politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Time to back Biden (if you can)

SystemSystem Posts: 12,293
edited 2015 21 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Time to back Biden (if you can)

US presidential elections are brilliant. The fractal-like complexity of the process by which someone ends up in the White House provides endless scope for novelists, script-writers and conspiracy theorists to come up with weird and wonderful ways for the most implausible individuals to follow in the footsteps of Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelts and Obama. And in theory, they could.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    If 199/1 is "double his true odds", does that mean that his true odds should be 399/1 or 99/1?
  • PeteDPeteD Posts: 8
    This issue is what I find the most astonishing about the US election so far: how and why has the Democratic Party allowed a situation to develop where they have no credible backup in the event something happens to Clinton (proverbial bus, major scandal etc). There is nobody who'll have built a decent campaign infrastructure ready to step up as an alternative to Clinton if necessary. It seems like a potentially massive strategic error to me.

    They allowed her to hoover up endorsements/backing from senators, donors etc so early on that it starved anyone else of oxygen. Anyone considering running for president in 2016 would have been put off, so what you have is a septuagenarian (Sanders) as her main challenger because 2016 is his last chance, and a septuagenarian (Biden) as the only person regarded in the past six months as a possible credible backup.

    If something major DOES happen to Clinton for whatever reason, the Democrats will effectively have gifted the presidency to the Republicans because they've let this situation develop.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,709
    It's quite hard to correctly handicap these long-odds events so I'm not ready to say David Herdson is wrong about the odds. But the problem with these scenarios is that you're asking people who were elected to represent Hillary to elect somebody else. That's almost impossible to see unless she gives way voluntarily short of her actually physically being in prisonb and maybe not even then.

    I think ill health or death is actually a more likely candidate than the email thing. She's getting on a bit, anyone want to have a go with the actuarial tables?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,016
    edited 2015 21
    Sorry Mr H but was does "an (or a) faithless elector” mean? Is a promise of a vote which does not materialise?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Hillary Clinton Will Be The Forty Fifth President Of The United States

    HCWBTFFPOTUS
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    OldKingCole said:

    Sorry Mr H but was does "an (or a) faithless elector” mean? Is a promise of a vote which does not materialise?

    It's when of one the voters in a state's electoral college casts their vote for a candidate other than the one who won the state (other than ME and NE where the votes are split anyway). Happened most recently in 2000.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,016
    not_on_fire said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Sorry Mr H but was does "an (or a) faithless elector” mean? Is a promise of a vote which does not materialise?

    It's when of one the voters in a state's electoral college casts their vote for a candidate other than the one who won the state (other than ME and NE where the votes are split anyway). Happened most recently in 2000.
    Thanks.
  • not_on_firenot_on_fire Posts: 4,449
    Council tax going up 4% next year in some areas
    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/20/osborne-plans-to-allow-2-council-tax-rises-to-plug-social-care-holes
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,013
    not_on_fire said:

    OldKingCole said:

    Sorry Mr H but was does "an (or a) faithless elector” mean? Is a promise of a vote which does not materialise?

    It's when of one the voters in a state's electoral college casts their vote for a candidate other than the one who won the state (other than ME and NE where the votes are split anyway). Happened most recently in 2000.
    Most recently happened in 2004, when a Kerry pledge voted for John Edwards.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,013
    edmundintokyo said:

    It's quite hard to correctly handicap these long-odds events so I'm not ready to say David Herdson is wrong about the odds. But the problem with these scenarios is that you're asking people who were elected to represent Hillary to elect somebody else. That's almost impossible to see unless she gives way voluntarily short of her actually physically being in prisonb and maybe not even then.

    I think ill health or death is actually a more likely candidate than the email thing. She's getting on a bit, anyone want to have a go with the actuarial tables?

    Were something to happen before the end of March, there would still be time for a Democrat establishment candidate to enter the race, in the way that Humphrey did in 1968. After that, yes, it'd mean pledged delegates having to switch.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,239
    Off-topic:

    Blooming 'eck. If they'd had this a few years ago I would've minted it!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-34872563
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Welcome to @PeteD
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    PeteD said:

    This issue is what I find the most astonishing about the US election so far: how and why has the Democratic Party allowed a situation to develop where they have no credible backup in the event something happens to Clinton (proverbial bus, major scandal etc). There is nobody who'll have built a decent campaign infrastructure ready to step up as an alternative to Clinton if necessary. It seems like a potentially massive strategic error to me.

    They allowed her to hoover up endorsements/backing from senators, donors etc so early on that it starved anyone else of oxygen. Anyone considering running for president in 2016 would have been put off, so what you have is a septuagenarian (Sanders) as her main challenger because 2016 is his last chance, and a septuagenarian (Biden) as the only person regarded in the past six months as a possible credible backup.

    If something major DOES happen to Clinton for whatever reason, the Democrats will effectively have gifted the presidency to the Republicans because they've let this situation develop.

    Besides Biden, surely Kerry would be a possibility.

    Or just a lay on Hillary?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,013
    foxinsoxuk said:

    PeteD said:

    This issue is what I find the most astonishing about the US election so far: how and why has the Democratic Party allowed a situation to develop where they have no credible backup in the event something happens to Clinton (proverbial bus, major scandal etc). There is nobody who'll have built a decent campaign infrastructure ready to step up as an alternative to Clinton if necessary. It seems like a potentially massive strategic error to me.

    They allowed her to hoover up endorsements/backing from senators, donors etc so early on that it starved anyone else of oxygen. Anyone considering running for president in 2016 would have been put off, so what you have is a septuagenarian (Sanders) as her main challenger because 2016 is his last chance, and a septuagenarian (Biden) as the only person regarded in the past six months as a possible credible backup.

    If something major DOES happen to Clinton for whatever reason, the Democrats will effectively have gifted the presidency to the Republicans because they've let this situation develop.

    Besides Biden, surely Kerry would be a possibility.

    Or just a lay on Hillary?
    I did think about Kerry but decided against including him as an option as no-one else is and with Biden having at least shown an interest, why would the Democrats look to someone who hasn't? Kerry's 2004 election defeat also counts against him, as does the fact that it's hard to campaign while Secretary of State: he'd probably have to resign that post.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,016
    foxinsoxuk said:

    PeteD said:

    This issue is what I find the most astonishing about the US election so far: how and why has the Democratic Party allowed a situation to develop where they have no credible backup in the event something happens to Clinton (proverbial bus, major scandal etc). There is nobody who'll have built a decent campaign infrastructure ready to step up as an alternative to Clinton if necessary. It seems like a potentially massive strategic error to me.

    They allowed her to hoover up endorsements/backing from senators, donors etc so early on that it starved anyone else of oxygen. Anyone considering running for president in 2016 would have been put off, so what you have is a septuagenarian (Sanders) as her main challenger because 2016 is his last chance, and a septuagenarian (Biden) as the only person regarded in the past six months as a possible credible backup.

    If something major DOES happen to Clinton for whatever reason, the Democrats will effectively have gifted the presidency to the Republicans because they've let this situation develop.

    Besides Biden, surely Kerry would be a possibility.

    Or just a lay on Hillary?
    It’s become unusual for a defeated candidte to run again, hasn’t it. Wasn’t the last one Stevenson in the 50’s?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    OT..Snow in Elstree..crikey
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233
    edited 2015 21
    Terrible news for the junior doctors planning to strike:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34878151
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 58,161
    OldKingCole said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    PeteD said:

    This issue is what I find the most astonishing about the US election so far: how and why has the Democratic Party allowed a situation to develop where they have no credible backup in the event something happens to Clinton (proverbial bus, major scandal etc). There is nobody who'll have built a decent campaign infrastructure ready to step up as an alternative to Clinton if necessary. It seems like a potentially massive strategic error to me.

    They allowed her to hoover up endorsements/backing from senators, donors etc so early on that it starved anyone else of oxygen. Anyone considering running for president in 2016 would have been put off, so what you have is a septuagenarian (Sanders) as her main challenger because 2016 is his last chance, and a septuagenarian (Biden) as the only person regarded in the past six months as a possible credible backup.

    If something major DOES happen to Clinton for whatever reason, the Democrats will effectively have gifted the presidency to the Republicans because they've let this situation develop.

    Besides Biden, surely Kerry would be a possibility.

    Or just a lay on Hillary?
    It’s become unusual for a defeated candidte to run again, hasn’t it. Wasn’t the last one Stevenson in the 50’s?
    Surely Nixon
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    richardDodd said:

    OT..Snow in Elstree..crikey

    And just up the road from you in PB
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    My Twitter timeline is full on angry Nats demanding IndyRef2 if we start bombing in Syria.

    Until now.

    @neiledwardlovat: Sturgeon switches policy on Syria and the crazy gang instantly change their mind.... I've read about this before.... https://t.co/eZBKrpSvum
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    T,would appear the world has declared war on the nutjobs.UN..not before time..
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    edited 2015 21
    Weather warnings everywhere, this for London and the SE by the Met Office

    A swathe of gale force north to northwesterly winds, accompanied by bands of rain and snow, will move south across much of central and southern Britain today Wind gusts of 50-60 mph are likely in places, especially near coasts, with 60-70 mph gusts possible near eastern coasts. In any one area, the strongest winds will last for only a few hours, clearing last from southeastern areas of England.

    Additionally, some of the snow will settle this morning, especially on higher ground, but also temporarily at low levels, with a couple of cm in places. Ice will be an additional hazard.

    Please be aware of the likelihood of some difficult driving conditions and possible travel disruption due to any of these factors.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,137
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Jessop, that's a very interesting development. What a strange world it is in which we live.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Corbyn states that war should be the last resort...good idea..except he needs to realise that ISIS has already declared war ..on everybody.....Come on Labour ... get rid of your idiot leader..
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    OldKingCole said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    PeteD said:

    This issue is what I find the most astonishing about the US election so far: how and why has the Democratic Party allowed a situation to develop where they have no credible backup in the event something happens to Clinton (proverbial bus, major scandal etc). There is nobody who'll have built a decent campaign infrastructure ready to step up as an alternative to Clinton if necessary. It seems like a potentially massive strategic error to me.

    They allowed her to hoover up endorsements/backing from senators, donors etc so early on that it starved anyone else of oxygen. Anyone considering running for president in 2016 would have been put off, so what you have is a septuagenarian (Sanders) as her main challenger because 2016 is his last chance, and a septuagenarian (Biden) as the only person regarded in the past six months as a possible credible backup.

    If something major DOES happen to Clinton for whatever reason, the Democrats will effectively have gifted the presidency to the Republicans because they've let this situation develop.

    Besides Biden, surely Kerry would be a possibility.

    Or just a lay on Hillary?
    It’s become unusual for a defeated candidte to run again, hasn’t it. Wasn’t the last one Stevenson in the 50’s?
    Clinton was defeated in the primaries, yet seems annointed now.

    Kerry is Foreign Sec, so a possible alternative, though frankly anyone but Clinton is implausible.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233
    Scott_P said:

    My Twitter timeline is full on angry Nats demanding IndyRef2 if we start bombing in Syria.

    Until now.

    @neiledwardlovat: Sturgeon switches policy on Syria and the crazy gang instantly change their mind.... I've read about this before.... https://t.co/eZBKrpSvum

    They've received new orders from the bunker?
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Delighted the UN is resolving to fight IS I hate war but we must act decisively.
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    richardDodd said:

    Corbyn states that war should be the last resort...good idea..except he needs to realise that ISIS has already declared war ..on everybody.....Come on Labour ... get rid of your idiot leader..

    You're just the person they'll listen to.

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,331
    blackburn63 said:

    Delighted the UN is resolving to fight IS I hate war but we must act decisively.

    In just two weeks they have succeeded in uniting the rest of the world against them. That's quite some achievement.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    IA..They don't listen to anyone..that is why they will be slaughtered at the GE
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    I can't comprehend the logic of lefties who want to delegate our foreign policy to the UN Security Council. So if the US and UK want to take an action but a Russian dictator deigns it not in his interests that's wrong but if the Russians say ok we are good to go? That's not principled.

    Why would the left want us to delegate our foreign policy to the control of the Russians? Oh wait ...
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    ThomasNashe said:

    blackburn63 said:

    Delighted the UN is resolving to fight IS I hate war but we must act decisively.

    In just two weeks they have succeeded in uniting the rest of the world against them. That's quite some achievement.
    This time last year I was against air strikes but my mind has changed, it's a fine line between being gung ho and target bombing and I fear innocent casualties but now is not the time to sit on our hands.

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    ThomasNashe said:

    blackburn63 said:

    Delighted the UN is resolving to fight IS I hate war but we must act decisively.

    In just two weeks they have succeeded in uniting the rest of the world against them. That's quite some achievement.
    Indeed, they’ve become the architects of their own downfall. – Bravo.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Philip_Thompson said:

    I can't comprehend the logic of lefties who want to delegate our foreign policy to the UN Security Council. So if the US and UK want to take an action but a Russian dictator deigns it not in his interests that's wrong but if the Russians say ok we are good to go? That's not principled.

    Why would the left want us to delegate our foreign policy to the control of the Russians? Oh wait ...

    It's negating responsibility, sitting on the fence.



  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    SquareRoot said:

    You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .

    Kosovo in the 90s?
  • Innocent_AbroadInnocent_Abroad Posts: 3,294
    Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

    richardDodd said:

    OT..Snow in Elstree..crikey

    And just up the road from you in PB
    Also in Finsbury Park and Muswell Hill.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good morning all. We had a 15 minute snow flurry at 07:45 this morning in North London.

    Going back a few days:

    An ally of Jeremy Corbyn has thrown the controversial appointment of Ken Livingstone to co-chair Labour’s defence review into further confusion.

    https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/trickett-claims-corbyn-was-not-room-during-livingstone-appointment
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    richardDodd said:

    SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots

    Correct

  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233
    SquareRoot said:

    You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .

    The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45 ;)
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited 2015 21
    SR No.. ISIS in the desert..in 2015.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,016
    Philip_Thompson said:

    I can't comprehend the logic of lefties who want to delegate our foreign policy to the UN Security Council. So if the US and UK want to take an action but a Russian dictator deigns it not in his interests that's wrong but if the Russians say ok we are good to go? That's not principled.

    Why would the left want us to delegate our foreign policy to the control of the Russians? Oh wait ...

    I can’t understand the gung-ho righties whoi want to charge in, all guns blazing, without thinking about the end-game!
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    RobD said:

    SquareRoot said:

    You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .

    The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45 ;)
    Dresden

  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    OldKingCole said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    I can't comprehend the logic of lefties who want to delegate our foreign policy to the UN Security Council. So if the US and UK want to take an action but a Russian dictator deigns it not in his interests that's wrong but if the Russians say ok we are good to go? That's not principled.

    Why would the left want us to delegate our foreign policy to the control of the Russians? Oh wait ...

    I can’t understand the gung-ho righties whoi want to charge in, all guns blazing, without thinking about the end-game!
    The end game is Paris and Mali

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    OldKingCole said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    I can't comprehend the logic of lefties who want to delegate our foreign policy to the UN Security Council. So if the US and UK want to take an action but a Russian dictator deigns it not in his interests that's wrong but if the Russians say ok we are good to go? That's not principled.

    Why would the left want us to delegate our foreign policy to the control of the Russians? Oh wait ...

    I can’t understand the gung-ho righties whoi want to charge in, all guns blazing, without thinking about the end-game!
    We have thought of the end game but the difference you've missed is that was is already upon us. It has begun whether we like it or not!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,016
    RobD said:

    SquareRoot said:

    You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .

    The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45 ;)
    Would they have done so without weakening the opposition first?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,137
    King Cole, the end-game ought to be considered carefully, though I suspect some believe whatever it is won't be as bad as IS currently.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    blackburn63 said:

    RobD said:

    SquareRoot said:

    You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .

    The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45 ;)
    Dresden

    Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Anyway okc what is the end game is a very different question to has the UNSC (IE Russian and Chinese dictators) approved our actions.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    bb63 Lets not forget the Russian aircraft..Bali..Tunisia..London..NY..Australia...etc..lots of citizens from countries all round the world
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233
    blackburn63 said:

    RobD said:

    SquareRoot said:

    You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .

    The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45 ;)
    Dresden

    These only involved one bomb a piece
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,233
    OldKingCole said:

    RobD said:

    SquareRoot said:

    You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .

    The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45 ;)
    Would they have done so without weakening the opposition first?
    Yeah, it was a tongue in cheek comment. Sue me! :p
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    SquareRoot said:

    blackburn63 said:

    RobD said:

    SquareRoot said:

    You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .

    The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45 ;)
    Dresden

    Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
    Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.

  • Kevin_McCandlessKevin_McCandless Posts: 392
    edited 2015 21
    You need the UN as cover (or some sort of international consensus) because ISIS's fate is now tied with Syria's fate. Once the former falls, you have to deal with the swathe of land they controlled, tying up the civil war, Assad's exile and the minimum amount of nation fixing-up involved. These are pretty massive tasks. I don't think any combo of carpet bombing and optimistically overmotivated Kurdish peshmerge is going to do the trick.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,449
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/20/saudi-court-sentences-poet-to-death-for-renouncing-islam

    This is who we ally ourselves with. A nnation that executes people for apostasy. Disgusting.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    I do business with a Guardian reader, nice chap. He says we should negotiate with them and give them land in the same way Israel was created.

    It's always tricky telling a client he's talking bollox.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,137
    Mr. Max, perhaps if energy policy hadn't been characterised by abdication of responsibility and reason for the last two decades we'd be in a better position to tell the Saudis to get stuffed.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    MXPB That Sharia Law is a lorra fun..we should bring it to the UK...OOPS..
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12006988/Mali-Bamako-terrorist-attack-170-hostages-Paris-live.html#update-20151121-0530
    Fears are growing in the US that the country could be a victim of a terrorist attack. An ABC News-Washington Post survey showed that 81 per cent of Americans fear a major terrorist outrage is likely in the near future. The poll also showed 73 per cent support for air strikes against Isil and 60 per cent backing the increased use of ground forces.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,013
    foxinsoxuk said:

    OldKingCole said:

    foxinsoxuk said:

    PeteD said:

    This issue is what I find the most astonishing about the US election so far: how and why has the Democratic Party allowed a situation to develop where they have no credible backup in the event something happens to Clinton (proverbial bus, major scandal etc). There is nobody who'll have built a decent campaign infrastructure ready to step up as an alternative to Clinton if necessary. It seems like a potentially massive strategic error to me.

    They allowed her to hoover up endorsements/backing from senators, donors etc so early on that it starved anyone else of oxygen. Anyone considering running for president in 2016 would have been put off, so what you have is a septuagenarian (Sanders) as her main challenger because 2016 is his last chance, and a septuagenarian (Biden) as the only person regarded in the past six months as a possible credible backup.

    If something major DOES happen to Clinton for whatever reason, the Democrats will effectively have gifted the presidency to the Republicans because they've let this situation develop.

    Besides Biden, surely Kerry would be a possibility.

    Or just a lay on Hillary?
    It’s become unusual for a defeated candidte to run again, hasn’t it. Wasn’t the last one Stevenson in the 50’s?
    Clinton was defeated in the primaries, yet seems annointed now.

    Kerry is Foreign Sec, so a possible alternative, though frankly anyone but Clinton is implausible.
    To run again after having been defeated in the primaries at a previous election is quite common: Reagan, Bush snr, Dole, Gore, McCain and Romney all won their nominations at a second attempt.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,817
    richardDodd said:

    OT..Snow in Elstree..crikey

    Are you working for Beeb?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,013
    richardDodd said:

    SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots

    Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    J Yes..
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    david_herdson said:

    richardDodd said:

    SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots

    Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
    Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,598
    Kevin_McCandless said:

    You need the UN as cover (or some sort of international consensus) because ISIS's fate is now tied with Syria's fate. Once the former falls, you have to deal with the swathe of land they controlled, tying up the civil war, Assad's exile and the minimum amount of nation fixing-up involved. These are pretty massive tasks. I don't think any combo of carpet bombing and optimistically overmotivated Kurdish peshmerge is going to do the trick.

    Agreed. I recall all this gung-ho sentiment before Iraq - there were big demos against but, contrary to most recolllections, the polls moved sharply in favour and constituents who contacted me were 2-1 for going in.

    But a UN consensus would be very worth having - the first time in UN history of all the major powers acting in concert. Quite aoart from ISIS, it might be a very significant change in the way the world works.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    DH I was actually hoping for local boots..with enormous back up..
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,137
    Mr. Palmer, I suspect that's rather over-optimistic.

    The whole world being against ISIS is not because the whole world has chosen to act that way, but because the relevant nations are reacting to being deliberately targeted. In short, any co-operation is ISIS' doing, not the world's.

    The counterpoint would be that if there is co-operation and it works well, that may augur well for the future. But I don't believe so. The current self-interest of the UNSC is to crush ISIS, if at all possible. Once that's done, arguments over Syria (old borders restored, Kurdistan, Assad and so forth) will resume.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    not_on_fire said:

    Council tax going up 4% next year in some areas
    http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/20/osborne-plans-to-allow-2-council-tax-rises-to-plug-social-care-holes

    I'd have thought you would see this as a good thing. Higher taxes for everyone decided on by local voters.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    NickPalmer said:

    Kevin_McCandless said:

    You need the UN as cover (or some sort of international consensus) because ISIS's fate is now tied with Syria's fate. Once the former falls, you have to deal with the swathe of land they controlled, tying up the civil war, Assad's exile and the minimum amount of nation fixing-up involved. These are pretty massive tasks. I don't think any combo of carpet bombing and optimistically overmotivated Kurdish peshmerge is going to do the trick.

    Agreed. I recall all this gung-ho sentiment before Iraq - there were big demos against but, contrary to most recolllections, the polls moved sharply in favour and constituents who contacted me were 2-1 for going in.

    But a UN consensus would be very worth having - the first time in UN history of all the major powers acting in concert. Quite aoart from ISIS, it might be a very significant change in the way the world works.
    Fat chance of that. It just shows how many enemies IS have created. The Russians have zero interest in doing anything that's against their own interests but when an enemy is blowing up Russian airliners it is a coincidence and no more that their interests match that of ours and the rest of the UNSC in this one issue. No new world order.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 64,266
    I haven't seen any comments on labour's performance in this week council elections but assume they are losing votes quite heavily
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,013
    blackburn63 said:

    I do business with a Guardian reader, nice chap. He says we should negotiate with them and give them land in the same way Israel was created.

    It's always tricky telling a client he's talking bollox.

    I presume he has no idea how Israel was created then? In fact, ISIL is following a not dissimilar path from that which the Irgun and Stern took.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,137
    Incidentally, the third series of The Bridge starts tonight. Annoyingly, they've yet again double-shotted it, so it runs from 9-11pm on BBC4.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,013
    richardDodd said:

    DH I was actually hoping for local boots..with enormous back up..

    That would be my preferred option too. Foreign military advisors, including British ones, would probably be necessary though.
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    blackburn63 said:

    david_herdson said:

    richardDodd said:

    SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots

    Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
    Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.

    There's a great deal of truth in that. Young men are always keen to fight despite all the evidence showing it's a really shitty experience. Must be hard wired into the human brain.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    saddened said:

    blackburn63 said:

    david_herdson said:

    richardDodd said:

    SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots

    Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
    Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.

    There's a great deal of truth in that. Young men are always keen to fight despite all the evidence showing it's a really shitty experience. Must be hard wired into the human brain.
    I was being serious, our lads will be itching to get out there. It's unfathomable to 99% of us but they love it.

  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236
    JackW said:

    Hillary Clinton Will Be The Forty Fifth President Of The United States

    HCWBTFFPOTUS

    ------------------------

    Frame that comment for posterity and the day after election day take a look at yourself in the mirror and then try not to laugh

  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    david_herdson said:

    blackburn63 said:

    I do business with a Guardian reader, nice chap. He says we should negotiate with them and give them land in the same way Israel was created.

    It's always tricky telling a client he's talking bollox.

    I presume he has no idea how Israel was created then? In fact, ISIL is following a not dissimilar path from that which the Irgun and Stern took.
    I'm not sure of his history credentials, mine are poor. But I do know that IS don't want to be allocated a piece of desert.

  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    ISIS's chilling new tactic: Terror group tells British-based fanatics to stay hidden in the UK and wait until they get a signal to attack

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3327809/ISIS-s-chilling-new-tactic-Terror-group-tells-British-based-fanatics-stay-hidden-UK-wait-signal-attack.html#ixzz3s7DYLgH9
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,750
    blackburn63 said:

    saddened said:

    blackburn63 said:

    david_herdson said:

    richardDodd said:

    SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots

    Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
    Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.

    There's a great deal of truth in that. Young men are always keen to fight despite all the evidence showing it's a really shitty experience. Must be hard wired into the human brain.
    I was being serious, our lads will be itching to get out there. It's unfathomable to 99% of us but they love it.

    We'll either need western boots or explicit support of Assad eventually.

    The reason is that Raqqa is nowhere near a theoretical Greater Kurdistan.
  • CromwellCromwell Posts: 236
    It is more likely that a serious health problem derails Hillary than the E mail scandal ; I think it's a rather moot point anyway as she is clearly going to lose ; indeed , Hillary is a paper tiger , she is much more vulnerable than she appears ...Obama proved this when he took the nomination away from her in 2008
    Marco Rubio is not only going to win the nomination , he is going to decisively CRUSH Hillary ; the writing is on the wall for those with eyes to see !

    The recent polling in Colorado is the latest clue where Hillary is outpolled by 4 Republican candidates ...Colorado is not only a swing state that the eventual victor needs to win , it is also a bell weather state that indicates which way the winds of change are blowing ; whoever wins Colorado is very likely to win the presidency and Rubio is out polling everyone ..Colorado went with the winner in at least the last 4 elections

    Hillary is like an aging actress who just cannot accept that she's just not wanted anymore ; RUBIO/FIORINA will crush CLINTON/CASTRO !
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    richardDodd said:

    Corbyn states that war should be the last resort...good idea..except he needs to realise that ISIS has already declared war ..on everybody.....Come on Labour ... get rid of your idiot leader..

    Looks like you're suggesting Cameron thinks that war should be a first resort. However, I am more cynical. Nearly every time a tory government gets into political trouble, it seems to get involved in some form of war to divert attention away from the problems.

    And what a lot of fine messes Cameron and Osborne have got themselves in to. NHS Trusts in debt, doctors going on strike, police, power supply, military and navy cuts, immigration, Europe and UKIP, and let's not forget the massive upcoming cuts to government department budgets which will affect everything and everyone in the UK.

    Even rumours of a police investigation into possibly senior members of the tory party, yet what is the media doing? Trying to destroy the leader of the Opposition, at least 4 years away from any chance of him winning power.

    This continues to look like a government run using the scripts of "Yes Prime Minister" as a bible.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,756
    Scott_P said:

    My Twitter timeline is full on angry Nats demanding IndyRef2 if we start bombing in Syria.

    Until now.

    @neiledwardlovat: Sturgeon switches policy on Syria and the crazy gang instantly change their mind.... I've read about this before.... https://t.co/eZBKrpSvum

    LOL, desperate saddo alert.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,756
    Plato_Says said:

    ISIS's chilling new tactic: Terror group tells British-based fanatics to stay hidden in the UK and wait until they get a signal to attack

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3327809/ISIS-s-chilling-new-tactic-Terror-group-tells-British-based-fanatics-stay-hidden-UK-wait-signal-attack.html#ixzz3s7DYLgH9
    What were they supposed to do previously , run about with placards shouting ISIS bomber get yourself blown up or shot here
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    OchEye..Total effin blather How did Cameron suddenly get the blame for ISIS...did he ask them to kill all those holiday makers in Tunisia to distract attention from the eononomic situation..get back to bed....
  • saddenedsaddened Posts: 2,245
    Plato_Says said:

    ISIS's chilling new tactic: Terror group tells British-based fanatics to stay hidden in the UK and wait until they get a signal to attack

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3327809/ISIS-s-chilling-new-tactic-Terror-group-tells-British-based-fanatics-stay-hidden-UK-wait-signal-attack.html#ixzz3s7DYLgH9
    Read that, couldn't find anything new or chilling. Just the same old stuff with different pictures.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,239
    Plato_Says said:

    ISIS's chilling new tactic: Terror group tells British-based fanatics to stay hidden in the UK and wait until they get a signal to attack

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3327809/ISIS-s-chilling-new-tactic-Terror-group-tells-British-based-fanatics-stay-hidden-UK-wait-signal-attack.html#ixzz3s7DYLgH9
    This is why I fear people who blithely talk about 'destroying IS' - and I include our politicians in this - are being over-optimistic. IS is as much an ideology as it is a state, and sadly that ideology appeals to many.

    If they remove IS out of Syria (and that's a big conditional; the coalition tried removing their immediate predecessor out of Iraq without much luck), they'll move back to Iraq. Remove them out of both Syria and Iraq, and they'll move to Yemen or elsewhere.

    Then there are adherents to the IS ideology and aims will just form disparate al-Qaeda style groups: which might be better, but still dangerous.

    We need to be in this for the long term. And we need to tackle the ideology. Now, does anyone have any ideas how to do that?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,756
    blackburn63 said:

    saddened said:

    blackburn63 said:

    david_herdson said:

    richardDodd said:

    SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots

    Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
    Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.

    There's a great deal of truth in that. Young men are always keen to fight despite all the evidence showing it's a really shitty experience. Must be hard wired into the human brain.
    I was being serious, our lads will be itching to get out there. It's unfathomable to 99% of us but they love it.

    Then they come back in bits and whinge forever about people not fawning over them.
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    I have never heard a veteran whinging....
  • DairDair Posts: 6,108
    Scott_P said:

    The Labour heartlands of Glasgow and Central Scotland have never needed a strong Labour Party more. For eight years they have been deceived by Nationalists who talk Left but walk Right.

    Just ask Alex Salmond's former head of policy Alex Bell, who looks at the SNP's mealy mouthed rhetoric, compares it to their record and concludes that Scotland's Government is – and I quote – morally dubious.

    On health, on education, on justice the SNP would rather point at the polls than deal with the problems. Scotland can't afford another five years of a government that would rather congratulate itself than explain itself.
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/14091761.Agenda__SNP_have_become_an_arrogant__complacent_and_headline_grabbing_party_in_government/

    An article by James Kelly, Labour MSP for Rutherglen.

    For 6 more months.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    malcolmg said:

    blackburn63 said:

    saddened said:

    blackburn63 said:

    david_herdson said:

    richardDodd said:

    SR..Air strikes first.. and lots of them.. weaken the opposition.. then boots

    Doesn't necessarily have to be British boots, as long as those that are there are signed up to the same strategy.
    Let's not disappoint our troops Mr Herdson, they didn't join up to spend their lives on Salisbury Plain.

    There's a great deal of truth in that. Young men are always keen to fight despite all the evidence showing it's a really shitty experience. Must be hard wired into the human brain.
    I was being serious, our lads will be itching to get out there. It's unfathomable to 99% of us but they love it.

    Then they come back in bits and whinge forever about people not fawning over them.
    What an unpleasant man you are.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I like this type of bet. Personally I think it would be value at 40/1. The unlikely isn't all that unlikely really. We tend to discount too heavily the probability of unlikely events.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,750
    JosiasJessop said:

    Plato_Says said:

    ISIS's chilling new tactic: Terror group tells British-based fanatics to stay hidden in the UK and wait until they get a signal to attack

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3327809/ISIS-s-chilling-new-tactic-Terror-group-tells-British-based-fanatics-stay-hidden-UK-wait-signal-attack.html#ixzz3s7DYLgH9
    This is why I fear people who blithely talk about 'destroying IS' - and I include our politicians in this - are being over-optimistic. IS is as much an ideology as it is a state, and sadly that ideology appeals to many.

    If they remove IS out of Syria (and that's a big conditional; the coalition tried removing their immediate predecessor out of Iraq without much luck), they'll move back to Iraq. Remove them out of both Syria and Iraq, and they'll move to Yemen or elsewhere.

    Then there are adherents to the IS ideology and aims will just form disparate al-Qaeda style groups: which might be better, but still dangerous.

    We need to be in this for the long term. And we need to tackle the ideology. Now, does anyone have any ideas how to do that?

    They remind me of the Nazis tbh.

    How do we tackle Nazi ideology ?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited 2015 21
    Belgium seems to have its share of angry Moroccans too.
    JosiasJessop said:

    Plato_Says said:

    ISIS's chilling new tactic: Terror group tells British-based fanatics to stay hidden in the UK and wait until they get a signal to attack

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3327809/ISIS-s-chilling-new-tactic-Terror-group-tells-British-based-fanatics-stay-hidden-UK-wait-signal-attack.html#ixzz3s7DYLgH9
    This is why I fear people who blithely talk about 'destroying IS' - and I include our politicians in this - are being over-optimistic. IS is as much an ideology as it is a state, and sadly that ideology appeals to many.

    If they remove IS out of Syria (and that's a big conditional; the coalition tried removing their immediate predecessor out of Iraq without much luck), they'll move back to Iraq. Remove them out of both Syria and Iraq, and they'll move to Yemen or elsewhere.

    Then there are adherents to the IS ideology and aims will just form disparate al-Qaeda style groups: which might be better, but still dangerous.

    We need to be in this for the long term. And we need to tackle the ideology. Now, does anyone have any ideas how to do that?

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,756
    blackburn63 said:

    SquareRoot said:

    blackburn63 said:

    RobD said:

    SquareRoot said:

    You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .

    The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45 ;)
    Dresden

    Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
    Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.

    Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    ISIS may well be wiped off the map in short order. It's already struggling. Its millennarianist ideology will continue to gain adherents for generations. That will need continual containing and confronting.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    malcolmg said:

    blackburn63 said:

    SquareRoot said:

    blackburn63 said:

    RobD said:

    SquareRoot said:

    You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .

    The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45 ;)
    Dresden

    Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
    Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.

    Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
    I see the Nats are rewriting history now

  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/12006988/Mali-Bamako-terrorist-attack-170-hostages-Paris-live.html#update-20151121-0914
    All metro train stations in Brussels will be closed on Saturday, the city's public transport network said, after Belgium raised the capital's terror alert to the highest level, warning of an "imminent threat". The army is also out in force on Brussels' streets.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,876
    OchEye said:

    richardDodd said:

    Corbyn states that war should be the last resort...good idea..except he needs to realise that ISIS has already declared war ..on everybody.....Come on Labour ... get rid of your idiot leader..

    Looks like you're suggesting Cameron thinks that war should be a first resort. However, I am more cynical. Nearly every time a tory government gets into political trouble, it seems to get involved in some form of war to divert attention away from the problems.

    And what a lot of fine messes Cameron and Osborne have got themselves in to. NHS Trusts in debt, doctors going on strike, police, power supply, military and navy cuts, immigration, Europe and UKIP, and let's not forget the massive upcoming cuts to government department budgets which will affect everything and everyone in the UK.

    Even rumours of a police investigation into possibly senior members of the tory party, yet what is the media doing? Trying to destroy the leader of the Opposition, at least 4 years away from any chance of him winning power.

    This continues to look like a government run using the scripts of "Yes Prime Minister" as a bible.
    That's an indictment of the Labour Party. They've saddled themselves with an unelectable leadership team, and so they can make no headway, even when the government runs into problems.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,756
    blackburn63 said:

    malcolmg said:

    blackburn63 said:

    SquareRoot said:

    blackburn63 said:

    RobD said:

    SquareRoot said:

    You cannot win a war with air strikes. History teaches us this.. you need boots on the ground .

    The US won with two rather large air strikes in '45 ;)
    Dresden

    Dresden was not the end of the war.. and I don't think the we are going to drop atomic bombs on ISIS. Boots on the ground after degradation will be the only way.
    Dresden didn't end the war but it was pivotal and remains controversial. This is going to be dirty, it's war, but I'm afraid we're left with no options. Of course there will be people wailing when we receive recriminations but luckily we didn't stand by when Germany invaded Poland.

    Dresden was totally pointless and had no military purpose, just fanatics of carpet bombing trying to promote their failed strategy.
    I see the Nats are rewriting history now

    Stick to comics, you are obviously not up to intelligent debate.
This discussion has been closed.