It was MAGA which probably won Trump the last election, without MAGA who are today's GOP? A few rich country club white men mainly which is nowhere near enough to win.
It was Boris who also won the white working class voters the Tories have now lost to Farage
Trump told them tariffs were going to bring their jobs back
None of that was true, and now the tariffs are gone
Republicans need to make the case that Trump lied to them
How do you know? Tariffs have only been on a week or so, if more US goods are bought and US production expands some rustbelt jobs may come back.
Yes if you buy a lot of imports it will be costly but Trump is doing what he campaigned to do and global tariffs still are there at 10% and more for China with a few exemptions
Last weekend I posted this
"OK, PB quiz time... Which day next week will Trump announce he is rolling back tariffs? Is there any chance he makes it to Friday?"
The answer was no
This weekend I ask how many days the remaining tariffs will last?
Can't think why the exemption for electronics was slipped out from WH late on a Friday evening when even WeLoveTrumpNews.com had gone home from the press pool.
Can't think why the exemption for electronics was slipped out from WH late on a Friday evening when even WeLoveTrumpNews.com had gone home from the press pool.
Not even Barbie can spin that one as a win for Trump
It was MAGA which probably won Trump the last election, without MAGA who are today's GOP? A few rich country club white men mainly which is nowhere near enough to win.
It was Boris who also won the white working class voters the Tories have now lost to Farage
Trump told them tariffs were going to bring their jobs back
None of that was true, and now the tariffs are gone
Republicans need to make the case that Trump lied to them
How do you know? Tariffs have only been on a week or so, if more US goods are bought and US production expands some rustbelt jobs may come back.
Yes if you buy a lot of imports it will be costly but Trump is doing what he campaigned to do and global tariffs still are there at 10% and more for China with a few exemptions
Last weekend I posted this
"OK, PB quiz time... Which day next week will Trump announce he is rolling back tariffs? Is there any chance he makes it to Friday?"
The answer was no
This weekend I ask how many days the remaining tariffs will last?
I'll take under whatever you say
There will always be at least one tariff. Otherwise Trump will feel he lied and that can't happen can it.
The penguins are not getting any fucking breaks!!! Ok??
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
Montana had a Dem senator until this year, of course, although I appreciate he was very much an outlier. As was the formerly Dem senator in West Virginia.
And it's entirely possible, in a year when the Republicans do particularly poorly, and the Dems put up some sensible centrists, that a few of those fall.
What is not particularly plausible is for 20 of 22 Republican held Senate seats to fall at the midterms.
So, we are back to the 25th then?
Yep. With a cabinet full of Yes men and people who appear on Fox News.
I am appalled by the attack of three brave officers at HMP Frankland today. My thoughts are with them and their families.
The police are now investigating. I will be pushing for the strongest possible punishment. Violence against our staff will never be tolerated.
The strongest possible punishment being imprisonment? Hmm.
Meanwhile, if he threw boiling oil over them, perhaps it is time to revisit the guidelines on who can work in prison kitchens.
They could put him in solitary confinement. It seems somewhat justified in the circumstances.
Just execute him. Enough. He killed dozens of young girls. He’s 100% guilty. He’s now injuring more
Hang him
He is serving a 55 year jail sentence anyway
Which, from the prison officer's point of view, is a nightmare because they simply have no means to control him and he can take any opportunity given to hurt more people. I mean, not giving him access to hot oil seems the start of a plan but how do you manage someone like that? Just imagine going to work every day supervising a psychopath like that with absolutely nothing to lose. It's not a job I would fancy.
People want long sentences for monsters like this, and rightly so, but boy do we create a problem for the Prison Service.
Just put him in solitary for 6 months, they have done it for Tommy Robinson for much less
And then? For the next 54 years?
The Israelis put their worst terrorists and murderers in solitary cells underground and never let them out until they are dead
It's quite a while since I read the New Testament - but that doesn't really chime with what I remember the overall message being.
I am not completely up on this religion thing but I don't think that the Israelis are particularly up on the New Testament. I'm pretty sure that was the point of it all.
I was faintly remembering HY as a Christian. It seemed like a rather un-Christian thought - even to project onto others.
I always find it amusing when someone says that someone is acting in an “unchristian”, “unislamic”, “unhindu” manner. Etc.
Especially when there are example of famous adherents to the various religious behaving exactly thus. Often within living memory.
Unchristian is a strange one, as the most unchristian people I've ever met go to church most often and are often high up in the Deanery / Diocese.
Many years ago, I went to a book signing thing by an ex (ha!) PIRA guy. I discussed the bombings that he’d been involved with. It became clear he wanted forgiveness and absolution from the world without the slightest expression of regret for what he had done. Old, doddery and evidently an alcoholic.
One of the people organising the event was shocked by my statement of a lack of forgiveness. “That isn’t very Christian of you”.
She was almost speechless when I replied that I wasn’t a Christian.
It was MAGA which probably won Trump the last election, without MAGA who are today's GOP? A few rich country club white men mainly which is nowhere near enough to win.
It was Boris who also won the white working class voters the Tories have now lost to Farage
Trump told them tariffs were going to bring their jobs back
None of that was true, and now the tariffs are gone
Republicans need to make the case that Trump lied to them
How do you know? Tariffs have only been on a week or so, if more US goods are bought and US production expands some rustbelt jobs may come back.
Yes if you buy a lot of imports it will be costly but Trump is doing what he campaigned to do and global tariffs still are there at 10% and more for China with a few exemptions
Last weekend I posted this
"OK, PB quiz time... Which day next week will Trump announce he is rolling back tariffs? Is there any chance he makes it to Friday?"
The answer was no
This weekend I ask how many days the remaining tariffs will last?
I'll take under whatever you say
There will always be at least one tariff. Otherwise Trump will feel he lied and that can't happen can it.
The penguins are not getting any fucking breaks!!! Ok??
The penguins don't care. They are hard and stubborn.
I am appalled by the attack of three brave officers at HMP Frankland today. My thoughts are with them and their families.
The police are now investigating. I will be pushing for the strongest possible punishment. Violence against our staff will never be tolerated.
The strongest possible punishment being imprisonment? Hmm.
Meanwhile, if he threw boiling oil over them, perhaps it is time to revisit the guidelines on who can work in prison kitchens.
They could put him in solitary confinement. It seems somewhat justified in the circumstances.
Just execute him. Enough. He killed dozens of young girls. He’s 100% guilty. He’s now injuring more
Hang him
He is serving a 55 year jail sentence anyway
Which, from the prison officer's point of view, is a nightmare because they simply have no means to control him and he can take any opportunity given to hurt more people. I mean, not giving him access to hot oil seems the start of a plan but how do you manage someone like that? Just imagine going to work every day supervising a psychopath like that with absolutely nothing to lose. It's not a job I would fancy.
People want long sentences for monsters like this, and rightly so, but boy do we create a problem for the Prison Service.
Just put him in solitary for 6 months, they have done it for Tommy Robinson for much less
And then? For the next 54 years?
The Israelis put their worst terrorists and murderers in solitary cells underground and never let them out until they are dead
It's quite a while since I read the New Testament - but that doesn't really chime with what I remember the overall message being.
I am not completely up on this religion thing but I don't think that the Israelis are particularly up on the New Testament. I'm pretty sure that was the point of it all.
I was faintly remembering HY as a Christian. It seemed like a rather un-Christian thought - even to project onto others.
I always find it amusing when someone says that someone is acting in an “unchristian”, “unislamic”, “unhindu” manner. Etc.
Especially when there are example of famous adherents to the various religious behaving exactly thus. Often within living memory.
Unchristian is a strange one, as the most unchristian people I've ever met go to church most often and are often high up in the Deanery / Diocese.
Many years ago, I went to a book signing thing by an ex (ha!) PIRA guy. I discussed the bombings that he’d been involved with. It became clear he wanted forgiveness and absolution from the world without the slightest expression of regret for what he had done. Old, doddery and evidently an alcoholic.
One of the people organising the event was shocked by my statement of a lack of forgiveness. “That isn’t very Christian of you”.
She was almost speechless when I replied that I wasn’t a Christian.
Offering forgiveness, to people who think they’ve done nothing wrong, is just condoning evil.
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
Or enough Republicans see the writing on the wall
There comes a point when being against the Mad King is better than being for him
Only if the things that keep MAGA in charge of the Republican party change.
Which means Elon Musk will need to have lost all interest in politics (because otherwise you are lose the next election in the primaries before you even get started)
And voters have decided on mass to vote Democrat..
There is a lot of time (and problems) to go before we get to that point.
The Court Jester is already on the way out. He tried to buy an election in Wisconsin and got his ass handed to him. He's no threat.
If the GOP want to survive, they need to repent their dalliance with MAGA
The Mad King, V.P Deliverance, Nazi Barbie, all of them will need to be expunged
They need voters to be disillusioned with Trump, not Republicans, just as Tories needed BoZo to be the fall guy. Didn't work, but it's their only shot
It was MAGA which probably won Trump the last election, without MAGA who are today's GOP? A few rich country club white men mainly which is nowhere near enough to win.
It was Boris who also won the white working class voters the Tories have now lost to Farage
Or you could turn it the other way around: it was the country club Republicans and techbros who gave it to MAGA
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
Or enough Republicans see the writing on the wall
There comes a point when being against the Mad King is better than being for him
Only if the things that keep MAGA in charge of the Republican party change.
Which means Elon Musk will need to have lost all interest in politics (because otherwise you are lose the next election in the primaries before you even get started)
And voters have decided on mass to vote Democrat..
There is a lot of time (and problems) to go before we get to that point.
Fear of Musk will have diminished since he got his arse handed back to him in Wisconsin the other week.
Frank Skinner said he's waiting for Musk to screw up so he can call it Elongate
Spencer Hakimian @SpencerHakimian · 35m Not that China would do this, but what happens if Xi decides to place export controls on the very same items that Trump just exempted from tariffs?
We just completely showed our hand on what we cannot afford to have cut off to us.
I just want to tip my hat to the crack team of White House economists who were able to discover--in just a few short days--that the U.S. is dependent on China for smartphones, computers and semiconductors.
It's incredible just how incompetent the current US administration is. You can't govern this badly for four years and expect anything other than a catastrophe.
Justin Wolfers @JustinWolfers · 1h I just want to tip my hat to the crack team of White House economists who were able to discover--in just a few short days--that the U.S. is dependent on China for smartphones, computers and semiconductors.
It was MAGA which probably won Trump the last election, without MAGA who are today's GOP? A few rich country club white men mainly which is nowhere near enough to win.
It was Boris who also won the white working class voters the Tories have now lost to Farage
Trump told them tariffs were going to bring their jobs back
None of that was true, and now the tariffs are gone
Republicans need to make the case that Trump lied to them
How do you know? Tariffs have only been on a week or so, if more US goods are bought and US production expands some rustbelt jobs may come back.
Yes if you buy a lot of imports it will be costly but Trump is doing what he campaigned to do and global tariffs still are there at 10% and more for China with a few exemptions
Jobs could be created in the rustbelt by spending a few tens of billions.
Instead Trump has done trillions worth of damage and given the rich trillions in tax cuts.
Yep. With a cabinet full of Yes men and people who appear on Fox News.
Not only is the cabinet full of Yes men, who will never invoke the 25th, but the 25th will also require a 2/3 vote of the Senate (as well as a 2/3 vote of the House).
Let's suppose Vance and a majority of the Cabinet declare Trump incapacitated. Under the rules of the 25th, Trump can then immediately declare that he is actually perfectly fine, and he will then immediately become President once again.
Vance and the Cabinet can then try to file the 25th declaration for a second time. The House and the Senate will then decide the issue, and a 2/3rd vote of both the House and the Senate will be needed before Trump can be successfully removed.
Can't think why the exemption for electronics was slipped out from WH late on a Friday evening when even WeLoveTrumpNews.com had gone home from the press pool.
Not even Barbie can spin that one as a win for Trump
It was MAGA which probably won Trump the last election, without MAGA who are today's GOP? A few rich country club white men mainly which is nowhere near enough to win.
It was Boris who also won the white working class voters the Tories have now lost to Farage
Trump told them tariffs were going to bring their jobs back
None of that was true, and now the tariffs are gone
Republicans need to make the case that Trump lied to them
How do you know? Tariffs have only been on a week or so, if more US goods are bought and US production expands some rustbelt jobs may come back.
Yes if you buy a lot of imports it will be costly but Trump is doing what he campaigned to do and global tariffs still are there at 10% and more for China with a few exemptions
Last weekend I posted this
"OK, PB quiz time... Which day next week will Trump announce he is rolling back tariffs? Is there any chance he makes it to Friday?"
The answer was no
This weekend I ask how many days the remaining tariffs will last?
I'll take under whatever you say
There will always be at least one tariff. Otherwise Trump will feel he lied and that can't happen can it.
The penguins are not getting any fucking breaks!!! Ok??
The penguins don't care. They are hard and stubborn.
If Trump puts a tariff on Penguins, we should put a tariff on Hershey Bars.
We were discussing Cantorian infinities the other week. If you want more on that this was a nice YouTube explainer on the continuum hypothesis: https://youtu.be/Gz6qefUi3Ho?si=SXt79V5Lowcrg2Fv
It was MAGA which probably won Trump the last election, without MAGA who are today's GOP? A few rich country club white men mainly which is nowhere near enough to win.
It was Boris who also won the white working class voters the Tories have now lost to Farage
Trump told them tariffs were going to bring their jobs back
None of that was true, and now the tariffs are gone
Republicans need to make the case that Trump lied to them
How do you know? Tariffs have only been on a week or so, if more US goods are bought and US production expands some rustbelt jobs may come back.
Yes if you buy a lot of imports it will be costly but Trump is doing what he campaigned to do and global tariffs still are there at 10% and more for China with a few exemptions
Last weekend I posted this
"OK, PB quiz time... Which day next week will Trump announce he is rolling back tariffs? Is there any chance he makes it to Friday?"
The answer was no
This weekend I ask how many days the remaining tariffs will last?
I'll take under whatever you say
There will always be at least one tariff. Otherwise Trump will feel he lied and that can't happen can it.
The penguins are not getting any fucking breaks!!! Ok??
The penguins don't care. They are hard and stubborn.
If Trump puts a tariff on Penguins, we should put a tariff on Hershey Bars.
I am appalled by the attack of three brave officers at HMP Frankland today. My thoughts are with them and their families.
The police are now investigating. I will be pushing for the strongest possible punishment. Violence against our staff will never be tolerated.
The strongest possible punishment being imprisonment? Hmm.
Meanwhile, if he threw boiling oil over them, perhaps it is time to revisit the guidelines on who can work in prison kitchens.
They could put him in solitary confinement. It seems somewhat justified in the circumstances.
Just execute him. Enough. He killed dozens of young girls. He’s 100% guilty. He’s now injuring more
Hang him
He is serving a 55 year jail sentence anyway
Which, from the prison officer's point of view, is a nightmare because they simply have no means to control him and he can take any opportunity given to hurt more people. I mean, not giving him access to hot oil seems the start of a plan but how do you manage someone like that? Just imagine going to work every day supervising a psychopath like that with absolutely nothing to lose. It's not a job I would fancy.
People want long sentences for monsters like this, and rightly so, but boy do we create a problem for the Prison Service.
Just put him in solitary for 6 months, they have done it for Tommy Robinson for much less
And then? For the next 54 years?
The Israelis put their worst terrorists and murderers in solitary cells underground and never let them out until they are dead
It's quite a while since I read the New Testament - but that doesn't really chime with what I remember the overall message being.
I am not completely up on this religion thing but I don't think that the Israelis are particularly up on the New Testament. I'm pretty sure that was the point of it all.
I was faintly remembering HY as a Christian. It seemed like a rather un-Christian thought - even to project onto others.
I always find it amusing when someone says that someone is acting in an “unchristian”, “unislamic”, “unhindu” manner. Etc.
Especially when there are example of famous adherents to the various religious behaving exactly thus. Often within living memory.
Unchristian is a strange one, as the most unchristian people I've ever met go to church most often and are often high up in the Deanery / Diocese.
Many years ago, I went to a book signing thing by an ex (ha!) PIRA guy. I discussed the bombings that he’d been involved with. It became clear he wanted forgiveness and absolution from the world without the slightest expression of regret for what he had done. Old, doddery and evidently an alcoholic.
One of the people organising the event was shocked by my statement of a lack of forgiveness. “That isn’t very Christian of you”.
She was almost speechless when I replied that I wasn’t a Christian.
Offering forgiveness, to people who think they’ve done nothing wrong, is just condoning evil.
No it isn't. Forgiveness blesses the forgiver, not the forgiven. It is massively missing the point of it to withhold forgiveness until the transgressor is suitably chastened.
It was MAGA which probably won Trump the last election, without MAGA who are today's GOP? A few rich country club white men mainly which is nowhere near enough to win.
It was Boris who also won the white working class voters the Tories have now lost to Farage
Trump told them tariffs were going to bring their jobs back
None of that was true, and now the tariffs are gone
Republicans need to make the case that Trump lied to them
How do you know? Tariffs have only been on a week or so, if more US goods are bought and US production expands some rustbelt jobs may come back.
Yes if you buy a lot of imports it will be costly but Trump is doing what he campaigned to do and global tariffs still are there at 10% and more for China with a few exemptions
Last weekend I posted this
"OK, PB quiz time... Which day next week will Trump announce he is rolling back tariffs? Is there any chance he makes it to Friday?"
The answer was no
This weekend I ask how many days the remaining tariffs will last?
I'll take under whatever you say
There will always be at least one tariff. Otherwise Trump will feel he lied and that can't happen can it.
The penguins are not getting any fucking breaks!!! Ok??
The penguins don't care. They are hard and stubborn.
If Trump puts a tariff on Penguins, we should put a tariff on Hershey Bars.
At this point, we seem to have infinite tariffs and no tariffs. On the same things. At the same time.
Is this some kind of quantum superimposition thing?
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
It was MAGA which probably won Trump the last election, without MAGA who are today's GOP? A few rich country club white men mainly which is nowhere near enough to win.
It was Boris who also won the white working class voters the Tories have now lost to Farage
Trump told them tariffs were going to bring their jobs back
None of that was true, and now the tariffs are gone
Republicans need to make the case that Trump lied to them
How do you know? Tariffs have only been on a week or so, if more US goods are bought and US production expands some rustbelt jobs may come back.
Yes if you buy a lot of imports it will be costly but Trump is doing what he campaigned to do and global tariffs still are there at 10% and more for China with a few exemptions
Last weekend I posted this
"OK, PB quiz time... Which day next week will Trump announce he is rolling back tariffs? Is there any chance he makes it to Friday?"
The answer was no
This weekend I ask how many days the remaining tariffs will last?
I'll take under whatever you say
There will always be at least one tariff. Otherwise Trump will feel he lied and that can't happen can it.
The penguins are not getting any fucking breaks!!! Ok??
The penguins don't care. They are hard and stubborn.
If Trump puts a tariff on Penguins, we should put a tariff on Hershey Bars.
At this point, we seem to have infinite tariffs and no tariffs. On the same things. At the same time.
Is this some kind of quantum superimposition thing?
It was MAGA which probably won Trump the last election, without MAGA who are today's GOP? A few rich country club white men mainly which is nowhere near enough to win.
It was Boris who also won the white working class voters the Tories have now lost to Farage
Trump told them tariffs were going to bring their jobs back
None of that was true, and now the tariffs are gone
Republicans need to make the case that Trump lied to them
How do you know? Tariffs have only been on a week or so, if more US goods are bought and US production expands some rustbelt jobs may come back.
Yes if you buy a lot of imports it will be costly but Trump is doing what he campaigned to do and global tariffs still are there at 10% and more for China with a few exemptions
Last weekend I posted this
"OK, PB quiz time... Which day next week will Trump announce he is rolling back tariffs? Is there any chance he makes it to Friday?"
The answer was no
This weekend I ask how many days the remaining tariffs will last?
I'll take under whatever you say
There will always be at least one tariff. Otherwise Trump will feel he lied and that can't happen can it.
The penguins are not getting any fucking breaks!!! Ok??
The penguins don't care. They are hard and stubborn.
If Trump puts a tariff on Penguins, we should put a tariff on Hershey Bars.
At this point, we seem to have infinite tariffs and no tariffs. On the same things. At the same time.
Is this some kind of quantum superimposition thing?
Trump brings us Schrödinger's tariffs...
I hope that Starmer is now noticing that the suckers up get nothing, or get bullied, and the fighters back get concessions and climb downs.
It was MAGA which probably won Trump the last election, without MAGA who are today's GOP? A few rich country club white men mainly which is nowhere near enough to win.
It was Boris who also won the white working class voters the Tories have now lost to Farage
Trump told them tariffs were going to bring their jobs back
None of that was true, and now the tariffs are gone
Republicans need to make the case that Trump lied to them
How do you know? Tariffs have only been on a week or so, if more US goods are bought and US production expands some rustbelt jobs may come back.
Yes if you buy a lot of imports it will be costly but Trump is doing what he campaigned to do and global tariffs still are there at 10% and more for China with a few exemptions
Last weekend I posted this
"OK, PB quiz time... Which day next week will Trump announce he is rolling back tariffs? Is there any chance he makes it to Friday?"
The answer was no
This weekend I ask how many days the remaining tariffs will last?
I'll take under whatever you say
There will always be at least one tariff. Otherwise Trump will feel he lied and that can't happen can it.
The penguins are not getting any fucking breaks!!! Ok??
The penguins don't care. They are hard and stubborn.
If Trump puts a tariff on Penguins, we should put a tariff on Hershey Bars.
At this point, we seem to have infinite tariffs and no tariffs. On the same things. At the same time.
Is this some kind of quantum superimposition thing?
Trump brings us Schrödinger's tariffs...
I hope that Starmer is now noticing that the suckers up get nothing, or get bullied, and the fighters back get concessions and climb downs.
Yes, like all bullies, Trump despises those who suck up to him ("weak people holding no cards"), and respects those like Xi who fight back.
It was MAGA which probably won Trump the last election, without MAGA who are today's GOP? A few rich country club white men mainly which is nowhere near enough to win.
It was Boris who also won the white working class voters the Tories have now lost to Farage
Trump told them tariffs were going to bring their jobs back
None of that was true, and now the tariffs are gone
Republicans need to make the case that Trump lied to them
How do you know? Tariffs have only been on a week or so, if more US goods are bought and US production expands some rustbelt jobs may come back.
Yes if you buy a lot of imports it will be costly but Trump is doing what he campaigned to do and global tariffs still are there at 10% and more for China with a few exemptions
Last weekend I posted this
"OK, PB quiz time... Which day next week will Trump announce he is rolling back tariffs? Is there any chance he makes it to Friday?"
The answer was no
This weekend I ask how many days the remaining tariffs will last?
I'll take under whatever you say
There will always be at least one tariff. Otherwise Trump will feel he lied and that can't happen can it.
The penguins are not getting any fucking breaks!!! Ok??
The penguins don't care. They are hard and stubborn.
If Trump puts a tariff on Penguins, we should put a tariff on Hershey Bars.
At this point, we seem to have infinite tariffs and no tariffs. On the same things. At the same time.
Is this some kind of quantum superimposition thing?
This is the thing. What breaks through the MAGA crowd’s alternative facts bubble? The collapse of the stock market threatened to, but Trump pivoted. He looks stupid to us, but the MAGA folk can continue worshipping his genius.
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
Only if they fear for their seats more than they fear a Musk primary campaign.
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
Only if they fear for their seats more than they fear a Musk primary campaign.
Could happen.
If Musk goes, his money - and the fear of being primaried - goes too.
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
Only if they fear for their seats more than they fear a Musk primary campaign.
Could happen.
If Musk goes, his money - and the fear of being primaried - goes too.
Which is when some spines get found.
There’s still the risk of a primary campaign where you are opposed by Trump. Those have been won, but the idea will scare many. Trump has to become catastrophically unpopular, and can that happen while Fox News etc. talk him up?
This is the thing. What breaks through the MAGA crowd’s alternative facts bubble? The collapse of the stock market threatened to, but Trump pivoted. He looks stupid to us, but the MAGA folk can continue worshipping his genius.
And of course his backtrack on tariffs re tablets, phones etc mean those higher value and well known products won’t see an increase so he can dupe the gullible aka as the Maga crowd .
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
If he does something clearly outrageous such as invading Canada or declaring himself President-for-Life, then there will be enough Republicans who will impeach and remove him.
It's like the South Korean example. South Korean politics is as polarised as that of the USA, but Yoon's attempt to impose martial law was so outrageous that even members of his party voted for impeachment.
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
Stock market crash? X Dollar crash? X Rampant inflation? X Kowtow to Russian dictator? X War with Canada? X
Those who want to understand why Democrats are so distrusted by Americans may want to read Abundance by two center-left journalists, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson.
So says George Will: 'Government, Klein and Thompson demonstrate, is one reason the median home price, which was 2.2 times the average annual income in 1950, is now six times this. And as Democrats anguish over a CNN poll showing the Democratic Party with an anemic 29 percent favorability rating, Klein and Thompson say liberals should be angry about the condition of the states and cities that liberals govern. “Liberals should be able to say: Vote for us and we will govern the country the way we govern California! Instead, conservatives are able to say: Vote for them and they will govern the country the way they govern California!”' https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/04/02/klein-thompson-abundance-regulations/
(Will would agree that the Loser is an absurd answer to the problems caused by Democratic officials -- but that doesn't mean the problems aren't real.)
This is the thing. What breaks through the MAGA crowd’s alternative facts bubble? The collapse of the stock market threatened to, but Trump pivoted. He looks stupid to us, but the MAGA folk can continue worshipping his genius.
MAGA don't care about Wall Street and the stockmarket, they care about Mainstreet and the rustbelt
It was MAGA which probably won Trump the last election, without MAGA who are today's GOP? A few rich country club white men mainly which is nowhere near enough to win.
It was Boris who also won the white working class voters the Tories have now lost to Farage
Trump told them tariffs were going to bring their jobs back
None of that was true, and now the tariffs are gone
Republicans need to make the case that Trump lied to them
How do you know? Tariffs have only been on a week or so, if more US goods are bought and US production expands some rustbelt jobs may come back.
Yes if you buy a lot of imports it will be costly but Trump is doing what he campaigned to do and global tariffs still are there at 10% and more for China with a few exemptions
Last weekend I posted this
"OK, PB quiz time... Which day next week will Trump announce he is rolling back tariffs? Is there any chance he makes it to Friday?"
The answer was no
This weekend I ask how many days the remaining tariffs will last?
I'll take under whatever you say
There will always be at least one tariff. Otherwise Trump will feel he lied and that can't happen can it.
The penguins are not getting any fucking breaks!!! Ok??
The penguins don't care. They are hard and stubborn.
If Trump puts a tariff on Penguins, we should put a tariff on Hershey Bars.
At this point, we seem to have infinite tariffs and no tariffs. On the same things. At the same time.
Is this some kind of quantum superimposition thing?
Trump brings us Schrödinger's tariffs...
I hope that Starmer is now noticing that the suckers up get nothing, or get bullied, and the fighters back get concessions and climb downs.
Yet the UK started off with lower tariffs than most nations from Trump and still has no higher tariffs than most nations and substantially lower tariffs than Trump has imposed on China still
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
Stock market crash? X Dollar crash? X Rampant inflation? X Kowtow to Russian dictator? X War with Canada? X
I give up. How about a clue?
Just let the army suspend the constitution and arrest the fucker and then shoot him. About time for them to do something useful after they helped desegregate schools.
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
Stock market crash? X Dollar crash? X Rampant inflation? X Kowtow to Russian dictator? X War with Canada? X
I give up. How about a clue?
Just let the army suspend the constitution and arrest the fucker and then shoot him. About time for them to do something useful after they helped desegregate schools.
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
Stock market crash? X Dollar crash? X Rampant inflation? X Kowtow to Russian dictator? X War with Canada? X
I give up. How about a clue?
Just let the army suspend the constitution and arrest the fucker and then shoot him. About time for them to do something useful after they helped desegregate schools.
Incidentally, as we build up to Easter there is some news on Canterbury, which I haven't seen discussed (although I have been busy so I may have missed it).
Graham Ussher is out of the running. He has agreed to serve on the CNC which rules him out.
As the clear front runner and the best candidate available, that makes some difference to the betting.
The frontrunner now should probably be Martyn Snow, Bishop of Leicester.
However - my money would actually be on a deadlock and no appointment at least this year.
Like anyone cares.
At risk of triggering an avalanche, I am sure Hyufd will.
Just give the job to whoever is best able to apologise for decades of abuse, and centuries of misery, war and death, whilst simultaneously being able to spout a stream of absolute rubbish and appear to believe it all.
Not a bad idea, but Ed Davey's a bit busy right now.
55 Senators voted to impeach Trump, ie the 51 Dems + 4 Reps.
So they were 12 short. That's a lot, but not off the scale.
If Dems could gain maybe 5 seats in 2026 then the Senate would be 52 Dem, 48 Rep.
They would then need 15 out of 48 Rep Senators to convict.
All tall order but certainly not out of the question if he does something outrageous.
Actually, your math is wrong.
It was 50 Dems and 50 Republicans, with 57 votes for impeachment.
The seven votes for impeachment were:
Richard Burr Bill Cassidy Susan Collins Lisa Murkowski Mitt Romney Ben Sasse Pat Toomey
Of these, I believe only three are still Senators: Murkowski, Collins and Cassidy. Most of those who voted to impeach were retiring anyway: Burr, Toomey and Sasse. (The last was a particular loss.)
And Collins will lose her seat in Maine next year.
Lucy Letby ... email casts doubt on court claim that nurse was caught 'red-handed' with a baby who later died ... Dr Ravi Jayaram was the only medical witness at Letby's two trials who was able to point to behaviour directly linking her to babies' deaths, testifying that she was standing over Baby K's cot as the girl was deteriorating – and that she did not call for help.
But, extraordinarly, in an email sent to his colleagues at the Countess of Chester Hospital on May 4, 2017 – before she was investigated by police – Dr Jayaram wrote: 'At time of deterioration ... Staff nurse Letby at incubator and called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations.'
In the newly revealed email Dr Jayaram also suggested Baby K's frailty was the cause of death, saying: 'Baby subsequently deteriorated and eventually died, but events around this would fit with explainable events associated with extreme prematurity.'
Thanks and apologies. It went to 51-49 after the 2022 midterms. Accept your point re the seven - but next time there will be others about to retire so I think it does indicate Rep Senators can be persuaded. But would of course depend on specifics of the situation.
ETA in that sketch, John Crace reveals his ignorance of idiomatic English: Alex Burghart, the shadow Cabinet Office secretary ... accused the government of making a pig’s breakfast of the whole thing. Presumably a pig’s breakfast is a dog’s dinner of a dog’s dinner.
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
If he does something clearly outrageous such as invading Canada or declaring himself President-for-Life, then there will be enough Republicans who will impeach and remove him.
It's like the South Korean example. South Korean politics is as polarised as that of the USA, but Yoon's attempt to impose martial law was so outrageous that even members of his party voted for impeachment.
Trump literally launched a coup and they still didn’t vote to impeach him. How much more outrageous do you want?
The South Koreans removed and prosecuted their president for that, the Yanks first of all failed to deal with him through process, played silly buggers with court delays and then re-elected him.
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
Only if they fear for their seats more than they fear a Musk primary campaign.
Could happen.
If Musk goes, his money - and the fear of being primaried - goes too.
Which is when some spines get found.
Has Musk got a pardon? Because until he has immunity the biggest risk for him is spine comes and investigates what he and DOGE have done.
So the money may be at the primary level for a long time
Anyway, pre-race tosh and tip(s) will be up tomorrow.
Real screw up from Norris. He needs to be more consistent than that if he is to see off Verstappen and his team mate. Excellent by Russell.
I quite agree. It's one of the reason why I haven't hedged Piastri more, just yet. Rather glad some of the 14 I backed him at is still there.
Edited extra bit: I'm writing things up later than usual because I was DMing a DnD session yesterday evening, but just seen the Mercs both have penalties. But only one place each.
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
Only if they fear for their seats more than they fear a Musk primary campaign.
Could happen.
If Musk goes, his money - and the fear of being primaried - goes too.
Which is when some spines get found.
Has Musk got a pardon? Because until he has immunity the biggest risk for him is spine comes and investigates what he and DOGE have done.
So the money may be at the primary level for a long time
There is no risk of anyone in US politics showing a spine right now.
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
Only if they fear for their seats more than they fear a Musk primary campaign.
Could happen.
If Musk goes, his money - and the fear of being primaried - goes too.
Which is when some spines get found.
Has Musk got a pardon? Because until he has immunity the biggest risk for him is spine comes and investigates what he and DOGE have done.
So the money may be at the primary level for a long time
There is no risk of anyone in US politics showing a spine right now.
Perhaps they're imported from China, and have recently become unaffordable?
Everyone's 'experience' on Twix is different, but atm I reckon about a third of the posts on "for you" are "Aww cute!" or "look at this!" ones, a third are ads or disguised ads, and a third are designed to show how terrible a certain country is.
In the latter category, there seems to have been an increase in the ones dog-whistling the great replacement theory and "Muslims are a threat!" categories.
Wisconsin shows that voters hate Musk more than they like his money.
His Primary threat is worthless
On the other hand: nothing in his history shows that Musk takes "no" for an answer. And it might just be that Wisconsin has given him a data point on what doesn't work, so he can fine-tune the approach next time.
Besides, an empty threat still works if people believe it.
Wisconsin shows that voters hate Musk more than they like his money.
His Primary threat is worthless
Easy for you to say but if your opponent can buy twice as many adverts as you because Musk's written a cheque, and has social media dominance because, well, Musk owns Twix, you face an uphill battle even if Musk never sets foot in your state, perhaps especially if Musk stays away.
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
If he does something clearly outrageous such as invading Canada or declaring himself President-for-Life, then there will be enough Republicans who will impeach and remove him.
It's like the South Korean example. South Korean politics is as polarised as that of the USA, but Yoon's attempt to impose martial law was so outrageous that even members of his party voted for impeachment.
Trump literally launched a coup and they still didn’t vote to impeach him. How much more outrageous do you want?
The South Koreans removed and prosecuted their president for that, the Yanks first of all failed to deal with him through process, played silly buggers with court delays and then re-elected him.
Yoon's coup was a lot more outrageous because not even his most partisan supporter could deny that it was a coup. He declared martial law & sent in army troops to try and occupy the legislature & arrest opposition politicians.
Trump's coup, on the other hand, had an air of plausible deniability. For example, he only asked the crowd to march to the Capitol to demonstrate & also added that they march "peacefully". He could plausibly claim that he never asked the crowd to ransack the building.
Looking at future scenarios, let's say Trump issues an executive order "cancelling" the 2028 elections because of some "emergency" and then ignores court orders and then orders troops to go out and stop people from voting. In that scenario, I am confident that he would be successfully impeached & convicted.
If he just issues the executive order, but it is blocked by the courts, and then Trump just whines, but does nothing, then he'll be impeached but not convicted.
Everyone's 'experience' on Twix is different, but atm I reckon about a third of the posts on "for you" are "Aww cute!" or "look at this!" ones, a third are ads or disguised ads, and a third are designed to show how terrible a certain country is.
In the latter category, there seems to have been an increase in the ones dog-whistling the great replacement theory and "Muslims are a threat!" categories.
This seems unhealthy.
Why would anyone waste time looking in the our crap algorithm wants to annoy you to the point you react feed.
Everyone's 'experience' on Twix is different, but atm I reckon about a third of the posts on "for you" are "Aww cute!" or "look at this!" ones, a third are ads or disguised ads, and a third are designed to show how terrible a certain country is.
In the latter category, there seems to have been an increase in the ones dog-whistling the great replacement theory and "Muslims are a threat!" categories.
This seems unhealthy.
Why would anyone waste time looking in the our crap algorithm wants to annoy you to the point you react feed.
Because, annoyingly, there are some nuggets of gold there, and it gets me out of the 'Following' echo chamber.
F1: I have, heroically, backed the man in the fastest car with the best tyre wear to do well on a circuit rough on tyres. Norris, each way, 6.5 (boosted from 6). I do think Piastri has this but Norris/Russell could have a good battle for 2nd.
So various stories on Bluesky that REALID is going to be compulsory for any US air travel from May.
Guess what most people don’t have because they’ve never needed it. And guess what they’ve also done - alongside making appointments hard to get - they added a set of hoops that are the equivalent of the scouts parachute award.
* the parachute award requires you to meet a set of defined tasks. In the UK you cannot now do start the steps to complete the task until you are at least 16 (and even then most companies insist on 18).Scouts is for 10-14 year olds
Anyway, after uming and ahing over how to bet there, I've now got to decide how much to hedge Piastri at 2.6. Already done a bit and don't want to overdo it as he might actually end up winning the title.
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
If he does something clearly outrageous such as invading Canada or declaring himself President-for-Life, then there will be enough Republicans who will impeach and remove him.
It's like the South Korean example. South Korean politics is as polarised as that of the USA, but Yoon's attempt to impose martial law was so outrageous that even members of his party voted for impeachment.
Trump literally launched a coup and they still didn’t vote to impeach him. How much more outrageous do you want?
The South Koreans removed and prosecuted their president for that, the Yanks first of all failed to deal with him through process, played silly buggers with court delays and then re-elected him.
Yoon's coup was a lot more outrageous because not even his most partisan supporter could deny that it was a coup. He declared martial law & sent in army troops to try and occupy the legislature & arrest opposition politicians.
Trump's coup, on the other hand, had an air of plausible deniability. For example, he only asked the crowd to march to the Capitol to demonstrate & also added that they march "peacefully". He could plausibly claim that he never asked the crowd to ransack the building.
Looking at future scenarios, let's say Trump issues an executive order "cancelling" the 2028 elections because of some "emergency" and then ignores court orders and then orders troops to go out and stop people from voting. In that scenario, I am confident that he would be successfully impeached & convicted.
If he just issues the executive order, but it is blocked by the courts, and then Trump just whines, but does nothing, then he'll be impeached but not convicted.
given the unknown extent of infiltration of US law enforcement by MAGA supporters during the last five years, and bearing in mind Donald Trump's continuing replacement of judiciary and military officials, there is a question of how and indeed whether such a conviction would be enforceable, especially if he encouraged his supporters to 'protect' him
Incidentally, as we build up to Easter there is some news on Canterbury, which I haven't seen discussed (although I have been busy so I may have missed it).
Graham Ussher is out of the running. He has agreed to serve on the CNC which rules him out.
As the clear front runner and the best candidate available, that makes some difference to the betting.
The frontrunner now should probably be Martyn Snow, Bishop of Leicester.
However - my money would actually be on a deadlock and no appointment at least this year.
Like anyone cares.
At risk of triggering an avalanche, I am sure Hyufd will.
Just give the job to whoever is best able to apologise for decades of abuse, and centuries of misery, war and death, whilst simultaneously being able to spout a stream of absolute rubbish and appear to believe it all.
Speaking as an atheist, should they consider giving the job to someone who will focus on promoting Christianity in the England and more widely?
I'm obviously fine if they don't, but it strikes me as something someone with that job title might want to consider.
I'm an atheist too, but I would have lot more respect for the CoE if , just once, I heard the AoC say " Christianity is right , and Islam is wrong".
I don't think any ABC will say that, as it is simplistic and depends on caricatures and bald assumptions. ABCs of all people know that from the range of their engagement.
Which Christianity, or tradition within Christianity? Which Islam, or tradition within Islam?
They will make specific comments on specifics, but they will not generalise where it cannot be sustained.
They also know that media and politics are dribbling for simplistic statements they can manipulate for their own purposes. No ABC will be their mannequin.
Lucy Letby ... email casts doubt on court claim that nurse was caught 'red-handed' with a baby who later died ... Dr Ravi Jayaram was the only medical witness at Letby's two trials who was able to point to behaviour directly linking her to babies' deaths, testifying that she was standing over Baby K's cot as the girl was deteriorating – and that she did not call for help.
But, extraordinarly, in an email sent to his colleagues at the Countess of Chester Hospital on May 4, 2017 – before she was investigated by police – Dr Jayaram wrote: 'At time of deterioration ... Staff nurse Letby at incubator and called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations.'
In the newly revealed email Dr Jayaram also suggested Baby K's frailty was the cause of death, saying: 'Baby subsequently deteriorated and eventually died, but events around this would fit with explainable events associated with extreme prematurity.'
If this is all true - wait and see - that is something which should have been disclosed to the defence by the prosecution before both trials if they had it available at the time. If they didn't have it, then it is fresh evidence, if on analysis of all the relevant stuff it is or could be previous inconsistent statement by a prosecution witness. This is something the doctor would have been properly cross examined on if disclosed.
It's not a smoking gun (there is a perfectly possible explanation as to the consistency of the statements) but could disclose a relevant flaw in the trial process. There may of course be lots of others. That is a long way from 'Letby is innocent on all counts'. IMO we are a huge distance form any sort of total exoneration. While each count is separate, to be effective WRT conviction and sentence the defence has to cover all 14 (I think that's the number) bases.
I think that Trump is going to be impeached after the midterms when the Democrats take the House (80% probability) but not convicted by the Senate unless the Democrats also take the Senate (30% probability).
It is all but impossible for Trump be convicted by the Senate, because that requires 67 votes.
Currently, the Democrats (including indoDems, Sanders and King) have 47.
Therefore, the Democrats would need to *gain* 20 Senate seats at the midterms.
There are 35 Senate races (33 regular and 2 special). But the Democrats already hold 13 of these. So there are 22 Republican seats up for election.
*IF* the Democrats were to win every single one, that would get them to 69.
But that would require them to win not just plausible (but difficult) States - like Alaska, Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Ohio - but also deep Red ones like:
Arkansas Alabama Kansas Montana Idaho Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi West Virginia Wyoming and Oklahoma
I mean: is it possible in a wave year that Kansas or Montana went Blue? Sure: but to get 67 seats in the Senate would require the Republicans to only hold two states.
And I think that is unlikely to the point of near impossibility.
I'm betting on him being impeached (I've got 2.65 on Betfair - great odds) but not on a conviction.
The solution is not going to be the Democrats winning an impossible number of Senate seats at the midterms, as @rcs1000 notes.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
If he does something clearly outrageous such as invading Canada or declaring himself President-for-Life, then there will be enough Republicans who will impeach and remove him.
It's like the South Korean example. South Korean politics is as polarised as that of the USA, but Yoon's attempt to impose martial law was so outrageous that even members of his party voted for impeachment.
Trump literally launched a coup and they still didn’t vote to impeach him. How much more outrageous do you want?
The South Koreans removed and prosecuted their president for that, the Yanks first of all failed to deal with him through process, played silly buggers with court delays and then re-elected him.
Yoon's coup was a lot more outrageous because not even his most partisan supporter could deny that it was a coup. He declared martial law & sent in army troops to try and occupy the legislature & arrest opposition politicians.
Trump's coup, on the other hand, had an air of plausible deniability. For example, he only asked the crowd to march to the Capitol to demonstrate & also added that they march "peacefully". He could plausibly claim that he never asked the crowd to ransack the building.
Looking at future scenarios, let's say Trump issues an executive order "cancelling" the 2028 elections because of some "emergency" and then ignores court orders and then orders troops to go out and stop people from voting. In that scenario, I am confident that he would be successfully impeached & convicted.
If he just issues the executive order, but it is blocked by the courts, and then Trump just whines, but does nothing, then he'll be impeached but not convicted.
given the unknown extent of infiltration of US law enforcement by MAGA supporters during the last five years, and bearing in mind Donald Trump's continuing replacement of judiciary and military officials, there is a question of how and indeed whether such a conviction would be enforceable, especially if he encouraged his supporters to 'protect' him
I don't see how we can be certain that Trump would be impeached and convicted - we've been round that loop multiple times already. And the Republican Party in Congress is now full of Maga mushrooms and frightened conservatives, who are willing routinely to ignore the law and the constitution.
On Scott's comment on law, there are serious problems within the setup of US Law Enforcement itself. For example Joe Arpaio had a record of offences for decades, and it took decades to bring him to account - eventually for criminal contempt. Then he got a Presidential Pardon within a month. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Incidentally, as we build up to Easter there is some news on Canterbury, which I haven't seen discussed (although I have been busy so I may have missed it).
Graham Ussher is out of the running. He has agreed to serve on the CNC which rules him out.
As the clear front runner and the best candidate available, that makes some difference to the betting.
The frontrunner now should probably be Martyn Snow, Bishop of Leicester.
However - my money would actually be on a deadlock and no appointment at least this year.
Like anyone cares.
At risk of triggering an avalanche, I am sure Hyufd will.
Just give the job to whoever is best able to apologise for decades of abuse, and centuries of misery, war and death, whilst simultaneously being able to spout a stream of absolute rubbish and appear to believe it all.
Speaking as an atheist, should they consider giving the job to someone who will focus on promoting Christianity in the England and more widely?
I'm obviously fine if they don't, but it strikes me as something someone with that job title might want to consider.
I'm an atheist too, but I would have lot more respect for the CoE if , just once, I heard the AoC say " Christianity is right , and Islam is wrong".
I don't think any ABC will say that, as it is simplistic and depends on caricatures and bald assumptions. ABCs of all people know that from the range of their engagement.
Which Christianity, or tradition within Christianity? Which Islam, or tradition within Islam?
They will make specific comments on specifics, but they will not generalise where it cannot be sustained.
They also know that media and politics are dribbling for simplistic statements they can manipulate for their own purposes. No ABC will be their mannequin.
Of course if we had a populist AoC with a line in Trumpian rhetoric, treating theological questions as starkly binary, it would attract interest and support from a sector of the population who need simple answers to complex and nuanced issues. But a lot of others would quietly leave or retire to the backest of back pews.
I am appalled by the attack of three brave officers at HMP Frankland today. My thoughts are with them and their families.
The police are now investigating. I will be pushing for the strongest possible punishment. Violence against our staff will never be tolerated.
The strongest possible punishment being imprisonment? Hmm.
Meanwhile, if he threw boiling oil over them, perhaps it is time to revisit the guidelines on who can work in prison kitchens.
They could put him in solitary confinement. It seems somewhat justified in the circumstances.
Just execute him. Enough. He killed dozens of young girls. He’s 100% guilty. He’s now injuring more
Hang him
He is serving a 55 year jail sentence anyway
Which, from the prison officer's point of view, is a nightmare because they simply have no means to control him and he can take any opportunity given to hurt more people. I mean, not giving him access to hot oil seems the start of a plan but how do you manage someone like that? Just imagine going to work every day supervising a psychopath like that with absolutely nothing to lose. It's not a job I would fancy.
People want long sentences for monsters like this, and rightly so, but boy do we create a problem for the Prison Service.
Just put him in solitary for 6 months, they have done it for Tommy Robinson for much less
And then? For the next 54 years?
The Israelis put their worst terrorists and murderers in solitary cells underground and never let them out until they are dead
It's quite a while since I read the New Testament - but that doesn't really chime with what I remember the overall message being.
MAGA supporters are funny people. So I do a video critical of the Lord Musk. But I say - and I have been consistent on this one- that he didn’t do a Nazi salute. I go further, suggesting that the people who screech on about it have an agenda. Ok, I then say that although I don’t think he’s a Nazi, some of his friends are. And then show him talking to the AfD conference.
What have I just had? A guy ranting on about how I have bought into a MSM frenzy about him doing a Nazi salute.
Yeah. Haven’t watched my video, but outraged by it. Like Kemi and Adolescence. Very angry that I said a thing despite me saying the literal opposite. Methinks some of them are absolutely paranoid. Going practically puce ranting about how the world is conspiring against them.
TBF the world probably is conspiring against Mr Trump - at last.
Isolationist - you isolate yourself.
I've been very slightly in your comments recently, and I'm behaving very well around dropping half-bricks into the quite dormant political pond.
I am appalled by the attack of three brave officers at HMP Frankland today. My thoughts are with them and their families.
The police are now investigating. I will be pushing for the strongest possible punishment. Violence against our staff will never be tolerated.
The strongest possible punishment being imprisonment? Hmm.
Meanwhile, if he threw boiling oil over them, perhaps it is time to revisit the guidelines on who can work in prison kitchens.
They could put him in solitary confinement. It seems somewhat justified in the circumstances.
Just execute him. Enough. He killed dozens of young girls. He’s 100% guilty. He’s now injuring more
Hang him
He is serving a 55 year jail sentence anyway
Which, from the prison officer's point of view, is a nightmare because they simply have no means to control him and he can take any opportunity given to hurt more people. I mean, not giving him access to hot oil seems the start of a plan but how do you manage someone like that? Just imagine going to work every day supervising a psychopath like that with absolutely nothing to lose. It's not a job I would fancy.
People want long sentences for monsters like this, and rightly so, but boy do we create a problem for the Prison Service.
Just put him in solitary for 6 months, they have done it for Tommy Robinson for much less
And then? For the next 54 years?
The Israelis put their worst terrorists and murderers in solitary cells underground and never let them out until they are dead
It's quite a while since I read the New Testament - but that doesn't really chime with what I remember the overall message being.
I am not completely up on this religion thing but I don't think that the Israelis are particularly up on the New Testament. I'm pretty sure that was the point of it all.
I was faintly remembering HY as a Christian. It seemed like a rather un-Christian thought - even to project onto others.
I always find it amusing when someone says that someone is acting in an “unchristian”, “unislamic”, “unhindu” manner. Etc.
Especially when there are example of famous adherents to the various religious behaving exactly thus. Often within living memory.
Unchristian is a strange one, as the most unchristian people I've ever met go to church most often and are often high up in the Deanery / Diocese.
Many years ago, I went to a book signing thing by an ex (ha!) PIRA guy. I discussed the bombings that he’d been involved with. It became clear he wanted forgiveness and absolution from the world without the slightest expression of regret for what he had done. Old, doddery and evidently an alcoholic.
One of the people organising the event was shocked by my statement of a lack of forgiveness. “That isn’t very Christian of you”.
She was almost speechless when I replied that I wasn’t a Christian.
@Malmesbury That’s a really interesting and thought-provoking anecdote. Thank you.
Lucy Letby ... email casts doubt on court claim that nurse was caught 'red-handed' with a baby who later died ... Dr Ravi Jayaram was the only medical witness at Letby's two trials who was able to point to behaviour directly linking her to babies' deaths, testifying that she was standing over Baby K's cot as the girl was deteriorating – and that she did not call for help.
But, extraordinarly, in an email sent to his colleagues at the Countess of Chester Hospital on May 4, 2017 – before she was investigated by police – Dr Jayaram wrote: 'At time of deterioration ... Staff nurse Letby at incubator and called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations.'
In the newly revealed email Dr Jayaram also suggested Baby K's frailty was the cause of death, saying: 'Baby subsequently deteriorated and eventually died, but events around this would fit with explainable events associated with extreme prematurity.'
If this is all true - wait and see - that is something which should have been disclosed to the defence by the prosecution before both trials if they had it available at the time. If they didn't have it, then it is fresh evidence, if on analysis of all the relevant stuff it is or could be previous inconsistent statement by a prosecution witness. This is something the doctor would have been properly cross examined on if disclosed.
It's not a smoking gun (there is a perfectly possible explanation as to the consistency of the statements) but could disclose a relevant flaw in the trial process. There may of course be lots of others. That is a long way from 'Letby is innocent on all counts'. IMO we are a huge distance form any sort of total exoneration. While each count is separate, to be effective WRT conviction and sentence the defence has to cover all 14 (I think that's the number) bases.
What a surprise! Her legal team should already be thinking along the lines of levels of compensation..😏
Incidentally, as we build up to Easter there is some news on Canterbury, which I haven't seen discussed (although I have been busy so I may have missed it).
Graham Ussher is out of the running. He has agreed to serve on the CNC which rules him out.
As the clear front runner and the best candidate available, that makes some difference to the betting.
The frontrunner now should probably be Martyn Snow, Bishop of Leicester.
However - my money would actually be on a deadlock and no appointment at least this year.
Absolutely NOT.
Snow is an evangelical and you CANNOT have an evangelical like Snow following an evangelical like Welby as the Anglo Catholic wing of the C of E would correctly go mad. The pattern is always Catholic followed by evangelical eg Catholic Runcie - evangelical Carey - Catholic Williams - evangelical Welby etc to respect the fact the C of E is a Catholic but Reformed church.
Personally I would go for the Bishop of Chelmsford if Ussher is out, Parish and safeguarding focused, less political than Welby, from a family that had to flee Iran after the revolution and a woman. After the dodgy safeguarding record of some male priests and bishops and after 10 years of women Bishops in the C of E it is time for a woman Archbishop of Canterbury
How long does this "custom" of Evangelical-Catholic (or perhaps Low-High?) alternation go back in your view? I don't think of it as an obligation, especially as the distinction has very much blurred since say 1990.
I'd date it as probably being very modern - and starting perhaps with Donald Coggan following Michael Ramsey, which is only ~1970.
I perhaps think that the previous two ABCs - William Temple and Geoffrey Fisher - were "centrist leaning towards..." types. But I don't know my ABCs in much detail further back.
I am appalled by the attack of three brave officers at HMP Frankland today. My thoughts are with them and their families.
The police are now investigating. I will be pushing for the strongest possible punishment. Violence against our staff will never be tolerated.
The strongest possible punishment being imprisonment? Hmm.
Meanwhile, if he threw boiling oil over them, perhaps it is time to revisit the guidelines on who can work in prison kitchens.
They could put him in solitary confinement. It seems somewhat justified in the circumstances.
Just execute him. Enough. He killed dozens of young girls. He’s 100% guilty. He’s now injuring more
Hang him
He is serving a 55 year jail sentence anyway
Which, from the prison officer's point of view, is a nightmare because they simply have no means to control him and he can take any opportunity given to hurt more people. I mean, not giving him access to hot oil seems the start of a plan but how do you manage someone like that? Just imagine going to work every day supervising a psychopath like that with absolutely nothing to lose. It's not a job I would fancy.
People want long sentences for monsters like this, and rightly so, but boy do we create a problem for the Prison Service.
Just put him in solitary for 6 months, they have done it for Tommy Robinson for much less
And then? For the next 54 years?
The Israelis put their worst terrorists and murderers in solitary cells underground and never let them out until they are dead
It's quite a while since I read the New Testament - but that doesn't really chime with what I remember the overall message being.
I am not completely up on this religion thing but I don't think that the Israelis are particularly up on the New Testament. I'm pretty sure that was the point of it all.
I was faintly remembering HY as a Christian. It seemed like a rather un-Christian thought - even to project onto others.
I always find it amusing when someone says that someone is acting in an “unchristian”, “unislamic”, “unhindu” manner. Etc.
Especially when there are example of famous adherents to the various religious behaving exactly thus. Often within living memory.
Unchristian is a strange one, as the most unchristian people I've ever met go to church most often and are often high up in the Deanery / Diocese.
Many years ago, I went to a book signing thing by an ex (ha!) PIRA guy. I discussed the bombings that he’d been involved with. It became clear he wanted forgiveness and absolution from the world without the slightest expression of regret for what he had done. Old, doddery and evidently an alcoholic.
One of the people organising the event was shocked by my statement of a lack of forgiveness. “That isn’t very Christian of you”.
She was almost speechless when I replied that I wasn’t a Christian.
@Malmesbury That’s a really interesting and thought-provoking anecdote. Thank you.
I am appalled by the attack of three brave officers at HMP Frankland today. My thoughts are with them and their families.
The police are now investigating. I will be pushing for the strongest possible punishment. Violence against our staff will never be tolerated.
The strongest possible punishment being imprisonment? Hmm.
Meanwhile, if he threw boiling oil over them, perhaps it is time to revisit the guidelines on who can work in prison kitchens.
They could put him in solitary confinement. It seems somewhat justified in the circumstances.
Just execute him. Enough. He killed dozens of young girls. He’s 100% guilty. He’s now injuring more
Hang him
He is serving a 55 year jail sentence anyway
Which, from the prison officer's point of view, is a nightmare because they simply have no means to control him and he can take any opportunity given to hurt more people. I mean, not giving him access to hot oil seems the start of a plan but how do you manage someone like that? Just imagine going to work every day supervising a psychopath like that with absolutely nothing to lose. It's not a job I would fancy.
People want long sentences for monsters like this, and rightly so, but boy do we create a problem for the Prison Service.
Just put him in solitary for 6 months, they have done it for Tommy Robinson for much less
And then? For the next 54 years?
The Israelis put their worst terrorists and murderers in solitary cells underground and never let them out until they are dead
It's quite a while since I read the New Testament - but that doesn't really chime with what I remember the overall message being.
I am not completely up on this religion thing but I don't think that the Israelis are particularly up on the New Testament. I'm pretty sure that was the point of it all.
I was faintly remembering HY as a Christian. It seemed like a rather un-Christian thought - even to project onto others.
I always find it amusing when someone says that someone is acting in an “unchristian”, “unislamic”, “unhindu” manner. Etc.
Especially when there are example of famous adherents to the various religious behaving exactly thus. Often within living memory.
Unchristian is a strange one, as the most unchristian people I've ever met go to church most often and are often high up in the Deanery / Diocese.
Many years ago, I went to a book signing thing by an ex (ha!) PIRA guy. I discussed the bombings that he’d been involved with. It became clear he wanted forgiveness and absolution from the world without the slightest expression of regret for what he had done. Old, doddery and evidently an alcoholic.
One of the people organising the event was shocked by my statement of a lack of forgiveness. “That isn’t very Christian of you”.
She was almost speechless when I replied that I wasn’t a Christian.
@Malmesbury That’s a really interesting and thought-provoking anecdote. Thank you.
Good morning, everybody.
The funniest bit, possibly, was that the event (in London) was organised by various ultra-left types. So the person I spoke to was almost certainly an atheist. Though probably a Cultural Christian.
Comments
"OK, PB quiz time... Which day next week will Trump announce he is rolling back tariffs? Is there any chance he makes it to Friday?"
The answer was no
This weekend I ask how many days the remaining tariffs will last?
I'll take under whatever you say
The penguins are not getting any fucking breaks!!! Ok??
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
4m
I see Trump has decided to exempt China from tariffs for stuff the US actually buys from China. Interesting tactic.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/1911160096677052433
There is a good chance most of them fall out with the boss, and that right quick.
Navarro is already out the door
One of the people organising the event was shocked by my statement of a lack of forgiveness. “That isn’t very Christian of you”.
She was almost speechless when I replied that I wasn’t a Christian.
It’s almost getting comical at this point.
Trump literally said there would be “no exemptions” to his reciprocal tariffs (see video) and MAGA cheered.
“No, with reciprocal [tariffs] you don’t need to,” he said.
Now, suddenly he’s backtracking again and adding a bunch of exemptions to his reciprocal tariffs. And MAGA is cheering yet again.
It’s almost as if he has no idea what he’s doing and MAGA doesn’t stand for anything except whatever Trump says and does.
https://x.com/EdKrassen/status/1911068826873012407
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1911107735606673661
Not on goods from the UK or Europe, thoigh.
@JustinWolfers
·
1h
I just want to tip my hat to the crack team of White House economists who were able to discover--in just a few short days--that the U.S. is dependent on China for smartphones, computers and semiconductors.
Instead Trump has done trillions worth of damage and given the rich trillions in tax cuts.
Neither of which will create any rustbelt jobs.
Let's suppose Vance and a majority of the Cabinet declare Trump incapacitated. Under the rules of the 25th, Trump can then immediately declare that he is actually perfectly fine, and he will then immediately become President once again.
Vance and the Cabinet can then try to file the 25th declaration for a second time. The House and the Senate will then decide the issue, and a 2/3rd vote of both the House and the Senate will be needed before Trump can be successfully removed.
If somebody is trying to manufacture a laptop in the U.S., the components that they import are going to be tariffed at 145%.
But if somebody simply makes the laptop entirely in China, they are fully tariff free?
And this is all to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.?
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1911133229706527168
Is this some kind of quantum superimposition thing?
David Attenborough and the BBC owe them millions.
If there is a way for Trump to be removed, it will have to be *with* Republican votes. So, is there anything that will get Republicans to turn on Trump?
Could happen.
But the apple blossom is just stunning.
Which is when some spines get found.
It's like the South Korean example. South Korean politics is as polarised as that of the USA, but Yoon's attempt to impose martial law was so outrageous that even members of his party voted for impeachment.
Dollar crash? X
Rampant inflation? X
Kowtow to Russian dictator? X
War with Canada? X
I give up. How about a clue?
So says George Will: 'Government, Klein and Thompson demonstrate, is one reason the median home price, which was 2.2 times the average annual income in 1950, is now six times this. And as Democrats anguish over a CNN poll showing the Democratic Party with an anemic 29 percent favorability rating, Klein and Thompson say liberals should be angry about the condition of the states and cities that liberals govern. “Liberals should be able to say: Vote for us and we will govern the country the way we govern California! Instead, conservatives are able to say: Vote for them and they will govern the country the way they govern California!”'
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/04/02/klein-thompson-abundance-regulations/
(Will would agree that the Loser is an absurd answer to the problems caused by Democratic officials -- but that doesn't mean the problems aren't real.)
Anthony Scaramucci
@Scaramucci
·
6h
He will cave on all of it. They know and he knows it.
About time for them to do something useful after they helped desegregate schools.
Welcome. How’s the weather where you are?
You are wasting pixels turning up at midnight.
55 Senators voted to impeach Trump, ie the 51 Dems + 4 Reps.
So they were 12 short. That's a lot, but not off the scale.
If Dems could gain maybe 5 seats in 2026 then the Senate would be 52 Dem, 48 Rep.
They would then need 15 out of 48 Rep Senators to convict.
All tall order but certainly not out of the question if he does something outrageous.
It was 50 Dems and 50 Republicans, with 57 votes for impeachment.
The seven votes for impeachment were:
Richard Burr
Bill Cassidy
Susan Collins
Lisa Murkowski
Mitt Romney
Ben Sasse
Pat Toomey
Of these, I believe only three are still Senators: Murkowski, Collins and Cassidy. Most of those who voted to impeach were retiring anyway: Burr, Toomey and Sasse. (The last was a particular loss.)
And Collins will lose her seat in Maine next year.
...
Dr Ravi Jayaram was the only medical witness at Letby's two trials who was able to point to behaviour directly linking her to babies' deaths, testifying that she was standing over Baby K's cot as the girl was deteriorating – and that she did not call for help.
But, extraordinarly, in an email sent to his colleagues at the Countess of Chester Hospital on May 4, 2017 – before she was investigated by police – Dr Jayaram wrote: 'At time of deterioration ... Staff nurse Letby at incubator and called Dr Jayaram to inform of low saturations.'
In the newly revealed email Dr Jayaram also suggested Baby K's frailty was the cause of death, saying: 'Baby subsequently deteriorated and eventually died, but events around this would fit with explainable events associated with extreme prematurity.'
Neither Dr Jayaram's claim that Letby called him for help, nor that he thought the baby's death was explained by issues associated with extreme prematurity, made it into the final version of the document that the consultants sent to the police.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14603131/Lucy-Letby-freed-bombshell-email-casts-doubt-court-claim-nurse-caught-red-handed.html
It went to 51-49 after the 2022 midterms.
Accept your point re the seven - but next time there will be others about to retire so I think it does indicate Rep Senators can be persuaded.
But would of course depend on specifics of the situation.
Who thought the Chinese government had anything but Britain’s interests at heart? Everyone but Jonathan Reynolds
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/12/the-steel-crisis-has-made-the-uk-business-secretary-look-like-an-innocent-abroad-jonathan-reynolds
ETA in that sketch, John Crace reveals his ignorance of idiomatic English: Alex Burghart, the shadow Cabinet Office secretary ... accused the government of making a pig’s breakfast of the whole thing. Presumably a pig’s breakfast is a dog’s dinner of a dog’s dinner.
The South Koreans removed and prosecuted their president for that, the Yanks first of all failed to deal with him through process, played silly buggers with court delays and then re-elected him.
So the money may be at the primary level for a long time
Edited extra bit: I'm writing things up later than usual because I was DMing a DnD session yesterday evening, but just seen the Mercs both have penalties. But only one place each.
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/breaking-russell-and-antonelli-hit-with-grid-penalties-after-qualifying-rule.6CE2afXOBgESiIfNRoSpiY
It's for early pit lane release. Seems harsh.
In the latter category, there seems to have been an increase in the ones dog-whistling the great replacement theory and "Muslims are a threat!" categories.
This seems unhealthy.
His Primary threat is worthless
Besides, an empty threat still works if people believe it.
Difficult to tell.
Trump's coup, on the other hand, had an air of plausible deniability. For example, he only asked the crowd to march to the Capitol to demonstrate & also added that they march "peacefully". He could plausibly claim that he never asked the crowd to ransack the building.
Looking at future scenarios, let's say Trump issues an executive order "cancelling" the 2028 elections because of some "emergency" and then ignores court orders and then orders troops to go out and stop people from voting. In that scenario, I am confident that he would be successfully impeached & convicted.
If he just issues the executive order, but it is blocked by the courts, and then Trump just whines, but does nothing, then he'll be impeached but not convicted.
For instance, this morning I came across this spectacular piece of work, which made me very happy:
https://x.com/lnr_models/status/1910791556883214557/photo/1
Betting PostF1: I have, heroically, backed the man in the fastest car with the best tyre wear to do well on a circuit rough on tyres. Norris, each way, 6.5 (boosted from 6). I do think Piastri has this but Norris/Russell could have a good battle for 2nd.
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/04/bahrain-grand-prix-2025-pre-race.html
Guess what most people don’t have because they’ve never needed it. And guess what they’ve also done - alongside making appointments hard to get - they added a set of hoops that are the equivalent of the scouts parachute award.
* the parachute award requires you to meet a set of defined tasks. In the UK you cannot now do start the steps to complete the task until you are at least 16 (and even then most companies insist on 18).Scouts is for 10-14 year olds
Which Christianity, or tradition within Christianity? Which Islam, or tradition within Islam?
They will make specific comments on specifics, but they will not generalise where it cannot be sustained.
They also know that media and politics are dribbling for simplistic statements they can manipulate for their own purposes. No ABC will be their mannequin.
It's not a smoking gun (there is a perfectly possible explanation as to the consistency of the statements) but could disclose a relevant flaw in the trial process. There may of course be lots of others. That is a long way from 'Letby is innocent on all counts'. IMO we are a huge distance form any sort of total exoneration. While each count is separate, to be effective WRT conviction and sentence the defence has to cover all 14 (I think that's the number) bases.
On Scott's comment on law, there are serious problems within the setup of US Law Enforcement itself. For example Joe Arpaio had a record of offences for decades, and it took decades to bring him to account - eventually for criminal contempt. Then he got a Presidential Pardon within a month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
A separate example is the law around permissible homicide by police officers, and those who kill people on duty only being held accountable very rarely.
https://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5994305/legal-police-lethal-force-murder
NEW THREAD
TBF that's not very Old Testament, either.
Isolationist - you isolate yourself.
I've been very slightly in your comments recently, and I'm behaving very well around dropping half-bricks into the quite dormant political pond.
So far
Good morning, everybody.
How long does this "custom" of Evangelical-Catholic (or perhaps Low-High?) alternation go back in your view? I don't think of it as an obligation, especially as the distinction has very much blurred since say 1990.
I'd date it as probably being very modern - and starting perhaps with Donald Coggan following Michael Ramsey, which is only ~1970.
I perhaps think that the previous two ABCs - William Temple and Geoffrey Fisher - were "centrist leaning towards..." types. But I don't know my ABCs in much detail further back.