Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The “Will Trump survive full term betting” edges back to him m

SystemSystem Posts: 11,709
edited August 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The “Will Trump survive full term betting” edges back to him making it

I love today’s New York Daily News front page that I thought it would be a good peg to look at what are by far the biggest current political betting markets – will Trump survive a full term and what year will he leave the White House.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 59,010
    First :)
  • Options
    OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.
  • Options
    GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Third!
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,686
    I agree with OGH. Heart over head.

    If he's a total disaster there is a chance the Republican senators throw him to the wolves as well as the Dem controlled house post Nov 2018 in an impeachment, or force him from office, but I don't see how that's odds on.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,686
    Why did Melania marry him?

    Don't just say "money". She's stuck with him for ages.
  • Options
    freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    Good header Mr Smithson, totally agree with the heart over head comment which I've spoken about on here often. I'd say 90% of the bets I read about on here are based on people wanting something to happen as opposed to evaluating the likelihood.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472

    Why did Melania marry him?

    Don't just say "money". She's stuck with him for ages.

    His dazzling personality?
  • Options
    freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    Why did Melania marry him?

    Don't just say "money". She's stuck with him for ages.

    She's not the first woman to be attracted by power
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,113

    Why did Melania marry him?

    Don't just say "money". She's stuck with him for ages.

    Might it be a combination of things? Lots of money, an interesting lifestyle, and, if they some intelligence, some substantial direct and indirect influence.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,113
    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,083
    One reason that it might be better, in the long run, for him to hang on and be defeated in 2020 is that if he leaves office before then he will be replaced by the Vice President, who, while more rational, is a long term right wing Republican. If he’s defeated in the election, the V-P goes with him.

    Impeachement is a 'be careful what you wish for'.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    ydoethur said:

    Why did Melania marry him?

    Don't just say "money". She's stuck with him for ages.

    His dazzling personality?
    You laugh but surely Trump is charismatic, and not just because of his money. Look at the success of The Apprentice, for instance, as well as his ability to fire up bigger crowds than Theresa May.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    Arizona is where the wall will go, so perhaps there is to be an announcement of some sort: solar panels will pay for it if the Mexicans won't, or some such (actually that would be a good thing to announce as many opponents of the wall, which is almost everyone, will favour renewable energy).
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited August 2017

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The US drug epidemic is pretty phenomenal, not just in the number of deaths annually exceeding those killed by either guns or road accidents. The geography is different, this time in middle America not inner city ghettos. US life expectancy is dropping too :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38247385 These are markers of decline.

    Then there are the economic problems of we industrialisation, and the increasing political divide. Parts of America are doing well economically and socially, but these are not Trumpland, they voted Democrat.

    Trump is making just his second visit since taking office West of the Mississippi for this rally. He has nothing to show for his first six months achievements. The emperor still has a fine suit of clothes though.

    The only threat to his term is his health, he is safe politically, but after 4 years of Trump the decline in America will be more marked.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    edited August 2017

    ydoethur said:

    Why did Melania marry him?

    Don't just say "money". She's stuck with him for ages.

    His dazzling personality?
    You laugh but surely Trump is charismatic, and not just because of his money. Look at the success of The Apprentice, for instance, as well as his ability to fire up bigger crowds than Theresa May.
    That is true, but I wasn't necessarily referring to his charisma. I was sarcastically suggesting it was because he is such a nice person.

    Edit - although I suppose 'bad boy syndrome' might be a genuine explanation.
  • Options
    freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The US drug epidemic is pretty phenomenal, not just in the number of deaths annually exceeding those killed by either guns or road accidents. The geography is different, this time in middle America not inner city ghettos. US life expectancy is dropping too :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38247385 These are markers of decline.

    Then there are the economic problems of we industrialisation, and the increasing political divide. Parts of America are doing well economically and socially, but these are not Trumpland, they voted Democrat.

    Trump is making just his second visit since taking office West of the Mississippi for this rally. He has nothing to show for his first six months achievements. The emperor still has a fine suit of clothes though.

    The only threat to his term is his health, he is safe politically, but after 4 years of Trump the decline in America will be more marked.
    Your predictions about the effects of Trump and Brexit are apocalyptic, life will barely be worth living in a few years time.

    Whether or not your view on US is correct or not Trump didn't cause the problems, your pin up boy Obama has been at the helm for 8 years. You need to look closer to home for who created the mess America is in.

    PS its not in a mess
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The US drug epidemic is pretty phenomenal, not just in the number of deaths annually exceeding those killed by either guns or road accidents. The geography is different, this time in middle America not inner city ghettos. US life expectancy is dropping too :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38247385 These are markers of decline.

    Then there are the economic problems of we industrialisation, and the increasing political divide. Parts of America are doing well economically and socially, but these are not Trumpland, they voted Democrat.

    Trump is making just his second visit since taking office West of the Mississippi for this rally. He has nothing to show for his first six months achievements. The emperor still has a fine suit of clothes though.

    The only threat to his term is his health, he is safe politically, but after 4 years of Trump the decline in America will be more marked.
    Your predictions about the effects of Trump and Brexit are apocalyptic, life will barely be worth living in a few years time.

    Whether or not your view on US is correct or not Trump didn't cause the problems, your pin up boy Obama has been at the helm for 8 years. You need to look closer to home for who created the mess America is in.

    PS its not in a mess
    Trumpism is a symptom of decline, not its cause. Read this article about rising death rates in white women in America. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36255143

    Parts of America are great, and have potential to grow stronger still, but those are the coasts and a few university cities between. The flyover states that were the heartland are not doing well at all. Even Trump can see that.

  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,914

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The gap between "those left behind" and those in good employment is much bigger. There is an article in the guardian today of a woman who works two jobs (in fast food outlets), rarely gets to see her kids awake and still has no money to cover the basics.

    In the past many of the white working class still had the belief work hard and life will be better for me and the family in 10 years time. It is this group that Trump's slogan is aimed at, but it would not be so snappy if it were more truthful "Make America tolerable for the white working class again"


  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,014
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Doof, an astute post that belies your (posting) surname.

    We seem a similar thinning of the middle class here.
  • Options
    DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The US drug epidemic is pretty phenomenal, not just in the number of deaths annually exceeding those killed by either guns or road accidents. The geography is different, this time in middle America not inner city ghettos. US life expectancy is dropping too :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38247385 These are markers of decline.

    Then there are the economic problems of we industrialisation, and the increasing political divide. Parts of America are doing well economically and socially, but these are not Trumpland, they voted Democrat.

    Trump is making just his second visit since taking office West of the Mississippi for this rally. He has nothing to show for his first six months achievements. The emperor still has a fine suit of clothes though.

    The only threat to his term is his health, he is safe politically, but after 4 years of Trump the decline in America will be more marked.
    Your predictions about the effects of Trump and Brexit are apocalyptic, life will barely be worth living in a few years time.

    Whether or not your view on US is correct or not Trump didn't cause the problems, your pin up boy Obama has been at the helm for 8 years. You need to look closer to home for who created the mess America is in.

    PS its not in a mess
    Trumpism is a symptom of decline, not its cause. Read this article about rising death rates in white women in America. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36255143

    Parts of America are great, and have potential to grow stronger still, but those are the coasts and a few university cities between. The flyover states that were the heartland are not doing well at all. Even Trump can see that.

    Worse is that these are for the most part, people who have played by the rules. They've gone to college, worked hard, and still lost their jobs or seen their real incomes decline and prospects vanish.
  • Options
    eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,914


    You laugh but surely Trump is charismatic, ... as well as his ability to fire up bigger crowds than Theresa May.

    Damned by faint praise indeed.
  • Options
    freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The US drug epidemic is pretty phenomenal, not just in the number of deaths annually exceeding those killed by either guns or road accidents. The geography is different, this time in middle America not inner city ghettos. US life expectancy is dropping too :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38247385 These are markers of decline.

    Then there are the economic problems of we industrialisation, and the increasing political divide. Parts of America are doing well economically and socially, but these are not Trumpland, they voted Democrat.

    Trump is making just his second visit since taking office West of the Mississippi for this rally. He has nothing to show for his first six months achievements. The emperor still has a fine suit of clothes though.

    The only threat to his term is his health, he is safe politically, but after 4 years of Trump the decline in America will be more marked.
    Your predictions about the effects of Trump and Brexit are apocalyptic, life will barely be worth living in a few years time.

    Whether or not your view on US is correct or not Trump didn't cause the problems, your pin up boy Obama has been at the helm for 8 years. You need to look closer to home for who created the mess America is in.

    PS its not in a mess
    Trumpism is a symptom of decline, not its cause. Read this article about rising death rates in white women in America. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36255143

    Parts of America are great, and have potential to grow stronger still, but those are the coasts and a few university cities between. The flyover states that were the heartland are not doing well at all. Even Trump can see that.

    Yep a shocking indictment of 8 years of Obama and why Trump was elected.

    You keep shooting yourself in the foot mate
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    eristdoof said:

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The gap between "those left behind" and those in good employment is much bigger. There is an article in the guardian today of a woman who works two jobs (in fast food outlets), rarely gets to see her kids awake and still has no money to cover the basics.

    In the past many of the white working class still had the belief work hard and life will be better for me and the family in 10 years time. It is this group that Trump's slogan is aimed at, but it would not be so snappy if it were more truthful "Make America tolerable for the white working class again"


    Social mobility in America is lower than in Europe, and seems to be declining further:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/07/social-mobility-america/491240/

    The American Dream has always had elements of myth, but seems to struggle even more now.

    Trump is a narcissistic buffoon with the attention span of a goldfish and the morals of an alley cat, but even he can see the decline.
  • Options
    freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    eristdoof said:

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The gap between "those left behind" and those in good employment is much bigger. There is an article in the guardian today of a woman who works two jobs (in fast food outlets), rarely gets to see her kids awake and still has no money to cover the basics.

    In the past many of the white working class still had the belief work hard and life will be better for me and the family in 10 years time. It is this group that Trump's slogan is aimed at, but it would not be so snappy if it were more truthful "Make America tolerable for the white working class again"


    So true, if you flood the market with cheap labour wages will stagnate, its unarguable. Yet I keep being told by high earners on here that immigration is good for the economy, ask the lady in the Guardian if she agrees.
  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,925



    Trumpism is a symptom of decline, not its cause. Read this article about rising death rates in white women in America. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36255143

    Parts of America are great, and have potential to grow stronger still, but those are the coasts and a few university cities between. The flyover states that were the heartland are not doing well at all. Even Trump can see that.

    Interesting article - thanks for sharing.

    I found it so weird to be bombarded with adverts for prescription drugs to deal with serious medical conditions when I visited America. Some of them were ridiculous...
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,005

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The US drug epidemic is pretty phenomenal, not just in the number of deaths annually exceeding those killed by either guns or road accidents. The geography is different, this time in middle America not inner city ghettos. US life expectancy is dropping too :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38247385 These are markers of decline.

    Then there are the economic problems of we industrialisation, and the increasing political divide. Parts of America are doing well economically and socially, but these are not Trumpland, they voted Democrat.

    Trump is making just his second visit since taking office West of the Mississippi for this rally. He has nothing to show for his first six months achievements. The emperor still has a fine suit of clothes though.

    The only threat to his term is his health, he is safe politically, but after 4 years of Trump the decline in America will be more marked.
    Your predictions about the effects of Trump and Brexit are apocalyptic, life will barely be worth living in a few years time.

    Whether or not your view on US is correct or not Trump didn't cause the problems, your pin up boy Obama has been at the helm for 8 years. You need to look closer to home for who created the mess America is in.

    PS its not in a mess
    Trumpism is a symptom of decline, not its cause. Read this article about rising death rates in white women in America. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36255143

    Parts of America are great, and have potential to grow stronger still, but those are the coasts and a few university cities between. The flyover states that were the heartland are not doing well at all. Even Trump can see that.

    Yep a shocking indictment of 8 years of Obama and why Trump was elected.

    You keep shooting yourself in the foot mate
    The problems pre-date Obama.

    One shouldn't exaggerate though. Most Americans still have an enviable standard of living.
  • Options
    Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The US drug epidemic is pretty phenomenal, not just in the number of deaths annually exceeding those killed by either guns or road accidents. The geography is different, this time in middle America not inner city ghettos. US life expectancy is dropping too :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38247385 These are markers of decline.

    Then there are the economic problems of we industrialisation, and the increasing political divide. Parts of America are doing well economically and socially, but these are not Trumpland, they voted Democrat.

    Trump is making just his second visit since taking office West of the Mississippi for this rally. He has nothing to show for his first six months achievements. The emperor still has a fine suit of clothes though.

    The only threat to his term is his health, he is safe politically, but after 4 years of Trump the decline in America will be more marked.
    Your predictions about the effects of Trump and Brexit are apocalyptic, life will barely be worth living in a few years time.

    Whether or not your view on US is correct or not Trump didn't cause the problems, your pin up boy Obama has been at the helm for 8 years. You need to look closer to home for who created the mess America is in.

    PS its not in a mess
    Trumpism is a symptom of decline, not its cause. Read this article about rising death rates in white women in America. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36255143

    Parts of America are great, and have potential to grow stronger still, but those are the coasts and a few university cities between. The flyover states that were the heartland are not doing well at all. Even Trump can see that.

    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The US drug epidemic is pretty phenomenal, not just in the number of deaths annually exceeding those killed by either guns or road accidents. The geography is different, this time in middle America not inner city ghettos. US life expectancy is dropping too :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38247385 These are markers of decline.

    Then there are the economic problems of we industrialisation, and the increasing political divide. Parts of America are doing well economically and socially, but these are not Trumpland, they voted Democrat.

    Trump is making just his second visit since taking office West of the Mississippi for this rally. He has nothing to show for his first six months achievements. The emperor still has a fine suit of clothes though.

    The only threat to his term is his health, he is safe politically, but after 4 years of Trump the decline in America will be more marked.
    Your predictions about the effects of Trump and Brexit are apocalyptic, life will barely be worth living in a few years time.

    Whether or not your view on US is correct or not Trump didn't cause the problems, your pin up boy Obama has been at the helm for 8 years. You need to look closer to home for who created the mess America is in.

    PS its not in a mess
    Trumpism is a symptom of decline, not its cause. Read this article about rising death rates in white women in America. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36255143

    Parts of America are great, and have potential to grow stronger still, but those are the coasts and a few university cities between. The flyover states that were the heartland are not doing well at all. Even Trump can see that.

    Yep a shocking indictment of 8 years of Obama and why Trump was elected.

    You keep shooting yourself in the foot mate
    I think that you will not find a post that I have made praising Obama, though he does at least make a good speaker. America has been in decline for decades, particularly the last two.

    Trump is (like other populists) a symptom of decline and debasement, not the cure.
  • Options
    freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    @foxinsox

    All elected politicians are populists, its why they're elected. Trump may or may not solve America's problems, he certainly didn't cause them.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 36,005

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The US drug epidemic is pretty phenomenal, not just in the number of deaths annually exceeding those killed by either guns or road accidents. The geography is different, this time in middle America not inner city ghettos. US life expectancy is dropping too :http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38247385 These are markers of decline.

    Trump is making just his second visit since taking office West of the Mississippi for this rally. He has nothing to show for his first six months achievements. The emperor still has a fine suit of clothes though.

    The only threat to his term is his health, he is safe politically, but after 4 years of Trump the decline in America will be more marked.
    Your predictions about the effects of Trump and Brexit are apocalyptic, life will barely be worth living in a few years time.

    Whether or not your view on US is correct or not Trump didn't cause the problems, your pin up boy Obama has been at the helm for 8 years. You need to look closer to home for who created the mess America is in.

    PS its not in a mess
    Trumpism is a symptom of decline, not its cause. Read this article about rising death rates in white women in America. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36255143

    Parts of America are great, and have potential to grow stronger still, but those are the coasts and a few university cities between. The flyover states that were the heartland are not doing well at all. Even Trump can see that.

    Yep a shocking indictment of 8 years of Obama and why Trump was elected.

    You keep shooting yourself in the foot mate
    I think that you will not find a post that I have made praising Obama, though he does at least make a good speaker. America has been in decline for decades, particularly the last two.

    Trump is (like other populists) a symptom of decline and debasement, not the cure.
    The problem is that the non-Populists also offer no cure, and are equally self-serving.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,113
    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
  • Options
    The disaster that was Osbrowne economics:

    ' The UK’s mammoth current account deficit was £18bn larger than previously thought in 2015, according to revisions to the national accounts released today by government statisticians.

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) released the revisions today ahead of changes to how the national accounts are collated, which will be begin with revised national accounts figures covering 2016 at the end of September.

    The revisions to the current account figures show that the UK borrowed almost £100bn from the rest of the world in 2015 overall, much more than was previously thought. Indeed, the current account deficit was bigger than thought in every year in the period scrutinised, from 1997 to 2015.

    Meanwhile the net international investment position – the difference between foreign assets owned by Britons and British assets owned by foreigners – saw a massive revision of £261bn for 2015.

    Most other comparable developed nations have far lower current account deficits, or even large surpluses. In 2016 Turkey, the nearest rival to the UK in the G20 group of major economies, had a current account deficit of 3.7 per cent, while Germany’s surplus stood at 8.4 per cent. '

    http://www.cityam.com/270607/uk-current-account-deficit-18bn-bigger-2015-than-previously
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    Pretty small dataset.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    I am not sure that is true:

    "Third, although social mobility has not changed much over time, it varies widely from place to place. In a second paper, the economists crunch their tax statistics by region. They find that the probability of a child born into the poorest fifth of the population in San Jose, California making it to the top is 12.9%, not much lower than in Denmark. In Charlotte, North Carolina it is 4.4%, far lower than anywhere else in the rich world."

    From: https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured

    It argues that social mobility remains static in America, albeit not as good as most of Europe.

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,113
    Nigelb said:

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    Pretty small dataset.
    Indeed, but I bet there wouldn't be much difference in the top 50. The TLDR is that the US creates new wealthy people; the UK imports wealthy people from abroad to supplement the 'old' rich.

    I could do a thread for OGH if he wanted. ;)
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863
    eristdoof said:

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The gap between "those left behind" and those in good employment is much bigger. There is an article in the guardian today of a woman who works two jobs (in fast food outlets), rarely gets to see her kids awake and still has no money to cover the basics.

    In the past many of the white working class still had the belief work hard and life will be better for me and the family in 10 years time. It is this group that Trump's slogan is aimed at, but it would not be so snappy if it were more truthful "Make America tolerable for the white working class again"


    Rates of poverty in the US are no worse - probably better - than in the UK (though official measures are slippery things to compare directly).
    Perhaps the biggest difference is in the provision of education and healthcare for those at the bottom.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,113

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    I am not sure that is true:

    "Third, although social mobility has not changed much over time, it varies widely from place to place. In a second paper, the economists crunch their tax statistics by region. They find that the probability of a child born into the poorest fifth of the population in San Jose, California making it to the top is 12.9%, not much lower than in Denmark. In Charlotte, North Carolina it is 4.4%, far lower than anywhere else in the rich world."

    From: https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured

    It argues that social mobility remains static in America, albeit not as good as most of Europe.
    That's interesting, thanks. It disagrees with some other stuff I've been reading - I'll try to dig out the links later.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863
    2017 might be worth a small flutter for Trump departure, depending on the view you take as to the seriousness his legal position - and assuming that he'd opt for a quick resignation if the many prosecutors working on his case turn up something damning.
    Not overwhelmingly generous odds, though.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863

    Nigelb said:

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    Pretty small dataset.
    Indeed, but I bet there wouldn't be much difference in the top 50. The TLDR is that the US creates new wealthy people; the UK imports wealthy people from abroad to supplement the 'old' rich.

    I could do a thread for OGH if he wanted. ;)
    Probably good to look at some lower down the top 100 to check.
    The most significant difference between here and the US is arguably the much larger size of their market - it might be no harder to make £100m, but getting to your first billion I would guess more difficult.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863
    Interesting interview with Osborne on R4 this morning.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    I am not sure that is true:

    "Third, although social mobility has not changed much over time, it varies widely from place to place. In a second paper, the economists crunch their tax statistics by region. They find that the probability of a child born into the poorest fifth of the population in San Jose, California making it to the top is 12.9%, not much lower than in Denmark. In Charlotte, North Carolina it is 4.4%, far lower than anywhere else in the rich world."

    From: https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured

    It argues that social mobility remains static in America, albeit not as good as most of Europe.
    That's interesting, thanks. It disagrees with some other stuff I've been reading - I'll try to dig out the links later.
    Do you have the link to that sea level map that you posted a couple of weeks back? I have misplaced it.

    Social mobility and class are as complex in America as here. While America is ruled by patricians similar to Blair or Cameron, they do seem to lack the more petit bourgeois politicians that we have in May, Brown, Major or Thatcher at the top.

  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,925
    Nigelb said:

    eristdoof said:

    OchEye said:

    Just heard on the radio that Trump is on the his way to Arizona today, for a "Make America Great" rally. The size of his audience should be a good indicator of his popularity, both of his support and against.

    In what ways is America any less 'great' than it had been over the last fort years? I've never really understood the 'Make America Great Again' slogan, as America on the whole is fairly great on numerous measures.

    Yes, there have been many left behind: but that was the same ten, twenty or thirty years before.
    The gap between "those left behind" and those in good employment is much bigger. There is an article in the guardian today of a woman who works two jobs (in fast food outlets), rarely gets to see her kids awake and still has no money to cover the basics.

    In the past many of the white working class still had the belief work hard and life will be better for me and the family in 10 years time. It is this group that Trump's slogan is aimed at, but it would not be so snappy if it were more truthful "Make America tolerable for the white working class again"


    Rates of poverty in the US are no worse - probably better - than in the UK (though official measures are slippery things to compare directly).
    Perhaps the biggest difference is in the provision of education and healthcare for those at the bottom.
    I think something like 1.5m Americans don't have running water....
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,187
    While the Democrats will likely take the House next year in the midterms unless they take the Senate as well there is very little chance of Trump actually being convicted by the Senate and forced to leave office even if impeachment proceedings are begun in the House
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,113
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    Pretty small dataset.
    Indeed, but I bet there wouldn't be much difference in the top 50. The TLDR is that the US creates new wealthy people; the UK imports wealthy people from abroad to supplement the 'old' rich.

    I could do a thread for OGH if he wanted. ;)
    Probably good to look at some lower down the top 100 to check.
    The most significant difference between here and the US is arguably the much larger size of their market - it might be no harder to make £100m, but getting to your first billion I would guess more difficult.
    Yeah, I intend to - and my conclusions are hardly set yet. It's a matter of getting the time to try and research without bias - difficult at the best of times.

    Take Jeff Bezos. A self-made 100% American. Yet his story is more complex: the grandson of a bureaucrat and son of two Americans, his step-dad, who was in his life from age 4 and whose name he has taken, was a Cuban immigrant.

    One thing that has come up that I was unaware of: Montessori schools have come up more than a handful of times so far.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,187
    edited August 2017

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    I am not sure that is true:

    "Third, although social mobility has not changed much over time, it varies widely from place to place. In a second paper, the economists crunch their tax statistics by region. They find that the probability of a child born into the poorest fifth of the population in San Jose, California making it to the top is 12.9%, not much lower than in Denmark. In Charlotte, North Carolina it is 4.4%, far lower than anywhere else in the rich world."

    From: https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured

    It argues that social mobility remains static in America, albeit not as good as most of Europe.
    That's interesting, thanks. It disagrees with some other stuff I've been reading - I'll try to dig out the links later.
    Do you have the link to that sea level map that you posted a couple of weeks back? I have misplaced it.

    Social mobility and class are as complex in America as here. While America is ruled by patricians similar to Blair or Cameron, they do seem to lack the more petit bourgeois politicians that we have in May, Brown, Major or Thatcher at the top.

    The Clintons, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford, LBJ, Eisenhower, Truman all came from petit bourgeois backgrounds. Reagan's father was a door to door salesman
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    Pretty small dataset.
    Indeed, but I bet there wouldn't be much difference in the top 50. The TLDR is that the US creates new wealthy people; the UK imports wealthy people from abroad to supplement the 'old' rich.

    I could do a thread for OGH if he wanted. ;)
    Probably good to look at some lower down the top 100 to check.
    The most significant difference between here and the US is arguably the much larger size of their market - it might be no harder to make £100m, but getting to your first billion I would guess more difficult.
    Yeah, I intend to - and my conclusions are hardly set yet. It's a matter of getting the time to try and research without bias - difficult at the best of times.

    Take Jeff Bezos. A self-made 100% American. Yet his story is more complex: the grandson of a bureaucrat and son of two Americans, his step-dad, who was in his life from age 4 and whose name he has taken, was a Cuban immigrant.

    One thing that has come up that I was unaware of: Montessori schools have come up more than a handful of times so far.
    The good ones are great institutions - and strong evidence in favour of pluralism in education, something the successive governments have been trying to iron out for quite a while.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,113

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    I am not sure that is true:

    "Third, although social mobility has not changed much over time, it varies widely from place to place. In a second paper, the economists crunch their tax statistics by region. They find that the probability of a child born into the poorest fifth of the population in San Jose, California making it to the top is 12.9%, not much lower than in Denmark. In Charlotte, North Carolina it is 4.4%, far lower than anywhere else in the rich world."

    From: https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21595437-america-no-less-socially-mobile-it-was-generation-ago-mobility-measured

    It argues that social mobility remains static in America, albeit not as good as most of Europe.
    That's interesting, thanks. It disagrees with some other stuff I've been reading - I'll try to dig out the links later.
    Do you have the link to that sea level map that you posted a couple of weeks back? I have misplaced it.

    (Snip)
    http://flood.firetree.net/
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,187

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    Social mobility is actually higher in the UK than the US, albeit not much, although both lag Australia and the Nordic countries. The UK also has a higher average net worth than the US once you include The value of people's homes even though the US has a higher average per capita income
  • Options
    freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    For those of you who like a bet try this.

    Mayweather to win by TKO, KO or disqualification is 5/6 with bet365.

    This will look like a bullfight, Macgregor charging in wildly, Mayweather moving around before finishing him off. I think Macgregor will lose it completely and try a kick or wrestling move, 5/6 is great value.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,014
    Mr. Choose, don't have a bet365 account but that bet would be quite tempting if I did.
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,899
    Morning all :)

    There's something about a solar eclipse that even in the modern age still elicits a sense of awe and wonder. The impact it had on people centuries ago when these events were neither understood nor predictable is understandable and forms part of our history and culture.

    I watched the pictures of the solar eclipse from Hopkinsville in Kentucky and they certainly had a better view than Mr & Mrs Stodge Senior had in St Ives in 1999 when cloud meant totality was more about the shadow rolling across the ground than anything else. The impact the eclipse had on nature and on light-sensitive devices showed the commonality of confusion between the natural and the man-made.

    Ironically, on that day, I was in London and while we didn't have totality, my recollection was the light changed and became somehow colder and more distant. The shadows looked wrong and it was just odd (good scientific term there).

  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,113
    HYUFD said:

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    Social mobility is actually higher in the UK than the US, albeit not much, although both lag Australia and the Nordic countries. The UK also has a higher average net worth than the US once you include The value of people's homes even though the US has a higher average per capita income
    It's hardly my area of expertise, but it seems there are many arguments about this. As an example:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420794/does-us-have-lower-social-mobility-other-countries-scott-winship
  • Options
    freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    Mr. Choose, don't have a bet365 account but that bet would be quite tempting if I did.

    Similar odds elsewhere. The best boxer ever against somebody having his first pro fight, 5/6 is theft.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,113
    stodge said:

    Morning all :)

    There's something about a solar eclipse that even in the modern age still elicits a sense of awe and wonder. The impact it had on people centuries ago when these events were neither understood nor predictable is understandable and forms part of our history and culture.

    I watched the pictures of the solar eclipse from Hopkinsville in Kentucky and they certainly had a better view than Mr & Mrs Stodge Senior had in St Ives in 1999 when cloud meant totality was more about the shadow rolling across the ground than anything else. The impact the eclipse had on nature and on light-sensitive devices showed the commonality of confusion between the natural and the man-made.

    Ironically, on that day, I was in London and while we didn't have totality, my recollection was the light changed and became somehow colder and more distant. The shadows looked wrong and it was just odd (good scientific term there).

    I was somewhere south of Malham on the Pennine Way at the time, and I saw a slight darkening through the clouds. What did surprise me was that the birds went quiet.
  • Options
    The world has officially gone mad...I turn on cnn and they are praising Steve bannon and brietbart for their stance on Afghanistan as a way to criticise trump. They actually said where is bannon when you need him.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,455
    edited August 2017
    deleted
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,455
    deleted - comments screwed
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,455
    Morning all,

    The 'Make America Great Again' is old fashioned populist schtick. It taps into people's sense of nostalgia for a golden age that almost certainly didn't exist. No doubt small town america was better in some ways in the 1950s, with the steel mill open, mom and pop stores, an ice cream parlour and everyone going bowling on Saturday night. But it can't be bought back and definitely not so good, to say the least, if you were black.

    It also has the subliminal message, at least for some voters, that an america before civil rights was better.

    It's clever politics. Far better than Clinton's, and I read the other day she went through 100 different slogans and catchphrases before deciding on the final one.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    HYUFD said:

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    Social mobility is actually higher in the UK than the US, albeit not much, although both lag Australia and the Nordic countries. The UK also has a higher average net worth than the US once you include The value of people's homes even though the US has a higher average per capita income
    It's hardly my area of expertise, but it seems there are many arguments about this. As an example:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420794/does-us-have-lower-social-mobility-other-countries-scott-winship
    I think the difficulty is that social mobility varies tremendously by geography, so very poor in Appalachia, reasonably good in coastal California. I suspect the same also goes for the UK, albeit our geography is more compact. One of the more interesting findings in the JRF analysis of Brexit voting was that educational level predictors broke down in Brexit voting areas. Even well educated people in these places saw little future.

    "In low-skilled communities the difference in support for leave between graduates and those with GCSEs was 20 points. In high-skilled communities it was over 40 points. In low-skill areas the proportion of A-level holders voting leave was closer to that of people with low-skills. In high-skill areas their vote was much more similar to graduates."

    https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vote-explained-poverty-low-skills-and-lack-opportunities

  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,455

    The world has officially gone mad...I turn on cnn and they are praising Steve bannon and brietbart for their stance on Afghanistan as a way to criticise trump. They actually said where is bannon when you need him.

    This decision was presumably one of the reasons Bannon had to go.

    How will the base react?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953

    Mr. Choose, don't have a bet365 account but that bet would be quite tempting if I did.

    Similar odds elsewhere. The best boxer ever against somebody having his first pro fight, 5/6 is theft.
    The odds on this fight are completely bonkers. MacGregor obviously has lots of fans backing him. I’m seriously expecting it to be all over in a minute or two, Money’s first big punch will have him on the floor. 5/6 or a KO or DQ is theft.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,113

    HYUFD said:

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    Social mobility is actually higher in the UK than the US, albeit not much, although both lag Australia and the Nordic countries. The UK also has a higher average net worth than the US once you include The value of people's homes even though the US has a higher average per capita income
    It's hardly my area of expertise, but it seems there are many arguments about this. As an example:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420794/does-us-have-lower-social-mobility-other-countries-scott-winship
    I think the difficulty is that social mobility varies tremendously by geography, so very poor in Appalachia, reasonably good in coastal California. I suspect the same also goes for the UK, albeit our geography is more compact.
    (Snip)
    Is the biggest factor in social mobility is physical mobility? If you are born in a sh*thole, the ability to move out to a better area with more opportunities. An advantage that would most be taken advantage of by the driven.
  • Options
    TonyETonyE Posts: 938

    The world has officially gone mad...I turn on cnn and they are praising Steve bannon and brietbart for their stance on Afghanistan as a way to criticise trump. They actually said where is bannon when you need him.

    This decision was presumably one of the reasons Bannon had to go.

    How will the base react?
    When people said to me that Trump was going to be dangerous, I always replied that he would do just about exactly the same as his predecessors. The Washington machine now owns Trump, having stripped away the last of his own advisers and having replaced them with the right people.

    Actually, this move will see him survive his first term now, as there is no real reason to remove him now that he is doing what he's supposed to do. However, I think the odds on him being re-elected just got a lot longer, because he's now doing, and will continue to do, what his base elected him not to.
  • Options
    With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?

    Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.

    Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953

    HYUFD said:

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    Social mobility is actually higher in the UK than the US, albeit not much, although both lag Australia and the Nordic countries. The UK also has a higher average net worth than the US once you include The value of people's homes even though the US has a higher average per capita income
    It's hardly my area of expertise, but it seems there are many arguments about this. As an example:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420794/does-us-have-lower-social-mobility-other-countries-scott-winship
    I think the difficulty is that social mobility varies tremendously by geography, so very poor in Appalachia, reasonably good in coastal California. I suspect the same also goes for the UK, albeit our geography is more compact.
    (Snip)
    Is the biggest factor in social mobility is physical mobility? If you are born in a sh*thole, the ability to move out to a better area with more opportunities. An advantage that would most be taken advantage of by the driven.
    Didn’t Norman Tebbit say something about that once?

    It certainly applies in spades to millions of Eastern Europeans who have taken the opportunity to move thousands of miles for better paid work and opportunities.
  • Options
    Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,367
    edited August 2017
    Mike is uncharacteristically a little off the pace here. The graph for punters in this market to follow is on 538:

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    It's moved down quite sharply in the last couple of days. Trump's popularity figure is now down to 37.1%, not much above his all time low of 36.6%. These are historically very low numbers. Anything below 40% is dangerous. I should think if he gets below 35% he's losing the base and his own Party will want to see him gone before he can do much more damage.

    The betting markets have responded accordingly and started to shorten once more the odds of him not making the full term. The only odds to lengthen are those on him going this year, but that would be due to elapse of time rather than his position becoming stronger.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,187
    Richard_H said:

    With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?

    Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.

    Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.

    Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,444
    Richard_H said:

    With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?

    Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.

    Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.

    I think the mood music of "we're staying because we don't want it to turn out like Iraq" will be well-received. Or of course like Afghan in 2003-onwards. Thing is, the resources required to ensure that it doesn't would dwarf both the Iraq and Afghan commitments at the height of those conflicts.

    So he is in the strange position of not wanting to cut and run for admirable reasons, but of not having a hope in hell of achieving that aim because forget Washington insiders, the US public would not stand for hundreds of thousands of boots on the ground to create a space for civic society to emerge. And nor of course would the British public which is why our commitment will be limited to advisers.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863

    Mike is uncharacteristically a little off the pace here. The graph for punters in this market to follow is on 538:

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    It's moved down quite sharply in the last couple of days. Trump's popularity figure is now down to 37.1%, not much above his all time low of 36.6%. These are historically very low numbers. Anything below 40% is dangerous. I should think if he gets below 35% he's losing the base and his own Party will want to see him gone before he can do much more damage...

    That might be true, but absent firm grounds for impeachment, removing a president who wants to stay is a pretty hard ask.
    Polling figures alone won't do it - unpopularity is a necessary, but far from sufficient condition.
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    HYUFD said:

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    Social mobility is actually higher in the UK than the US, albeit not much, although both lag Australia and the Nordic countries. The UK also has a higher average net worth than the US once you include The value of people's homes even though the US has a higher average per capita income
    It's hardly my area of expertise, but it seems there are many arguments about this. As an example:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420794/does-us-have-lower-social-mobility-other-countries-scott-winship
    I think the difficulty is that social mobility varies tremendously by geography, so very poor in Appalachia, reasonably good in coastal California. I suspect the same also goes for the UK, albeit our geography is more compact.
    (Snip)
    Is the biggest factor in social mobility is physical mobility? If you are born in a sh*thole, the ability to move out to a better area with more opportunities. An advantage that would most be taken advantage of by the driven.
    Yes, I think so, and one of the reasons that London house prices are so toxic to the economic prospects. Talented people cannot move there, and it is much harder in most of the provinces to reach critical economic mass for new creative industries. Manchester or Bristol possibly, but not every provincial city can support a design and software culture.

    I also note on my travels that internationally this is true. Middle class lifestyles in Africa or Asia increasingly resemble western Norms, while the mass of poor people in these places live very different lives indeed.

    The series of travelogues on the Indian/Pakistan border showing at 2100 on Monday (after Nadiya's campaign to spread diabetes!) are quite revealing this way.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,005

    For those of you who like a bet try this.

    Mayweather to win by TKO, KO or disqualification is 5/6 with bet365.

    This will look like a bullfight, Macgregor charging in wildly, Mayweather moving around before finishing him off. I think Macgregor will lose it completely and try a kick or wrestling move, 5/6 is great value.

    A truly enormous price.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,083
    HYUFD said:

    Richard_H said:

    With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?

    Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.

    Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.

    Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
    I think history has proved that getting involved in a war in Afghanistan is ‘unwise’!!!!!

    I don’t know what the best course of action is, but sending in troops isn’t.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,187

    HYUFD said:

    Richard_H said:

    With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?

    Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.

    Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.

    Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
    I think history has proved that getting involved in a war in Afghanistan is ‘unwise’!!!!!

    I don’t know what the best course of action is, but sending in troops isn’t.
    Had we not invaded Afghanistan in 2001 the Taliban would still be running the entire country and Bin Laden would still be alive, Corbyn of course opposed the original invasion and the killing of Bin Laden
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,083

    HYUFD said:

    Blue_rog said:


    I think this is a good example of the dichotomy in the US.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/08/21/facebook-patents-oculus-augmented-reality-glasses/

    Real cutting edge technology in some places, soul destroying poverty in others.

    Just like in so many other places. A massive difference with the US compared to so many other places is that a yokel from the back end of beyond can become a success. It is still the land of opportunity.

    I'm currently looking at various aspects of UK and US economy and politics. The differences in the background of our top twenty richest people is quite something, and looks very bad for us.
    Social mobility is actually higher in the UK than the US, albeit not much, although both lag Australia and the Nordic countries. The UK also has a higher average net worth than the US once you include The value of people's homes even though the US has a higher average per capita income
    It's hardly my area of expertise, but it seems there are many arguments about this. As an example:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/420794/does-us-have-lower-social-mobility-other-countries-scott-winship
    I think the difficulty is that social mobility varies tremendously by geography, so very poor in Appalachia, reasonably good in coastal California. I suspect the same also goes for the UK, albeit our geography is more compact.
    (Snip)
    Is the biggest factor in social mobility is physical mobility? If you are born in a sh*thole, the ability to move out to a better area with more opportunities. An advantage that would most be taken advantage of by the driven.
    Yes, I think so, and one of the reasons that London house prices are so toxic to the economic prospects. Talented people cannot move there, and it is much harder in most of the provinces to reach critical economic mass for new creative industries. Manchester or Bristol possibly, but not every provincial city can support a design and software culture.

    I also note on my travels that internationally this is true. Middle class lifestyles in Africa or Asia increasingly resemble western Norms, while the mass of poor people in these places live very different lives indeed.

    The series of travelogues on the Indian/Pakistan border showing at 2100 on Monday (after Nadiya's campaign to spread diabetes!) are quite revealing this way.
    A visit to India will confirm that. The ‘gap’ is truly horrifying.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,793
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,187

    Mike is uncharacteristically a little off the pace here. The graph for punters in this market to follow is on 538:

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    It's moved down quite sharply in the last couple of days. Trump's popularity figure is now down to 37.1%, not much above his all time low of 36.6%. These are historically very low numbers. Anything below 40% is dangerous. I should think if he gets below 35% he's losing the base and his own Party will want to see him gone before he can do much more damage.

    The betting markets have responded accordingly and started to shorten once more the odds of him not making the full term. The only odds to lengthen are those on him going this year, but that would be due to elapse of time rather than his position becoming stronger.

    It takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict a President, we are still a long way from that, especially if the Democrats fail to take the Senate next year even if they take the House
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953
    edited August 2017
    LOL, only the Guardian would print such rubbish. Thankfully even their own readers know that the sort of culture wars we see in the USA are probably not best imported over here. Let history be history and all work together towards a better future.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,953
    HYUFD said:

    Mike is uncharacteristically a little off the pace here. The graph for punters in this market to follow is on 538:

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    It's moved down quite sharply in the last couple of days. Trump's popularity figure is now down to 37.1%, not much above his all time low of 36.6%. These are historically very low numbers. Anything below 40% is dangerous. I should think if he gets below 35% he's losing the base and his own Party will want to see him gone before he can do much more damage.

    The betting markets have responded accordingly and started to shorten once more the odds of him not making the full term. The only odds to lengthen are those on him going this year, but that would be due to elapse of time rather than his position becoming stronger.

    It takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict a President, we are still a long way from that, especially if the Democrats fail to take the Senate next year even if they take the House
    And how many of the Democrats want to see President Pence standing against them in 2020, as opposed to a discredited Trump?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,187

    HYUFD said:

    Richard_H said:

    With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?

    Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.

    Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.

    Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
    I think history has proved that getting involved in a war in Afghanistan is ‘unwise’!!!!!

    I don’t know what the best course of action is, but sending in troops isn’t.
    Trump's Afghan policy is also surprisingly sensible. He has said he will only send troops to kill terrorists rather than nation build and he also left open the possibility of eventual talks with more moderate elements of the Taliban while driving out ISIS from the country
  • Options
    Has anyone had any bets paid out by Betfair last Thursday relating to the general election ?

    I've had some winnings but I don't know what they were for.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,187
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    Mike is uncharacteristically a little off the pace here. The graph for punters in this market to follow is on 538:

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    It's moved down quite sharply in the last couple of days. Trump's popularity figure is now down to 37.1%, not much above his all time low of 36.6%. These are historically very low numbers. Anything below 40% is dangerous. I should think if he gets below 35% he's losing the base and his own Party will want to see him gone before he can do much more damage.

    The betting markets have responded accordingly and started to shorten once more the odds of him not making the full term. The only odds to lengthen are those on him going this year, but that would be due to elapse of time rather than his position becoming stronger.

    It takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict a President, we are still a long way from that, especially if the Democrats fail to take the Senate next year even if they take the House
    And how many of the Democrats want to see President Pence standing against them in 2020, as opposed to a discredited Trump?
    Indeed, though polling in 2016 actually showed Pence polling worse against Hillary than Trump
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,187
    They did in 2015 too yet the Tories won a majority, it was the dementia tax not twitter which lost May her majority
  • Options

    Mr. Choose, don't have a bet365 account but that bet would be quite tempting if I did.

    Similar odds elsewhere. The best boxer ever against somebody having his first pro fight, 5/6 is theft.
    Thanks for the tip.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,455
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,083
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Richard_H said:

    With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?

    Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.

    Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.

    Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
    I think history has proved that getting involved in a war in Afghanistan is ‘unwise’!!!!!

    I don’t know what the best course of action is, but sending in troops isn’t.
    Had we not invaded Afghanistan in 2001 the Taliban would still be running the entire country and Bin Laden would still be alive, Corbyn of course opposed the original invasion and the killing of Bin Laden
    It all dates back to the Soviet inspired coup of 1978, as part of the Great Game. Prior to that Afghanistan society was ‘coming along nicely’.
    However, the CIA financial (and other) support of the mujahideen led to the success of the Taliban wing thereof.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,444
    Even the CiF readers see through the article as flimsy clickbait.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,083
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Richard_H said:

    With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?

    Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.

    Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.

    Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
    I think history has proved that getting involved in a war in Afghanistan is ‘unwise’!!!!!

    I don’t know what the best course of action is, but sending in troops isn’t.
    Trump's Afghan policy is also surprisingly sensible. He has said he will only send troops to kill terrorists rather than nation build and he also left open the possibility of eventual talks with more moderate elements of the Taliban while driving out ISIS from the country
    Agreed; that’s much better than simply trying to get rid of the Taliban
  • Options
    stodgestodge Posts: 12,899
    HYUFD said:


    Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away

    This is nonsense and you know it.

    The 9/11 attacks were on an unprecedented size, scale and severity and there had to be a response and naturally the British public (and let's not forget British people died in New York that day too) were supportive of the attempt to hunt down and eliminate Bin Laden and AQ.

    The "clueless pacifist left" (of which I'm one by your measure) were more doubtful about intervention in Iraq and unlike your hapless Party leader at the time, didn't believe the propaganda and didn't want to join Bush's foolish adventure. I think that view was vindicated by what has happened subsequently.

    What is the "answer" to radical Islam ? Well, you'd better believe if there was an easy one we'd be doing it by now. I suppose if the radicals are coming in from outside, there is something you can do - if the radicals are your own people and are among you already, that becomes much more difficult.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,455
    TonyE said:

    The world has officially gone mad...I turn on cnn and they are praising Steve bannon and brietbart for their stance on Afghanistan as a way to criticise trump. They actually said where is bannon when you need him.

    This decision was presumably one of the reasons Bannon had to go.

    How will the base react?
    When people said to me that Trump was going to be dangerous, I always replied that he would do just about exactly the same as his predecessors. The Washington machine now owns Trump, having stripped away the last of his own advisers and having replaced them with the right people.

    Actually, this move will see him survive his first term now, as there is no real reason to remove him now that he is doing what he's supposed to do. However, I think the odds on him being re-elected just got a lot longer, because he's now doing, and will continue to do, what his base elected him not to.
    Will the base remember why they elected him?

    Seriously though, I suspect Afghan won't affect his vote with the base. When he doesn't deliver a re-opened steel mill or coal mine in their town, then they'll probably turn. Even then, you read vox pops in which voters say they know really he probably wont be able to bring them back, but at least he talks about the issue and sounds like he gives a f*.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Richard_H said:

    With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?

    Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.

    Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.

    Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
    I supported actions in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time. It is only in recent years that i have questioned whether such actions make any sense in the long run. If it just provides a recruitment opportunity for terrorist groups, then it can't make any sense. If you have a problem in a particular country, then they need to sort it out within the region possibly with outside training or financial support.

    If you look at ISIS recruitment for example, they have had people join them from all over the world. I just wonder whether ISIS would have ever existed had it not been for Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Mike is uncharacteristically a little off the pace here. The graph for punters in this market to follow is on 538:

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

    It's moved down quite sharply in the last couple of days. Trump's popularity figure is now down to 37.1%, not much above his all time low of 36.6%. These are historically very low numbers. Anything below 40% is dangerous. I should think if he gets below 35% he's losing the base and his own Party will want to see him gone before he can do much more damage.

    The betting markets have responded accordingly and started to shorten once more the odds of him not making the full term. The only odds to lengthen are those on him going this year, but that would be due to elapse of time rather than his position becoming stronger.

    It takes 2/3 of the Senate to convict a President, we are still a long way from that, especially if the Democrats fail to take the Senate next year even if they take the House
    A conviction would be only one of a number of ways in which he might go. He could just walk, for a start. But if there's a will, there is sure to be a way and 35% is the level at which I would think the will becomes almost irresistible.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,455
    HYUFD said:

    They did in 2015 too yet the Tories won a majority, it was the dementia tax not twitter which lost May her majority
    Probably both. Social media helped turn out student first time voters. Dementia tax scared the living daylights out of middle and old age voters with property in the family.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,083
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away

    This is nonsense and you know it.

    The 9/11 attacks were on an unprecedented size, scale and severity and there had to be a response and naturally the British public (and let's not forget British people died in New York that day too) were supportive of the attempt to hunt down and eliminate Bin Laden and AQ.

    The "clueless pacifist left" (of which I'm one by your measure) were more doubtful about intervention in Iraq and unlike your hapless Party leader at the time, didn't believe the propaganda and didn't want to join Bush's foolish adventure. I think that view was vindicated by what has happened subsequently.

    What is the "answer" to radical Islam ? Well, you'd better believe if there was an easy one we'd be doing it by now. I suppose if the radicals are coming in from outside, there is something you can do - if the radicals are your own people and are among you already, that becomes much more difficult.
    Wsn’t 911 planned by Saudis, if not actually in Saudi Arabia?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,187

    HYUFD said:

    They did in 2015 too yet the Tories won a majority, it was the dementia tax not twitter which lost May her majority
    Probably both. Social media helped turn out student first time voters. Dementia tax scared the living daylights out of middle and old age voters with property in the family.
    No it was the opposition to tuition fees which turned out the young who Ed Miliband won anyway. It was the middle aged voters lost through the dementia tax which was key
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,455
    Public sector borrowing recorded a surplus of £0.2bn in July, its first July surplus since 2002.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,187

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Richard_H said:

    With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?

    Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.

    Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.

    Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
    I think history has proved that getting involved in a war in Afghanistan is ‘unwise’!!!!!

    I don’t know what the best course of action is, but sending in troops isn’t.
    Had we not invaded Afghanistan in 2001 the Taliban would still be running the entire country and Bin Laden would still be alive, Corbyn of course opposed the original invasion and the killing of Bin Laden
    It all dates back to the Soviet inspired coup of 1978, as part of the Great Game. Prior to that Afghanistan society was ‘coming along nicely’.
    However, the CIA financial (and other) support of the mujahideen led to the success of the Taliban wing thereof.
    The Cold War was a time when the Soviets were the greater threat
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,187

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Richard_H said:

    With Trump looking likely to increase US military actions in Aghanistan and elsewhere, perhaps now is the time for Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn ?

    Theresa May is more likely to support Trump with UK Armed Forces than Corbyn and therefore that risks more body bags arriving at Brize Norton. Given the security risks nearer to the UK, Corbyn might well receive more public support for investing in Armed Forces securing the UK and not risking their lifes thousands of miles away in actions that might prove useless in securing a more peaceful world.

    Trump is arguably a big problem for the UK, as he is not likely to be a reliable friend to the UK. With a trade deal after Brexit to be negotiated, i suspect Trump might well use this to argue for UK support with actions the US wishes to take. Given the importance of the value of defence exports in particular and the importance many Tories place on the US/UK ' special relationship', Theresa May might find it difficult to say no. Jeremy Corbyn would not have the same problem.

    Given Afghanistan was where 9/11 was launched of course we have an obligation to help beat ISIS and the Taliban there, a big majority of UK voters backed the Afghan invasion to topple the Taliban whatever the clueless pacifist left may think. As Barcelona has proved last week you do not escape radical Islam by burying your head in the sand and hoping it goes away
    I think history has proved that getting involved in a war in Afghanistan is ‘unwise’!!!!!

    I don’t know what the best course of action is, but sending in troops isn’t.
    Trump's Afghan policy is also surprisingly sensible. He has said he will only send troops to kill terrorists rather than nation build and he also left open the possibility of eventual talks with more moderate elements of the Taliban while driving out ISIS from the country
    Agreed; that’s much better than simply trying to get rid of the Taliban
    Agreed
This discussion has been closed.