If I recall correctly, the word "impeachment" refers to the *process* (it's a fancy word for "trial"), not to the *outcome*. Bill Clinton did not "face impeachment", he *was* impeached. I'm not sure the bookies understand the difference.
The reason why I bring this up is because bookies in 2011/12 failed to pay out on bets that Greece would default after their debts were restructured. It *was* a default (in the sense creditors were forced to accept lower payments) but was not described as such, so the bookies refused to pay up. If the term "impeachment" is not correctly understood by bookie and bettor, similar misunderstandings may occur.
It was absolutely a default, and was recognised as such by the ratings agencies.
I agree. The bookies did not. Hence my point about the need for a clear definition of "impeachment".
I should have been clearer, Paddy Power say it has to be a successful conviction in the Senate to pay out.
If I recall correctly, the word "impeachment" refers to the *process* (it's a fancy word for "trial"), not to the *outcome*. Bill Clinton did not "face impeachment", he *was* impeached. I'm not sure the bookies understand the difference.
The reason why I bring this up is because bookies in 2011/12 failed to pay out on bets that Greece would default after their debts were restructured. It *was* a default (in the sense creditors were forced to accept lower payments) but was not described as such, so the bookies refused to pay up. If the term "impeachment" is not correctly understood by bookie and bettor, similar misunderstandings may occur.
It was absolutely a default, and was recognised as such by the ratings agencies.
I agree. The bookies did not. Hence my point about the need for a clear definition of "impeachment".
I should have been clearer, Paddy Power say it has to be a successful conviction in the Senate to pay out.
Thank you.
Should be even clearer.
Successful conviction in the Senate = At least 2/3 of Senators voting guilty and thus removing POTUS from their job.
Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron - well done, money very well spent. The investment is well worth the outcome. This is what feelgood feels like and it has to be good for us all. Ms May, take note.
Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron - well done, money very well spent. The investment is well worth the outcome. This is what feelgood feels like and it has to be good for us all. Ms May, take note.
I don't think there are any plans to stop olympic funding?
Big stars in their own sports making big money for themselves but there is something about when you do it for your country. There is something different, you can see it in the people who are there in the crowds, it isn't the same as winning a major at golf or a Wimbledon.
If bolt wasn't such a (relative) crap starter I wonder how fast he could go.
Nice of him to let Gatlin have a go first.
He gave Gatlin just enough time to think that he might actually have a chance to win it, before shifting up a gear in the final few metres and putting the cheating American firmly back in his place!
If bolt wasn't such a (relative) crap starter I wonder how fast he could go.
You can't have everything. He is a relatively crap starter because he has ridiculously long legs for a sprinter. He is tall and it takes him a bit longer than others to get fully into the upright position. But when he does those disadvantages give him an extra gear on everyone else.
This of course is why he is even better at the 200m. He is a freak. So glad he beat Gatlin though. Gatlin should not have been there and going forward those rules have to be changed.
On topic, from somebody who doesn't give a crap about sport...
This thread treats American politics as if it were a parliamentary system, without once mentioning the requirements for impeachment. American Presidents can only be impeached, according to the Constitution if there is evidence that they have committed "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors", not because a majority of Representatives, and a super-majority of Senators, don't like them. Indeed, the prospect that the grounds for impeachment might become too broad was why Madison objected to Mason's proposal for "maladministration" as grounds for impeachment in 1787. He thought it could be so broad that Congress could object to any President on those grounds, and America would therefore effectively be a Parliamentary system.
The meaning of Treason is very closely defined under the US Constitution, and there is no evidence whatsoever that either Trump or Clinton is a traitor. Bribery - well, evidence might come out about Trump's business affairs, but it's the same as far as I know. So they'd have to be impeached for "other High Crimes and Misdemeanours", a very vague phrase derived from 14th century English law on impeachment. There was abundant testimony during the Nixon and Clinton hearings on what constituted oHCM, so I won't cover that here. Tax evasion doesn't seem to, since the House refused to impeach Nixon on those grounds, but perjury apparently can. But without any evidence that either possible President has committed either crime, it seems unlikely that they can be impeached, even if disastrously unpopular.
I see the EBC coverage was up to usual high standards.
A BBC tennis commentator has been slammed for his coverage of Andy Murray's incredible Olympic win - after claiming that supporters in Scotland kits and 'See You Jimmy' hats were English. Simon Reed, commentating on the men's final in Rio, said that after the match an emotional Murray was 'heading over to a small band of English fans ... he must have saw them earlier'.
I see the EBC coverage was up to usual high standards.
A BBC tennis commentator has been slammed for his coverage of Andy Murray's incredible Olympic win - after claiming that supporters in Scotland kits and 'See You Jimmy' hats were English. Simon Reed, commentating on the men's final in Rio, said that after the match an emotional Murray was 'heading over to a small band of English fans ... he must have saw them earlier'.
John Inverdale forgot about the existence of women when interviewing Murray.
Comments
Successful conviction in the Senate = At least 2/3 of Senators voting guilty and thus removing POTUS from their job.
TimAndy.Bloody hell
TimAndy.We rock.
One thought before I go, I make that nine different sports with at least one gold. Phenomenal.
Long may it continue.
Hoorar
Are we sure they have measured the track correctly?
Here goes, and finally there's something of an atmosphere in the stadium - blink and you've missed it!
Well done Murray - Good to see a 1982 rematch in the tennis.
This of course is why he is even better at the 200m. He is a freak. So glad he beat Gatlin though. Gatlin should not have been there and going forward those rules have to be changed.
This thread treats American politics as if it were a parliamentary system, without once mentioning the requirements for impeachment. American Presidents can only be impeached, according to the Constitution if there is evidence that they have committed "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors", not because a majority of Representatives, and a super-majority of Senators, don't like them. Indeed, the prospect that the grounds for impeachment might become too broad was why Madison objected to Mason's proposal for "maladministration" as grounds for impeachment in 1787. He thought it could be so broad that Congress could object to any President on those grounds, and America would therefore effectively be a Parliamentary system.
The meaning of Treason is very closely defined under the US Constitution, and there is no evidence whatsoever that either Trump or Clinton is a traitor. Bribery - well, evidence might come out about Trump's business affairs, but it's the same as far as I know. So they'd have to be impeached for "other High Crimes and Misdemeanours", a very vague phrase derived from 14th century English law on impeachment. There was abundant testimony during the Nixon and Clinton hearings on what constituted oHCM, so I won't cover that here. Tax evasion doesn't seem to, since the House refused to impeach Nixon on those grounds, but perjury apparently can. But without any evidence that either possible President has committed either crime, it seems unlikely that they can be impeached, even if disastrously unpopular.
A BBC tennis commentator has been slammed for his coverage of Andy Murray's incredible Olympic win - after claiming that supporters in Scotland kits and 'See You Jimmy' hats were English.
Simon Reed, commentating on the men's final in Rio, said that after the match an emotional Murray was 'heading over to a small band of English fans ... he must have saw them earlier'.