities / opinion leaders / organisations shift to Bluesky will make it clearer whether this will be a broader ecosystem.
For bluesky to truly succeed it desperately needs a lot of centrist and, especially, right wing accounts to move
I see no sign of that. Bluesky is actively hostile to these people
So we will end up with two different but similar Twitter-like places and even less interaction between left and right. Not good
Actively hostile?
(Looks at twitter DMs). I could bring Police Scotland to a shuddering halt if I were to report every violent threat I've received on twitter. The blame for this division lies squarely with the social media firm that allows someone who advocates for a beaver reintroductions or a cycle lane here or there to receive that volume of abuse.
Sure, but conversely if Bluesky ever does take off with a wide range of opinion then you will get that on Bluesky as well (indeed there are already early reports of bullying and harrassment on Bluesky - which could be seen as a good sign of its growth)
I've just joined blue-sky, and I'm underwhelmed. None of the sports people/ companies I'm interested in have a presence there. My favourite bike brand isn't on it, other brands have an account, but no posts or media. Barely even a decent conspiracy theory nutjob on there. Hopefully, it'll pick up.
I created a Bluesky account but don't go on there. Doesn't look particularly appealing! As for Twitter, I'm enjoying the calming effect of not being exposed to fact-free shithousery.
Debate is crucial to politics and society. I've had my own journey from Blairite to give Corbyn a try to Social Democrat - those evolutions happen thanks to debate.
My problem with Twitter and the alt-left/alt-right is that we're not debating based on facts or evidence or science or rationale. Something is said which is demonstrably not true which becomes the credo of that politics. Disagree and be disowned. Happened extensively with those Momentum wazzocks inside Labour, and now here we are with Truss issuing "I didn't crash the economy" letters despite having to fire, u-turn and resign because she demonstrably did. And then otherwise seemingly sensible people repeating this revisionism as if its not only true but is CLEARLY the only possible truth.
This is why I feel at home in the LibDems. We have some proper rows over policy. But they're not facts vs fiction. We agree where we are - which is more than some Labour and Tory people can manage - and then debate what we do about it.
Leeds becomes first Russell Group university to quit X but will stay on other platforms like Bluesky.
Since the election people have finally started giving up on calling it twitter and have started calling it x. Not sure why it changed 18 months after the official change, perhaps linked to growing disdain for Musk.
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
Hmm... is non-consummation still grounds for annulment?
Yes, I did one of those once. Parties had been relatively happily married for quite a few years without any of that messy sex nonsense until the husband decided he wanted to try it after all with someone else. She was quite put out. She was also not poor so making the marriage a nullity had some advantages.
From the Bluesky side, it had stabilised post Musk's end of the pier show at just under a million posts per day, and last night was at just over 28 million users, ticking up at perhaps 60-70k per day. https://bsky.jazco.dev/stats
As of this morning, it is at 29.2 million accounts, so that is plus one million in 4 days - 250k per day. Obviously encouraged by Trump, and by Musk's gesture politics. And up from ~250k in August 2024.
So on this trend minus a chunk, for it being a flurry, we'll be looking at ~50 million accounts by Easter, and numbers plus which communities / opinion leaders / organisations shift to Bluesky will make it clearer whether this will be a broader ecosystem.
For bluesky to truly succeed it desperately needs a lot of centrist and, especially, right wing accounts to move
I see no sign of that. Bluesky is actively hostile to these people
So we will end up with two different but similar Twitter-like places and even less interaction between left and right. Not good
Actively hostile?
(Looks at twitter DMs). I could bring Police Scotland to a shuddering halt if I were to report every violent threat I've received on twitter. The blame for this division lies squarely with the social media firm that allows someone who advocates for a beaver reintroductions or a cycle lane here or there to receive that volume of abuse.
Sure, but conversely if Bluesky ever does take off with a wide range of opinion then you will get that on Bluesky as well (indeed there are already early reports of bullying and harrassment on Bluesky - which could be seen as a good sign of its growth)
I've just joined blue-sky, and I'm underwhelmed. None of the sports people/ companies I'm interested in have a presence there. My favourite bike brand isn't on it, other brands have an account, but no posts or media. Barely even a decent conspiracy theory nutjob on there. Hopefully, it'll pick up.
I created a Bluesky account but don't go on there. Doesn't look particularly appealing! As for Twitter, I'm enjoying the calming effect of not being exposed to fact-free shithousery.
Debate is crucial to politics and society. I've had my own journey from Blairite to give Corbyn a try to Social Democrat - those evolutions happen thanks to debate.
My problem with Twitter and the alt-left/alt-right is that we're not debating based on facts or evidence or science or rationale. Something is said which is demonstrably not true which becomes the credo of that politics. Disagree and be disowned. Happened extensively with those Momentum wazzocks inside Labour, and now here we are with Truss issuing "I didn't crash the economy" letters despite having to fire, u-turn and resign because she demonstrably did. And then otherwise seemingly sensible people repeating this revisionism as if its not only true but is CLEARLY the only possible truth.
This is why I feel at home in the LibDems. We have some proper rows over policy. But they're not facts vs fiction. We agree where we are - which is more than some Labour and Tory people can manage - and then debate what we do about it.
Trump has been proven right on alternate facts sadly. Repeat them often enough and they become, to a not insignificant proportion of the population, facts whether objectively true or not.
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
Given the degree of damage being inflicted upon both the military power and the military prestige of Russia, the expenditure on the part of the UK government looks like the bargain of the century.
Why?
Because a big power which was a danger to our allies in Eastern Europe has now largely ceased to be.
@CLondoner92 #TfL Freedom of Information release: Proposed London Overground line names in 2015 when Boris Johnson was Mayor "We can confirm that a total of £10,175 was spent on customer research on the proposed line name changes."
On topic, I agree with each of TSE's points, however, there's also a great big But.
Point 1: "[TSE's] expectation is that the Republican nominee in 2028 will be whomever Donald Trump anoints as his successor". Yes, assuming he's around (a not-insignificant actuarial risk for the oldest-ever president at inauguration), his primary interest will be in protecting himself, which means he will want someone still personally loyal.
Point 2: "[TSE] think[s] he’ll try and it keep within the family". Certainly, Trump operates court politics and trusts blood over money, and money over party. I agree his first preference will be family. Mafia, innit?
Point 3: "which brings us to Donald Trump, Jr.". Or perhaps back to him because who else is there? Eric is, to put it politely, not up to it. Ivanka was trialled during Trump-45 and exposed as wanting. Barron is too young. Tiffany is not being pushed forward. Kushner seems uninterested. But Don has been loyally pushing his dad's line and is, at the moment, the only plausible family successor. Whether he has the skills to be anything other than his father's mouthpiece is another question: being a candidate is more than being a proxy.
Point 4: "so you may wish to take the 36s on Betfair on him winning the 2028 election". Yes. Remember, this is less than a 3% implied chance. Backing it does not mean it's going to happen or is even likely to happen; just that the chances of it not happening are less than 97%. There are lots of ways Trump-48 could go wrong; the question is about putting numbers to them.
And now the Big But, which we touched on earlier. This is Succession and about who best protects Trump's interests. If he doesn't feel any of his children or relations are up to it, he will go elsewhere, whatever his first instincts and preference. That may be Vance but it also may not be, given Trump's personal disloyalty and capriciousness. 3.8 is way too short to be value.
One other point: Donald Trump snr isn't listed in the odds. I think that's a mistake. If there's one person above all others Trump trusts, it's himself. Yes, the 22nd Amendment is supposed to bar him from a third term but there's no absolute guarantee that it'll still be in place come 2028 or, if it is, that the courts would enforce it given the rate at which Trump is undermining democracy and the rule of law. There are also loopholes to the 22nd that could enable Trump to run a fourth time legitimately. Again, this isn't to say it's the most likely thing to happen but it is less than the 999/1 shot it'd need to be to get a listing.
@david_herdson Very good post, and I agree with your points, particularly the last one.
I remember suggesting on here a few months ago that Trump would run in 2028 and being shot down for it, but I have no idea why 8 years on from his first presidency, people still expect norms and the rule of law to be upheld.
As you say, the courts can find an excuse if they want to - and a very Republican leaning Supreme Court at that!
You can easily imagine an argument being spun like “Well, if the people don’t want him to run again, they can vote for his opponent. Let the people decide!”
Also, Rep. Andy Ogles has literally just introduced a constitutional amendment to allow Trump to run for a Third Term - hilariously with a specific clause aimed at stopping Barack Obama from running again.
Of course this amendment likely won’t go anyway but I don’t know why people just think Trump senior won’t have a crack at doing this if he can. If they listed it on the Exchange / Smarkets I’d be all over it right now, even as a trading bet.
If Starmer wants growth he should get his people on the phone now to US biotech and medical companies and research institutions and talk about how stable medical research is in UK where RFK and Trump aren't at the wheel.
On topic, I agree with each of TSE's points, however, there's also a great big But.
Point 1: "[TSE's] expectation is that the Republican nominee in 2028 will be whomever Donald Trump anoints as his successor". Yes, assuming he's around (a not-insignificant actuarial risk for the oldest-ever president at inauguration), his primary interest will be in protecting himself, which means he will want someone still personally loyal.
Point 2: "[TSE] think[s] he’ll try and it keep within the family". Certainly, Trump operates court politics and trusts blood over money, and money over party. I agree his first preference will be family. Mafia, innit?
Point 3: "which brings us to Donald Trump, Jr.". Or perhaps back to him because who else is there? Eric is, to put it politely, not up to it. Ivanka was trialled during Trump-45 and exposed as wanting. Barron is too young. Tiffany is not being pushed forward. Kushner seems uninterested. But Don has been loyally pushing his dad's line and is, at the moment, the only plausible family successor. Whether he has the skills to be anything other than his father's mouthpiece is another question: being a candidate is more than being a proxy.
Point 4: "so you may wish to take the 36s on Betfair on him winning the 2028 election". Yes. Remember, this is less than a 3% implied chance. Backing it does not mean it's going to happen or is even likely to happen; just that the chances of it not happening are less than 97%. There are lots of ways Trump-48 could go wrong; the question is about putting numbers to them.
And now the Big But, which we touched on earlier. This is Succession and about who best protects Trump's interests. If he doesn't feel any of his children or relations are up to it, he will go elsewhere, whatever his first instincts and preference. That may be Vance but it also may not be, given Trump's personal disloyalty and capriciousness. 3.8 is way too short to be value.
One other point: Donald Trump snr isn't listed in the odds. I think that's a mistake. If there's one person above all others Trump trusts, it's himself. Yes, the 22nd Amendment is supposed to bar him from a third term but there's no absolute guarantee that it'll still be in place come 2028 or, if it is, that the courts would enforce it given the rate at which Trump is undermining democracy and the rule of law. There are also loopholes to the 22nd that could enable Trump to run a fourth time legitimately. Again, this isn't to say it's the most likely thing to happen but it is less than the 999/1 shot it'd need to be to get a listing.
@david_herdson Very good post, and I agree with your points, particularly the last one.
I remember suggesting on here a few months ago that Trump would run in 2028 and being shot down for it, but I have no idea why 8 years on from his first presidency, people still expect norms and the rule of law to be upheld.
As you say, the courts can find an excuse if they want to - and a very Republican leaning Supreme Court at that!
You can easily imagine an argument being spun like “Well, if the people don’t want him to run again, they can vote for his opponent. Let the people decide!”
Also, Rep. Andy Ogles has literally just introduced a constitutional amendment to allow Trump to run for a Third Term - hilariously with a specific clause aimed at stopping Barack Obama from running again.
Of course this amendment likely won’t go anyway but I don’t know why people just think Trump senior won’t have a crack at doing this if he can. If they listed it on the Exchange / Smarkets I’d be all over it right now, even as a trading bet.
I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there is no (traditional) 2028 US Presidential election, let alone Trump being allowed to run.
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
If Starmer wants growth he should get his people on the phone now to US biotech and medical companies and research institutions and talk about how stable medical research is in UK where RFK and Trump aren't at the wheel.
They better crack on quickly over here before the Refukkers get in charge in 2029.
Is anyone familiar with the actual rules around driving after eye dilation?
This morning I have a tartar of a nurse who says she would not want me to even be cycling .afterwards.
Take sunglasses. I do not drive but could barely walk up the road. Your pupils cannot constrict so any sunlight is blinding. So take sunglasses and leave the car at home.
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
Given the degree of damage being inflicted upon both the military power and the military prestige of Russia, the expenditure on the part of the UK government looks like the bargain of the century.
Why?
Russia has lost its frontline and best military equipment and soldiers. They are fighting with the second line now - large quantities of reworked ancient kit. The stockpiles of ancient tanks, APCs and SPGs has been massively depleted as well. The airforce is massively reduced as well. Production of new weapons is a trickle, and they are relying on North Korea for support. The Russian navy has taken massive losses as well.
On the international arms market, their reputation has completely collapsed. Russian tanks are associated with turret tossing.
All for the "cost", to the UK (among the rest), of mostly near time expired munitions and some training.
Putin would now, definitely, lose a war against... Poland.
So what? What have the military fortunes of a country which has never stood a serious chance of conventional invasion of the UK got to do with us that makes it worth denuding our own forces of military hardware and ammunition, to say nothing of just bunging £600mill at them to spend on other country's munitions without even passing through our own defence industry. The only deadly threat from Russia to the UK that I can perceive is if they start firing missiles at us, and I've seen precisely squat on defending against that possibility from our Government. And how does undermining Russia's military capability using Ukraine as the mechanism, as clever as that might be, help us with the strategic threat of China? The threat of Islamic radicalism? You know - actual issues?
As for putting "cost" in inverted commas, you must know that's utterly ludicrous. AI (fact checking is necessary) says this about the UK's support:
The UK Government has committed significant funds to support Ukraine’s war effort. As of the latest updates, the UK has provided or pledged around £12.8 billion in military aid. Additionally, the UK has agreed to provide an unprecedented $5 billion (£4 billion) in guarantees to enable Ukraine to access World Bank lending. More recently, the UK announced an extra £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, bringing the total military support to over £15 billion. This includes both direct financial aid and guarantees to support Ukraine’s recovery and defense (sic).
If it's anything like that, whilst the UK Government makes a mere £2.8bn from freezing grannies, it is a total farce, and deserves more debate than being placed in inverted commas and dismissed as 'some training and clapped out equipment' ffs.
Is anyone familiar with the actual rules around driving after eye dilation?
This morning I have a tartar of a nurse who says she would not want me to even be cycling .afterwards.
Take sunglasses. I do not drive but could barely walk up the road. Your pupils cannot constrict so any sunlight is blinding. So take sunglasses and leave the car at home.
People react differently, though. I had to have two courses of dilation recently, as the first didn't do anything. My vision was back to normal within around half an hour.
On topic, I agree with each of TSE's points, however, there's also a great big But.
Point 1: "[TSE's] expectation is that the Republican nominee in 2028 will be whomever Donald Trump anoints as his successor". Yes, assuming he's around (a not-insignificant actuarial risk for the oldest-ever president at inauguration), his primary interest will be in protecting himself, which means he will want someone still personally loyal.
Point 2: "[TSE] think[s] he’ll try and it keep within the family". Certainly, Trump operates court politics and trusts blood over money, and money over party. I agree his first preference will be family. Mafia, innit?
Point 3: "which brings us to Donald Trump, Jr.". Or perhaps back to him because who else is there? Eric is, to put it politely, not up to it. Ivanka was trialled during Trump-45 and exposed as wanting. Barron is too young. Tiffany is not being pushed forward. Kushner seems uninterested. But Don has been loyally pushing his dad's line and is, at the moment, the only plausible family successor. Whether he has the skills to be anything other than his father's mouthpiece is another question: being a candidate is more than being a proxy.
Point 4: "so you may wish to take the 36s on Betfair on him winning the 2028 election". Yes. Remember, this is less than a 3% implied chance. Backing it does not mean it's going to happen or is even likely to happen; just that the chances of it not happening are less than 97%. There are lots of ways Trump-48 could go wrong; the question is about putting numbers to them.
And now the Big But, which we touched on earlier. This is Succession and about who best protects Trump's interests. If he doesn't feel any of his children or relations are up to it, he will go elsewhere, whatever his first instincts and preference. That may be Vance but it also may not be, given Trump's personal disloyalty and capriciousness. 3.8 is way too short to be value.
One other point: Donald Trump snr isn't listed in the odds. I think that's a mistake. If there's one person above all others Trump trusts, it's himself. Yes, the 22nd Amendment is supposed to bar him from a third term but there's no absolute guarantee that it'll still be in place come 2028 or, if it is, that the courts would enforce it given the rate at which Trump is undermining democracy and the rule of law. There are also loopholes to the 22nd that could enable Trump to run a fourth time legitimately. Again, this isn't to say it's the most likely thing to happen but it is less than the 999/1 shot it'd need to be to get a listing.
@david_herdson Very good post, and I agree with your points, particularly the last one.
I remember suggesting on here a few months ago that Trump would run in 2028 and being shot down for it, but I have no idea why 8 years on from his first presidency, people still expect norms and the rule of law to be upheld.
As you say, the courts can find an excuse if they want to - and a very Republican leaning Supreme Court at that!
You can easily imagine an argument being spun like “Well, if the people don’t want him to run again, they can vote for his opponent. Let the people decide!”
Also, Rep. Andy Ogles has literally just introduced a constitutional amendment to allow Trump to run for a Third Term - hilariously with a specific clause aimed at stopping Barack Obama from running again.
Of course this amendment likely won’t go anyway but I don’t know why people just think Trump senior won’t have a crack at doing this if he can. If they listed it on the Exchange / Smarkets I’d be all over it right now, even as a trading bet.
I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there is no (traditional) 2028 US Presidential election, let alone Trump being allowed to run.
The pattern of many authoritarians -- think Orbán, Erdoğan, Vučić -- is to retain elections, but to bias the result through control of the media and the courts, and suppression of the opposition. That seems a more likely route for MAGA/Project 2025.
The only fly in the ointment is the 22nd Amendment. What does Trump do about that (presuming he lives long enough for it to be an issue for him)? Getting a proxy elected seems like a good solution, but who? Getting around the Amendment is tricky, but the Supreme Court is maybe corrupt enough. But cancelling the election entirely seems unlikely to me.
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
Given the degree of damage being inflicted upon both the military power and the military prestige of Russia, the expenditure on the part of the UK government looks like the bargain of the century.
Why?
Russia has lost its frontline and best military equipment and soldiers. They are fighting with the second line now - large quantities of reworked ancient kit. The stockpiles of ancient tanks, APCs and SPGs has been massively depleted as well. The airforce is massively reduced as well. Production of new weapons is a trickle, and they are relying on North Korea for support. The Russian navy has taken massive losses as well.
On the international arms market, their reputation has completely collapsed. Russian tanks are associated with turret tossing.
All for the "cost", to the UK (among the rest), of mostly near time expired munitions and some training.
Putin would now, definitely, lose a war against... Poland.
So what? What have the military fortunes of a country which has never stood a serious chance of conventional invasion of the UK got to do with us that makes it worth denuding our own forces of military hardware and ammunition, to say nothing of just bunging £600mill at them to spend on other country's munitions without even passing through our own defence industry. The only deadly threat from Russia to the UK that I can perceive is if they start firing missiles at us, and I've seen precisely squat on defending against that possibility from our Government. And how does undermining Russia's military capability using Ukraine as the mechanism, as clever as that might be, help us with the strategic threat of China? The threat of Islamic radicalism? You know - actual issues?
As for putting "cost" in inverted commas, you must know that's utterly ludicrous. AI (fact checking is necessary) says this about the UK's support:
The UK Government has committed significant funds to support Ukraine’s war effort. As of the latest updates, the UK has provided or pledged around £12.8 billion in military aid. Additionally, the UK has agreed to provide an unprecedented $5 billion (£4 billion) in guarantees to enable Ukraine to access World Bank lending. More recently, the UK announced an extra £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, bringing the total military support to over £15 billion. This includes both direct financial aid and guarantees to support Ukraine’s recovery and defense (sic).
If it's anything like that, whilst the UK Government makes a mere £2.8bn from freezing grannies, it is a total farce, and deserves more debate than being placed in inverted commas and dismissed as 'some training and clapped out equipment' ffs.
The only deadly threat from Russia to the UK that you can perceive is if they start firing missiles at us... um... did you miss when they killed people on UK soil in Salisbury?
Is anyone familiar with the actual rules around driving after eye dilation?
This morning I have a tartar of a nurse who says she would not want me to even be cycling .afterwards.
Take sunglasses. I do not drive but could barely walk up the road. Your pupils cannot constrict so any sunlight is blinding. So take sunglasses and leave the car at home.
People react differently, though. I had to have two courses of dilation recently, as the first didn't do anything. My vision was back to normal within around half an hour.
Yes, it is not permanent. Don't drive until your vision is back to normal is good advice, but in the mean time, stay off the roads and wear sunglasses because even walking can be problematic.
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
Given the degree of damage being inflicted upon both the military power and the military prestige of Russia, the expenditure on the part of the UK government looks like the bargain of the century.
Why?
Russia has lost its frontline and best military equipment and soldiers. They are fighting with the second line now - large quantities of reworked ancient kit. The stockpiles of ancient tanks, APCs and SPGs has been massively depleted as well. The airforce is massively reduced as well. Production of new weapons is a trickle, and they are relying on North Korea for support. The Russian navy has taken massive losses as well.
On the international arms market, their reputation has completely collapsed. Russian tanks are associated with turret tossing.
All for the "cost", to the UK (among the rest), of mostly near time expired munitions and some training.
Putin would now, definitely, lose a war against... Poland.
So what? What have the military fortunes of a country which has never stood a serious chance of conventional invasion of the UK got to do with us that makes it worth denuding our own forces of military hardware and ammunition, to say nothing of just bunging £600mill at them to spend on other country's munitions without even passing through our own defence industry. The only deadly threat from Russia to the UK that I can perceive is if they start firing missiles at us, and I've seen precisely squat on defending against that possibility from our Government. And how does undermining Russia's military capability using Ukraine as the mechanism, as clever as that might be, help us with the strategic threat of China? The threat of Islamic radicalism? You know - actual issues?
As for putting "cost" in inverted commas, you must know that's utterly ludicrous. AI (fact checking is necessary) says this about the UK's support:
The UK Government has committed significant funds to support Ukraine’s war effort. As of the latest updates, the UK has provided or pledged around £12.8 billion in military aid. Additionally, the UK has agreed to provide an unprecedented $5 billion (£4 billion) in guarantees to enable Ukraine to access World Bank lending. More recently, the UK announced an extra £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, bringing the total military support to over £15 billion. This includes both direct financial aid and guarantees to support Ukraine’s recovery and defense (sic).
If it's anything like that, whilst the UK Government makes a mere £2.8bn from freezing grannies, it is a total farce, and deserves more debate than being placed in inverted commas and dismissed as 'some training and clapped out equipment' ffs.
The only deadly threat from Russia to the UK that you can perceive is if they start firing missiles at us... um... did you miss when they killed people on UK soil in Salisbury?
How does stoking a massive conventional deadlocked war in the armpit of Eastern Europe inhibit them from doing shit like that?
We would have been much more secure from the apparently eternal predation of the Russians by spending the money we've pissed away in Ukraine on improving the intelligence services.
Some serious reinforcement of the Baltic states seems to be going on.
Cos I’m a nerd I quite like the tendency for Germany to name weapons after WWII predecessors, but I realise there could be ‘issues’. Presumably the AfD love it, aside from those weapons being put up against their pal Putin.
On topic, I agree with each of TSE's points, however, there's also a great big But.
Point 1: "[TSE's] expectation is that the Republican nominee in 2028 will be whomever Donald Trump anoints as his successor". Yes, assuming he's around (a not-insignificant actuarial risk for the oldest-ever president at inauguration), his primary interest will be in protecting himself, which means he will want someone still personally loyal.
Point 2: "[TSE] think[s] he’ll try and it keep within the family". Certainly, Trump operates court politics and trusts blood over money, and money over party. I agree his first preference will be family. Mafia, innit?
Point 3: "which brings us to Donald Trump, Jr.". Or perhaps back to him because who else is there? Eric is, to put it politely, not up to it. Ivanka was trialled during Trump-45 and exposed as wanting. Barron is too young. Tiffany is not being pushed forward. Kushner seems uninterested. But Don has been loyally pushing his dad's line and is, at the moment, the only plausible family successor. Whether he has the skills to be anything other than his father's mouthpiece is another question: being a candidate is more than being a proxy.
Point 4: "so you may wish to take the 36s on Betfair on him winning the 2028 election". Yes. Remember, this is less than a 3% implied chance. Backing it does not mean it's going to happen or is even likely to happen; just that the chances of it not happening are less than 97%. There are lots of ways Trump-48 could go wrong; the question is about putting numbers to them.
And now the Big But, which we touched on earlier. This is Succession and about who best protects Trump's interests. If he doesn't feel any of his children or relations are up to it, he will go elsewhere, whatever his first instincts and preference. That may be Vance but it also may not be, given Trump's personal disloyalty and capriciousness. 3.8 is way too short to be value.
One other point: Donald Trump snr isn't listed in the odds. I think that's a mistake. If there's one person above all others Trump trusts, it's himself. Yes, the 22nd Amendment is supposed to bar him from a third term but there's no absolute guarantee that it'll still be in place come 2028 or, if it is, that the courts would enforce it given the rate at which Trump is undermining democracy and the rule of law. There are also loopholes to the 22nd that could enable Trump to run a fourth time legitimately. Again, this isn't to say it's the most likely thing to happen but it is less than the 999/1 shot it'd need to be to get a listing.
@david_herdson Very good post, and I agree with your points, particularly the last one.
I remember suggesting on here a few months ago that Trump would run in 2028 and being shot down for it, but I have no idea why 8 years on from his first presidency, people still expect norms and the rule of law to be upheld.
As you say, the courts can find an excuse if they want to - and a very Republican leaning Supreme Court at that!
You can easily imagine an argument being spun like “Well, if the people don’t want him to run again, they can vote for his opponent. Let the people decide!”
Also, Rep. Andy Ogles has literally just introduced a constitutional amendment to allow Trump to run for a Third Term - hilariously with a specific clause aimed at stopping Barack Obama from running again.
Of course this amendment likely won’t go anyway but I don’t know why people just think Trump senior won’t have a crack at doing this if he can. If they listed it on the Exchange / Smarkets I’d be all over it right now, even as a trading bet.
I wouldn't be particularly surprised if there is no (traditional) 2028 US Presidential election, let alone Trump being allowed to run.
The pattern of many authoritarians -- think Orbán, Erdoğan, Vučić -- is to retain elections, but to bias the result through control of the media and the courts, and suppression of the opposition. That seems a more likely route for MAGA/Project 2025.
The only fly in the ointment is the 22nd Amendment. What does Trump do about that (presuming he lives long enough for it to be an issue for him)? Getting a proxy elected seems like a good solution, but who? Getting around the Amendment is tricky, but the Supreme Court is maybe corrupt enough. But cancelling the election entirely seems unlikely to me.
I concur your suggestion is more likely, but this lot will do whatever they can to maintain power with no regard for the constitution or democracy. That may well be "controlled" elections rather than no elections. At some level of control it will fall outside the bounds of a traditional Presidential election.
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
Given the degree of damage being inflicted upon both the military power and the military prestige of Russia, the expenditure on the part of the UK government looks like the bargain of the century.
Why?
Russia has lost its frontline and best military equipment and soldiers. They are fighting with the second line now - large quantities of reworked ancient kit. The stockpiles of ancient tanks, APCs and SPGs has been massively depleted as well. The airforce is massively reduced as well. Production of new weapons is a trickle, and they are relying on North Korea for support. The Russian navy has taken massive losses as well.
On the international arms market, their reputation has completely collapsed. Russian tanks are associated with turret tossing.
All for the "cost", to the UK (among the rest), of mostly near time expired munitions and some training.
Putin would now, definitely, lose a war against... Poland.
So what? What have the military fortunes of a country which has never stood a serious chance of conventional invasion of the UK got to do with us that makes it worth denuding our own forces of military hardware and ammunition, to say nothing of just bunging £600mill at them to spend on other country's munitions without even passing through our own defence industry. The only deadly threat from Russia to the UK that I can perceive is if they start firing missiles at us, and I've seen precisely squat on defending against that possibility from our Government. And how does undermining Russia's military capability using Ukraine as the mechanism, as clever as that might be, help us with the strategic threat of China? The threat of Islamic radicalism? You know - actual issues?
As for putting "cost" in inverted commas, you must know that's utterly ludicrous. AI (fact checking is necessary) says this about the UK's support:
The UK Government has committed significant funds to support Ukraine’s war effort. As of the latest updates, the UK has provided or pledged around £12.8 billion in military aid. Additionally, the UK has agreed to provide an unprecedented $5 billion (£4 billion) in guarantees to enable Ukraine to access World Bank lending. More recently, the UK announced an extra £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, bringing the total military support to over £15 billion. This includes both direct financial aid and guarantees to support Ukraine’s recovery and defense (sic).
If it's anything like that, whilst the UK Government makes a mere £2.8bn from freezing grannies, it is a total farce, and deserves more debate than being placed in inverted commas and dismissed as 'some training and clapped out equipment' ffs.
The only deadly threat from Russia to the UK that you can perceive is if they start firing missiles at us... um... did you miss when they killed people on UK soil in Salisbury?
and Alexander Litvinenko
...and the long, long history of the Russia state murdering people abroad, in general.
@CLondoner92 #TfL Freedom of Information release: Proposed London Overground line names in 2015 when Boris Johnson was Mayor "We can confirm that a total of £10,175 was spent on customer research on the proposed line name changes."
As @rottenborough points out there must be a real opportunity to snag the business of trialling drugs developed by US pharma. I can't see many regulatory bodies around the world being very impressed with testing that is not looking for this kind of issue.
On topic, I agree with each of TSE's points, however, there's also a great big But.
Point 1: "[TSE's] expectation is that the Republican nominee in 2028 will be whomever Donald Trump anoints as his successor". Yes, assuming he's around (a not-insignificant actuarial risk for the oldest-ever president at inauguration), his primary interest will be in protecting himself, which means he will want someone still personally loyal.
Point 2: "[TSE] think[s] he’ll try and it keep within the family". Certainly, Trump operates court politics and trusts blood over money, and money over party. I agree his first preference will be family. Mafia, innit?
Point 3: "which brings us to Donald Trump, Jr.". Or perhaps back to him because who else is there? Eric is, to put it politely, not up to it. Ivanka was trialled during Trump-45 and exposed as wanting. Barron is too young. Tiffany is not being pushed forward. Kushner seems uninterested. But Don has been loyally pushing his dad's line and is, at the moment, the only plausible family successor. Whether he has the skills to be anything other than his father's mouthpiece is another question: being a candidate is more than being a proxy.
Point 4: "so you may wish to take the 36s on Betfair on him winning the 2028 election". Yes. Remember, this is less than a 3% implied chance. Backing it does not mean it's going to happen or is even likely to happen; just that the chances of it not happening are less than 97%. There are lots of ways Trump-48 could go wrong; the question is about putting numbers to them.
And now the Big But, which we touched on earlier. This is Succession and about who best protects Trump's interests. If he doesn't feel any of his children or relations are up to it, he will go elsewhere, whatever his first instincts and preference. That may be Vance but it also may not be, given Trump's personal disloyalty and capriciousness. 3.8 is way too short to be value.
One other point: Donald Trump snr isn't listed in the odds. I think that's a mistake. If there's one person above all others Trump trusts, it's himself. Yes, the 22nd Amendment is supposed to bar him from a third term but there's no absolute guarantee that it'll still be in place come 2028 or, if it is, that the courts would enforce it given the rate at which Trump is undermining democracy and the rule of law. There are also loopholes to the 22nd that could enable Trump to run a fourth time legitimately. Again, this isn't to say it's the most likely thing to happen but it is less than the 999/1 shot it'd need to be to get a listing.
@david_herdson Very good post, and I agree with your points, particularly the last one.
I remember suggesting on here a few months ago that Trump would run in 2028 and being shot down for it, but I have no idea why 8 years on from his first presidency, people still expect norms and the rule of law to be upheld.
As you say, the courts can find an excuse if they want to - and a very Republican leaning Supreme Court at that!
You can easily imagine an argument being spun like “Well, if the people don’t want him to run again, they can vote for his opponent. Let the people decide!”
Also, Rep. Andy Ogles has literally just introduced a constitutional amendment to allow Trump to run for a Third Term - hilariously with a specific clause aimed at stopping Barack Obama from running again.
Of course this amendment likely won’t go anyway but I don’t know why people just think Trump senior won’t have a crack at doing this if he can. If they listed it on the Exchange / Smarkets I’d be all over it right now, even as a trading bet.
Nah. There’ll be an election in 2028, and Trump will not be top of the ticket.
The democratic infrastructure of the US will have been weakened, but it will still function. Whether it functions in a way that we can describe the vote as being on a level playing field, or whether it operates in a way where the playing field is slightly skewed, it is difficult to say at this point. There is a lot of damage that can be done in the next few years.
I don’t believe Trump can overturn the 22 Amendment. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t try some constitutional hijinks like testing the vice president route, or essentially running with a surrogate (the Putin/Medvedev gambit).
I'm sorry but it's the same with Ukraine. We are so determined to 'lead' with our contributions to the cause, we will do it until our own army is fighting with pitchforks. There's no concept of the national interest, none.
You have to remember the context at the start of the SMO. It looked like it was going to be meme laden LOLfest and be over quickly. Boris was swept along with the euphoria of being in a war but without the politically troublesome cavalcade of fleg draped coffins landing at Brize that so marred the end of the Afghan adventure.
Now it's turned into The Battle of the Heodenings, the UK government (among others) is balls deep in it with no exit strategy so all they can do is keep shoveling the cash and weapons in, to the great detriment of the British armed forces, while hoping for the best.
Given the degree of damage being inflicted upon both the military power and the military prestige of Russia, the expenditure on the part of the UK government looks like the bargain of the century.
Why?
Russia has lost its frontline and best military equipment and soldiers. They are fighting with the second line now - large quantities of reworked ancient kit. The stockpiles of ancient tanks, APCs and SPGs has been massively depleted as well. The airforce is massively reduced as well. Production of new weapons is a trickle, and they are relying on North Korea for support. The Russian navy has taken massive losses as well.
On the international arms market, their reputation has completely collapsed. Russian tanks are associated with turret tossing.
All for the "cost", to the UK (among the rest), of mostly near time expired munitions and some training.
Putin would now, definitely, lose a war against... Poland.
So what? What have the military fortunes of a country which has never stood a serious chance of conventional invasion of the UK got to do with us that makes it worth denuding our own forces of military hardware and ammunition, to say nothing of just bunging £600mill at them to spend on other country's munitions without even passing through our own defence industry. The only deadly threat from Russia to the UK that I can perceive is if they start firing missiles at us, and I've seen precisely squat on defending against that possibility from our Government. And how does undermining Russia's military capability using Ukraine as the mechanism, as clever as that might be, help us with the strategic threat of China? The threat of Islamic radicalism? You know - actual issues?
As for putting "cost" in inverted commas, you must know that's utterly ludicrous. AI (fact checking is necessary) says this about the UK's support:
The UK Government has committed significant funds to support Ukraine’s war effort. As of the latest updates, the UK has provided or pledged around £12.8 billion in military aid. Additionally, the UK has agreed to provide an unprecedented $5 billion (£4 billion) in guarantees to enable Ukraine to access World Bank lending. More recently, the UK announced an extra £2.26 billion loan to Ukraine, bringing the total military support to over £15 billion. This includes both direct financial aid and guarantees to support Ukraine’s recovery and defense (sic).
If it's anything like that, whilst the UK Government makes a mere £2.8bn from freezing grannies, it is a total farce, and deserves more debate than being placed in inverted commas and dismissed as 'some training and clapped out equipment' ffs.
I would have thought it was obvious that preventing Russia rolling through Ukraine and abutting NATO territory is well worth any level of investment. A Russian victory won't end with Putin doing high fives with Kim, Xi and the ayatollahs.
As @rottenborough points out there must be a real opportunity to snag the business of trialling drugs developed by US pharma. I can't see many regulatory bodies around the world being very impressed with testing that is not looking for this kind of issue.
UK has an enormous opportunity here I reckon if we can help NHS help people enroll in trials. We have much cheaper wages than US, relatively standardised system, world class life sciences industry, recent RECOVERY trial experience etc.
"International law is preventing the UK from giving teenage killers such as Axel Rudakubana whole life orders, a Cabinet minister has said.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, suggested that the UN convention on children’s rights stops Britain from being able to impose unlimited sentences on under-18s."
On topic, I agree with each of TSE's points, however, there's also a great big But.
Point 1: "[TSE's] expectation is that the Republican nominee in 2028 will be whomever Donald Trump anoints as his successor". Yes, assuming he's around (a not-insignificant actuarial risk for the oldest-ever president at inauguration), his primary interest will be in protecting himself, which means he will want someone still personally loyal.
Point 2: "[TSE] think[s] he’ll try and it keep within the family". Certainly, Trump operates court politics and trusts blood over money, and money over party. I agree his first preference will be family. Mafia, innit?
Point 3: "which brings us to Donald Trump, Jr.". Or perhaps back to him because who else is there? Eric is, to put it politely, not up to it. Ivanka was trialled during Trump-45 and exposed as wanting. Barron is too young. Tiffany is not being pushed forward. Kushner seems uninterested. But Don has been loyally pushing his dad's line and is, at the moment, the only plausible family successor. Whether he has the skills to be anything other than his father's mouthpiece is another question: being a candidate is more than being a proxy.
Point 4: "so you may wish to take the 36s on Betfair on him winning the 2028 election". Yes. Remember, this is less than a 3% implied chance. Backing it does not mean it's going to happen or is even likely to happen; just that the chances of it not happening are less than 97%. There are lots of ways Trump-48 could go wrong; the question is about putting numbers to them.
And now the Big But, which we touched on earlier. This is Succession and about who best protects Trump's interests. If he doesn't feel any of his children or relations are up to it, he will go elsewhere, whatever his first instincts and preference. That may be Vance but it also may not be, given Trump's personal disloyalty and capriciousness. 3.8 is way too short to be value.
One other point: Donald Trump snr isn't listed in the odds. I think that's a mistake. If there's one person above all others Trump trusts, it's himself. Yes, the 22nd Amendment is supposed to bar him from a third term but there's no absolute guarantee that it'll still be in place come 2028 or, if it is, that the courts would enforce it given the rate at which Trump is undermining democracy and the rule of law. There are also loopholes to the 22nd that could enable Trump to run a fourth time legitimately. Again, this isn't to say it's the most likely thing to happen but it is less than the 999/1 shot it'd need to be to get a listing.
@david_herdson Very good post, and I agree with your points, particularly the last one.
I remember suggesting on here a few months ago that Trump would run in 2028 and being shot down for it, but I have no idea why 8 years on from his first presidency, people still expect norms and the rule of law to be upheld.
As you say, the courts can find an excuse if they want to - and a very Republican leaning Supreme Court at that!
You can easily imagine an argument being spun like “Well, if the people don’t want him to run again, they can vote for his opponent. Let the people decide!”
Also, Rep. Andy Ogles has literally just introduced a constitutional amendment to allow Trump to run for a Third Term - hilariously with a specific clause aimed at stopping Barack Obama from running again.
Of course this amendment likely won’t go anyway but I don’t know why people just think Trump senior won’t have a crack at doing this if he can. If they listed it on the Exchange / Smarkets I’d be all over it right now, even as a trading bet.
Nah. There’ll be an election in 2028, and Trump will not be top of the ticket.
The democratic infrastructure of the US will have been weakened, but it will still function. Whether it functions in a way that we can describe the vote as being on a level playing field, or whether it operates in a way where the playing field is slightly skewed, it is difficult to say at this point. There is a lot of damage that can be done in the next few years.
I don’t believe Trump can overturn the 22 Amendment. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t try some constitutional hijinks like testing the vice president route, or essentially running with a surrogate (the Putin/Medvedev gambit).
Overturning 22 would open the way to Obama running. I don't think Trump could countenance the risk - likelihood, in fact - of losing to Barack Hussein Obama as he likes to call him.
On topic, I agree with each of TSE's points, however, there's also a great big But.
Point 1: "[TSE's] expectation is that the Republican nominee in 2028 will be whomever Donald Trump anoints as his successor". Yes, assuming he's around (a not-insignificant actuarial risk for the oldest-ever president at inauguration), his primary interest will be in protecting himself, which means he will want someone still personally loyal.
Point 2: "[TSE] think[s] he’ll try and it keep within the family". Certainly, Trump operates court politics and trusts blood over money, and money over party. I agree his first preference will be family. Mafia, innit?
Point 3: "which brings us to Donald Trump, Jr.". Or perhaps back to him because who else is there? Eric is, to put it politely, not up to it. Ivanka was trialled during Trump-45 and exposed as wanting. Barron is too young. Tiffany is not being pushed forward. Kushner seems uninterested. But Don has been loyally pushing his dad's line and is, at the moment, the only plausible family successor. Whether he has the skills to be anything other than his father's mouthpiece is another question: being a candidate is more than being a proxy.
Point 4: "so you may wish to take the 36s on Betfair on him winning the 2028 election". Yes. Remember, this is less than a 3% implied chance. Backing it does not mean it's going to happen or is even likely to happen; just that the chances of it not happening are less than 97%. There are lots of ways Trump-48 could go wrong; the question is about putting numbers to them.
And now the Big But, which we touched on earlier. This is Succession and about who best protects Trump's interests. If he doesn't feel any of his children or relations are up to it, he will go elsewhere, whatever his first instincts and preference. That may be Vance but it also may not be, given Trump's personal disloyalty and capriciousness. 3.8 is way too short to be value.
One other point: Donald Trump snr isn't listed in the odds. I think that's a mistake. If there's one person above all others Trump trusts, it's himself. Yes, the 22nd Amendment is supposed to bar him from a third term but there's no absolute guarantee that it'll still be in place come 2028 or, if it is, that the courts would enforce it given the rate at which Trump is undermining democracy and the rule of law. There are also loopholes to the 22nd that could enable Trump to run a fourth time legitimately. Again, this isn't to say it's the most likely thing to happen but it is less than the 999/1 shot it'd need to be to get a listing.
@david_herdson Very good post, and I agree with your points, particularly the last one.
I remember suggesting on here a few months ago that Trump would run in 2028 and being shot down for it, but I have no idea why 8 years on from his first presidency, people still expect norms and the rule of law to be upheld.
As you say, the courts can find an excuse if they want to - and a very Republican leaning Supreme Court at that!
You can easily imagine an argument being spun like “Well, if the people don’t want him to run again, they can vote for his opponent. Let the people decide!”
Also, Rep. Andy Ogles has literally just introduced a constitutional amendment to allow Trump to run for a Third Term - hilariously with a specific clause aimed at stopping Barack Obama from running again.
Of course this amendment likely won’t go anyway but I don’t know why people just think Trump senior won’t have a crack at doing this if he can. If they listed it on the Exchange / Smarkets I’d be all over it right now, even as a trading bet.
Nah. There’ll be an election in 2028, and Trump will not be top of the ticket.
The democratic infrastructure of the US will have been weakened, but it will still function. Whether it functions in a way that we can describe the vote as being on a level playing field, or whether it operates in a way where the playing field is slightly skewed, it is difficult to say at this point. There is a lot of damage that can be done in the next few years.
I don’t believe Trump can overturn the 22 Amendment. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t try some constitutional hijinks like testing the vice president route, or essentially running with a surrogate (the Putin/Medvedev gambit).
Even during 2024's campaign, Trump suffered some ‘Biden moments’ on stage, which might have lost him the election were it not for Biden's foot being obviously deeper in the grave. I doubt Trump will be up to a third run. Trump as the Elon Musk to one of his children might be the closest he gets, and I'm not sure any of them want it (see start of thread).
Is anyone familiar with the actual rules around driving after eye dilation?
This morning I have a tartar of a nurse who says she would not want me to even be cycling .afterwards.
A question many of my diabetes patients ask.
The answer is that it is legal to drive when the influence of the drops has worn off, which varies with the drops used and the spectacle prescription. With me it's about 30 minutes.
Otherwise it depends on weather conditions. If it's sunny then there is a problem of glare, and also at night with headlights, much less so on a dull overcast day.
There is a distance vision criteria for driving, a number plate at 20 meters, but even dilated most drivers make that. The bigger problem is glare, and theoretically insurance could be invalid as under the influence of medication.
Actually, identifying diversity-related issues with drugs can be important. How, for example, do US researchers now work on sickle-cell disease?
That's a known problem, though. More importantly, how do they identify population specific reactions for novel drugs if they aren't testing for them ?
The simple answer is that they don't, because they can't. But that doesn't matter, because the people behind this ban are so angry about woke that they don't care about anything else.
"International law is preventing the UK from giving teenage killers such as Axel Rudakubana whole life orders, a Cabinet minister has said.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, suggested that the UN convention on children’s rights stops Britain from being able to impose unlimited sentences on under-18s."
"International law is preventing the UK from giving teenage killers such as Axel Rudakubana whole life orders, a Cabinet minister has said.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, suggested that the UN convention on children’s rights stops Britain from being able to impose unlimited sentences on under-18s."
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
On topic, I agree with each of TSE's points, however, there's also a great big But.
Point 1: "[TSE's] expectation is that the Republican nominee in 2028 will be whomever Donald Trump anoints as his successor". Yes, assuming he's around (a not-insignificant actuarial risk for the oldest-ever president at inauguration), his primary interest will be in protecting himself, which means he will want someone still personally loyal.
Point 2: "[TSE] think[s] he’ll try and it keep within the family". Certainly, Trump operates court politics and trusts blood over money, and money over party. I agree his first preference will be family. Mafia, innit?
Point 3: "which brings us to Donald Trump, Jr.". Or perhaps back to him because who else is there? Eric is, to put it politely, not up to it. Ivanka was trialled during Trump-45 and exposed as wanting. Barron is too young. Tiffany is not being pushed forward. Kushner seems uninterested. But Don has been loyally pushing his dad's line and is, at the moment, the only plausible family successor. Whether he has the skills to be anything other than his father's mouthpiece is another question: being a candidate is more than being a proxy.
Point 4: "so you may wish to take the 36s on Betfair on him winning the 2028 election". Yes. Remember, this is less than a 3% implied chance. Backing it does not mean it's going to happen or is even likely to happen; just that the chances of it not happening are less than 97%. There are lots of ways Trump-48 could go wrong; the question is about putting numbers to them.
And now the Big But, which we touched on earlier. This is Succession and about who best protects Trump's interests. If he doesn't feel any of his children or relations are up to it, he will go elsewhere, whatever his first instincts and preference. That may be Vance but it also may not be, given Trump's personal disloyalty and capriciousness. 3.8 is way too short to be value.
One other point: Donald Trump snr isn't listed in the odds. I think that's a mistake. If there's one person above all others Trump trusts, it's himself. Yes, the 22nd Amendment is supposed to bar him from a third term but there's no absolute guarantee that it'll still be in place come 2028 or, if it is, that the courts would enforce it given the rate at which Trump is undermining democracy and the rule of law. There are also loopholes to the 22nd that could enable Trump to run a fourth time legitimately. Again, this isn't to say it's the most likely thing to happen but it is less than the 999/1 shot it'd need to be to get a listing.
@david_herdson Very good post, and I agree with your points, particularly the last one.
I remember suggesting on here a few months ago that Trump would run in 2028 and being shot down for it, but I have no idea why 8 years on from his first presidency, people still expect norms and the rule of law to be upheld.
As you say, the courts can find an excuse if they want to - and a very Republican leaning Supreme Court at that!
You can easily imagine an argument being spun like “Well, if the people don’t want him to run again, they can vote for his opponent. Let the people decide!”
Also, Rep. Andy Ogles has literally just introduced a constitutional amendment to allow Trump to run for a Third Term - hilariously with a specific clause aimed at stopping Barack Obama from running again.
Of course this amendment likely won’t go anyway but I don’t know why people just think Trump senior won’t have a crack at doing this if he can. If they listed it on the Exchange / Smarkets I’d be all over it right now, even as a trading bet.
Nah. There’ll be an election in 2028, and Trump will not be top of the ticket.
The democratic infrastructure of the US will have been weakened, but it will still function. Whether it functions in a way that we can describe the vote as being on a level playing field, or whether it operates in a way where the playing field is slightly skewed, it is difficult to say at this point. There is a lot of damage that can be done in the next few years.
I don’t believe Trump can overturn the 22 Amendment. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t try some constitutional hijinks like testing the vice president route, or essentially running with a surrogate (the Putin/Medvedev gambit).
Even during 2024's campaign, Trump suffered some ‘Biden moments’ on stage, which might have lost him the election were it not for Biden's foot being obviously deeper in the grave. I doubt Trump will be up to a third run. Trump as the Elon Musk to one of his children might be the closest he gets, and I'm not sure any of them want it (see start of thread).
Indeed.
The man is 78 too, and given what we know of his diet, hardly the paragon of healthy living.
"International law is preventing the UK from giving teenage killers such as Axel Rudakubana whole life orders, a Cabinet minister has said.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, suggested that the UN convention on children’s rights stops Britain from being able to impose unlimited sentences on under-18s."
What is hilarious is that the obvious solution in definitive sentences.
9,999 years.
It is ridiculous that it would meet the UN convention, but hey.
I always suspected you were soft on crime. Thailand know how to do it, Chamoy Thipyaso got given 141,708 years. Although she only served 4 before release.......
"International law is preventing the UK from giving teenage killers such as Axel Rudakubana whole life orders, a Cabinet minister has said.
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, suggested that the UN convention on children’s rights stops Britain from being able to impose unlimited sentences on under-18s."
What is hilarious is that the obvious solution in definitive sentences.
9,999 years.
It is ridiculous that it would meet the UN convention, but hey.
Or just ending concurrency.
TIL - Chamoy Thipyaso, sentenced to 141,078 years in prison. Served 8.
Also Charles Scott Robinson
"The judge sentenced Robinson to 5,000 years in prison for each offense with each term to be served consecutively instead of concurrently which totaled to 30,000 years in prison as Jurors, who couldn’t sentence him to life without parole, said they wanted Robinson behind bars for good."
@CLondoner92 #TfL Freedom of Information release: Proposed London Overground line names in 2015 when Boris Johnson was Mayor "We can confirm that a total of £10,175 was spent on customer research on the proposed line name changes."
On topic, I agree with each of TSE's points, however, there's also a great big But.
Point 1: "[TSE's] expectation is that the Republican nominee in 2028 will be whomever Donald Trump anoints as his successor". Yes, assuming he's around (a not-insignificant actuarial risk for the oldest-ever president at inauguration), his primary interest will be in protecting himself, which means he will want someone still personally loyal.
Point 2: "[TSE] think[s] he’ll try and it keep within the family". Certainly, Trump operates court politics and trusts blood over money, and money over party. I agree his first preference will be family. Mafia, innit?
Point 3: "which brings us to Donald Trump, Jr.". Or perhaps back to him because who else is there? Eric is, to put it politely, not up to it. Ivanka was trialled during Trump-45 and exposed as wanting. Barron is too young. Tiffany is not being pushed forward. Kushner seems uninterested. But Don has been loyally pushing his dad's line and is, at the moment, the only plausible family successor. Whether he has the skills to be anything other than his father's mouthpiece is another question: being a candidate is more than being a proxy.
Point 4: "so you may wish to take the 36s on Betfair on him winning the 2028 election". Yes. Remember, this is less than a 3% implied chance. Backing it does not mean it's going to happen or is even likely to happen; just that the chances of it not happening are less than 97%. There are lots of ways Trump-48 could go wrong; the question is about putting numbers to them.
And now the Big But, which we touched on earlier. This is Succession and about who best protects Trump's interests. If he doesn't feel any of his children or relations are up to it, he will go elsewhere, whatever his first instincts and preference. That may be Vance but it also may not be, given Trump's personal disloyalty and capriciousness. 3.8 is way too short to be value.
One other point: Donald Trump snr isn't listed in the odds. I think that's a mistake. If there's one person above all others Trump trusts, it's himself. Yes, the 22nd Amendment is supposed to bar him from a third term but there's no absolute guarantee that it'll still be in place come 2028 or, if it is, that the courts would enforce it given the rate at which Trump is undermining democracy and the rule of law. There are also loopholes to the 22nd that could enable Trump to run a fourth time legitimately. Again, this isn't to say it's the most likely thing to happen but it is less than the 999/1 shot it'd need to be to get a listing.
@david_herdson Very good post, and I agree with your points, particularly the last one.
I remember suggesting on here a few months ago that Trump would run in 2028 and being shot down for it, but I have no idea why 8 years on from his first presidency, people still expect norms and the rule of law to be upheld.
As you say, the courts can find an excuse if they want to - and a very Republican leaning Supreme Court at that!
You can easily imagine an argument being spun like “Well, if the people don’t want him to run again, they can vote for his opponent. Let the people decide!”
Also, Rep. Andy Ogles has literally just introduced a constitutional amendment to allow Trump to run for a Third Term - hilariously with a specific clause aimed at stopping Barack Obama from running again.
Of course this amendment likely won’t go anyway but I don’t know why people just think Trump senior won’t have a crack at doing this if he can. If they listed it on the Exchange / Smarkets I’d be all over it right now, even as a trading bet.
Nah. There’ll be an election in 2028, and Trump will not be top of the ticket.
The democratic infrastructure of the US will have been weakened, but it will still function. Whether it functions in a way that we can describe the vote as being on a level playing field, or whether it operates in a way where the playing field is slightly skewed, it is difficult to say at this point. There is a lot of damage that can be done in the next few years.
I don’t believe Trump can overturn the 22 Amendment. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t try some constitutional hijinks like testing the vice president route, or essentially running with a surrogate (the Putin/Medvedev gambit).
Even during 2024's campaign, Trump suffered some ‘Biden moments’ on stage, which might have lost him the election were it not for Biden's foot being obviously deeper in the grave. I doubt Trump will be up to a third run. Trump as the Elon Musk to one of his children might be the closest he gets, and I'm not sure any of them want it (see start of thread).
Indeed.
The man is 78 too, and given what we know of his diet, hardly the paragon of healthy living.
ACTUALLY - Trump is on a health kick apparently
I read it on X so it must be true. He’s dropped about 30 pounds (ozempic methinks) and Melania has got him to kick the fast food in favour of salads etc
Plus, he’s never been a smoker or a drinker
If you can get beyond the orange masque he doesn’t look that bad for a 78 year old. So anyone hoping the burgers will topple him might be outa luck
Comments
Conservatives 38.5%, Liberals 31.7%, NDP 14.2%, BQ 7.1%, GPC 3.2%, PPC 3.1%
https://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2025/01/liberals-break-30-points-following-trump-inauguration/
A "load of right wing accounts" not so much; these days most of them on X are bots anyway.
If they thought it was going to be over 'quickly', the easiest course would have been not to help Ukraine, and position ourselves ready to deal with the new reality of an emboldened Russia.
But we did the right thing, and stood up against Putin's imperialism and fascism.
I wonder why you don't like that... ?
Investment and capital gains is a tricky one as you want to tax it but you do not want to tax it so high as to disincentivise risk taking.
I would guess those getting the whip back have been loyal and deferential to the party in order to atone.
For a start you’re basically stuck in Rangoon*. When I first got here I checked flights to Bagan and Mandalay and inle. There were a few but all departing at 7am daily or earlier. Like they didn’t want tourists to use them
Now even those flights are gone. There are zero domestic flights in Burma. Overland travel is an enormous hassle and there are military checkpoints everywhere - don’t think you’d get far
As a result there are zero tourists. I’ve just spent seven hours walking around Rangoon and going o see some nearby towns. In all that time I glimpsed one - one! - white European face other than my own
I doubt that can be said of any similarly sized city on Earth
*everyone here uses the names “Rangoon” and “Burma”. I suspect it’s a sly dig at the regime, so I’m happy to join in
It breaks out by attracting more of the rest of the world.
I use it far less than I used to but it still interests me.
I have been using Claude and Perplexity recently quite a bit.
Debate is crucial to politics and society. I've had my own journey from Blairite to give Corbyn a try to Social Democrat - those evolutions happen thanks to debate.
My problem with Twitter and the alt-left/alt-right is that we're not debating based on facts or evidence or science or rationale. Something is said which is demonstrably not true which becomes the credo of that politics. Disagree and be disowned. Happened extensively with those Momentum wazzocks inside Labour, and now here we are with Truss issuing "I didn't crash the economy" letters despite having to fire, u-turn and resign because she demonstrably did. And then otherwise seemingly sensible people repeating this revisionism as if its not only true but is CLEARLY the only possible truth.
This is why I feel at home in the LibDems. We have some proper rows over policy. But they're not facts vs fiction. We agree where we are - which is more than some Labour and Tory people can manage - and then debate what we do about it.
Good morning, all. Sunny here now, if somewhat windy.
But step outside….
I’m leaving in a couple of days. Back to Bangers
I’m going to miss it, I suspect; the oddness. The crows - so many crows. The mildewed imperial ruins. The shy smiles. The brilliant fish curry. The FANTASTIC cakes - what is that about? Why does Rangoon have the best patisserie in the world - a hangover from British imperial tea times? French chefs stopping over on the way home from Vietnam?
And the beautiful women with the weird yellow paste on their faces. And the very serious chanting in the shrines and pagodas. And the dystopian nightlife when an entire street will be blackout dark apart from the excellent tapas bar at the end
I’m going to miss the strangeness
"Writing about a film from Burma, he recalls his time in the country many years previous under its military dictatorships, a “tyranny tempered by laziness and incompetence. It was xenophobic and self-serving and I ought to have hated it.” Yet, Dalrymple writes: “Instead I loved it. The country had an indefinable charm that any modernization would destroy once and for all; the charm was as delicate and irrecoverable as the blush of a grape. I looked at the country aesthetically, not politically or economically. No doubt this was very superficial: people do not live in museums for the delectation of occasional visitors. I have little doubt that if I had to live there, I would have detested the government and done what little I could to rid the country of it. But still I could not be as enthusiastic as I ought to have been about the prospect of democratic change.”"
https://theinterim.com/columnist/rick-mcginnis/the-world-on-a-screen-with-theodore-dalrymple/
Now they've got to live with what he did for the rest if their lives. It's not as if they're called Smith, either!
On the international arms market, their reputation has completely collapsed. Russian tanks are associated with turret tossing.
All for the "cost", to the UK (among the rest), of mostly near time expired munitions and some training.
Putin would now, definitely, lose a war against... Poland.
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/
I've always been pretty good at getting work done and sticking to it, but shit at marketing/self-promotion so it's great to get subscriptions/ratings etc.
Currently trying to work out whether to do a Predictions episode before or after testing.
The FBI have rated Far Right violence as a greater threat than Islamist violence for decades.
I'm not sure where the Left is on there, but I suspect not even on the scale.
This ruling will lead to anarchy.
A French woman who stopped having sex with her husband has won a ruling from Europe's highest human rights court, which has stated she should not have been blamed for their divorce.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sided with the 69-year-old on Thursday, saying courts should not consider a refusal to engage in sexual relations as grounds for fault in divorce.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxel6zkwwxo
Brains Trust
Is anyone familiar with the actual rules around driving after eye dilation?
This morning I have a tartar of a nurse who says she would not want me to even be cycling .afterwards.
Chris Parr
@chrisjparr.bsky.social
Leeds becomes first Russell Group university to quit X but will stay on other platforms like Bluesky.
Unlike Robert Frost I didn't take it.
Insurers might say otherwise.
I remember suggesting on here a few months ago that Trump would run in 2028 and being shot down for it, but I have no idea why 8 years on from his first presidency, people still expect norms and the rule of law to be upheld.
As you say, the courts can find an excuse if they want to - and a very Republican leaning Supreme Court at that!
You can easily imagine an argument being spun like “Well, if the people don’t want him to run again, they can vote for his opponent. Let the people decide!”
Also, Rep. Andy Ogles has literally just introduced a constitutional amendment to allow Trump to run for a Third Term - hilariously with a specific clause aimed at stopping Barack Obama from running again.
https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-proposes-amending-22nd-amendment-allow-trump-serve-third-term
Of course this amendment likely won’t go anyway but I don’t know why people just think Trump senior won’t have a crack at doing this if he can. If they listed it on the Exchange / Smarkets I’d be all over it right now, even as a trading bet.
As for putting "cost" in inverted commas, you must know that's utterly ludicrous. AI (fact checking is necessary) says this about the UK's support:
If it's anything like that, whilst the UK Government makes a mere £2.8bn from freezing grannies, it is a total farce, and deserves more debate than being placed in inverted commas and dismissed as 'some training and clapped out equipment' ffs.
I had to have two courses of dilation recently, as the first didn't do anything. My vision was back to normal within around half an hour.
The only fly in the ointment is the 22nd Amendment. What does Trump do about that (presuming he lives long enough for it to be an issue for him)? Getting a proxy elected seems like a good solution, but who? Getting around the Amendment is tricky, but the Supreme Court is maybe corrupt enough. But cancelling the election entirely seems unlikely to me.
German Puma IFVs have arrived in 🇱🇹Lithuania to enhance the combat capabilities of the (NATO eFP Battle Group Lithuania.)
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1882536700628578477
Some serious reinforcement of the Baltic states seems to be going on.
FDA purges material on clinical trial diversity from its site, showing stakes of Trump DEI ban
The scrubbing could affect the ways researchers and companies test drugs and medical devices
https://www.statnews.com/2025/01/23/fda-purges-pages-clinical-trial-diversity-after-trump-dei-ban/
We would have been much more secure from the apparently eternal predation of the Russians by spending the money we've pissed away in Ukraine on improving the intelligence services.
https://ogles.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-ogles-proposes-amending-22nd-amendment-allow-trump-serve-third-term
I concur your suggestion is more likely, but this lot will do whatever they can to maintain power with no regard for the constitution or democracy. That may well be "controlled" elections rather than no elections. At some level of control it will fall outside the bounds of a traditional Presidential election.
...and the long, long history of the Russia state murdering people abroad, in general.
But that's what the American public wanted. So their welcome...
Black patient doesn't trust targeted medicine House MD S2E3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCGLyLUNMv8
The democratic infrastructure of the US will have been weakened, but it will still function. Whether it functions in a way that we can describe the vote as being on a level playing field, or whether it operates in a way where the playing field is slightly skewed, it is difficult to say at this point. There is a lot of damage that can be done in the next few years.
I don’t believe Trump can overturn the 22 Amendment. That doesn’t mean he couldn’t try some constitutional hijinks like testing the vice president route, or essentially running with a surrogate (the Putin/Medvedev gambit).
John Healey, the Defence Secretary, suggested that the UN convention on children’s rights stops Britain from being able to impose unlimited sentences on under-18s."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/24/international-law-whole-life-sentence-rudakubana-healey/
More importantly, how do they identify population specific reactions for novel drugs if they aren't testing for them ?
The answer is that it is legal to drive when the influence of the drops has worn off, which varies with the drops used and the spectacle prescription. With me it's about 30 minutes.
Otherwise it depends on weather conditions. If it's sunny then there is a problem of glare, and also at night with headlights, much less so on a dull overcast day.
There is a distance vision criteria for driving, a number plate at 20 meters, but even dilated most drivers make that. The bigger problem is glare, and theoretically insurance could be invalid as under the influence of medication.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10325996/
9,999 years.
It is ridiculous that it would meet the UN convention, but hey.
The man is 78 too, and given what we know of his diet, hardly the paragon of healthy living.
Also Charles Scott Robinson
"The judge sentenced Robinson to 5,000 years in prison for each offense with each term to be served consecutively instead of concurrently which totaled to 30,000 years in prison as Jurors, who couldn’t sentence him to life without parole, said they wanted Robinson behind bars for good."
So I suspect all you’ve proven is that the station and everything else is named after Queen Victoria’s mum, Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld
I read it on X so it must be true. He’s dropped about 30 pounds (ozempic methinks) and Melania has got him to kick the fast food in favour of salads etc
Plus, he’s never been a smoker or a drinker
If you can get beyond the orange masque he doesn’t look that bad for a 78 year old. So anyone hoping the burgers will topple him might be outa luck