I wonder if the Americans will finally change the idiotic Electoral College if he wins it again but loses the popular vote decisively. Three times in six elections is more than just odd happenstance.
It would need a Democrat win first. It would be 3 out 6 all in one direction. Incidentally the Dems have won the popular vote 6 of the last 7. They aren't the out of touch ones as sometimes wrongly portrayed.
The Dems are out of touch with middle America. They're incredibly popular with the coastal states.
The popular vote and electoral college reflects that reality. They need to appeal more in the Midwest.
Which is a fair point. However it could also be said the Republicans are out of touch with coastal America. They need to appeal more to cities, the Pacific, and the Northeast. No sign that they are even trying.
They're winning at the moment so don't have as much need to try. But Trump won precisely because he did target blue states in the Midwest etc and Hillary neglected them.
If the Democrats get their shit together and start taking the Midwest back on narrow margins . . . And if the Democrats manage to flip Texas . . . Then the Electoral could play massively in the Democrats favour. In that scenario it's entirely possible the Democrats could lose the popular vote and win the Presidency at which point expect the GOP to want to abolish the Electoral College and the Democrats to just as suddenly want to keep it.
Even if that were to happen, I’d still oppose it. Idiotic system.
The Electoral College might make sense of you were electing 538 regional space captains to sit on a star council, but you are electing one person to rule the entire territory.
Ergo, all votes should be equal.
The American ECV system is designed to stop candidates doing what Hillary Clinton did last time, which is to ignore the flyover states. Hillary easily won the popular vote and would be president today if anyone on her staff knew anything at all about the American political system. She might have been President back in 2008 when she made precisely the same mistake in her primary campaign against Barack Obama.
Agreed. I support the Electoral College as it is despite it working against my preferred candidates. In the UK I'd definitely vote Tory but in the USA the Democrats definitely. Reagan historically would have had my support but he's long before my time and the modern GOP is nothing like him.
Hillary knew the USA uses the Electoral College system and still she chose deliberately not to campaign in previously blue states she lost. Trump did not deserve to win but she deserved to lose.
If the Electoral College was abolished why would the flyover states matter anymore? That's not healthy.
Of the top 20 American cities by population the majority will not see a campaign stop bar closed door fund raisers.
The EC means no campaigning in Memphis or Indianapolis but 5 million rallies in Miami and Jacksonville.
Nothing for Fort Worth or Pheonix but a million visits to Charlotte.
Abolishing the EC would see more visits and attention to the flyover states not less.
Not very different to a UK GE, where all the efforts are in 100 seats.
There is real neglect of Kansas Democrats and Massachusets Republicans despite both being fairly substantial minorities. Matched by neglect of Leicester Tories, and Labour voters in Melton.
There is little point electorally in nurturing these voters, but if the Tories needed to care for the cities, and Labour their countryside vote, both parties would be better for it.
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death?
It will be because of this country's brazen disregard for wearing face masks and total disregard for hand sanitizers.
Go anywhere else in the first world and both are widely used.
The British are blighted by a fatal combination of piss-poor leadership, ignorance and arrogance.
Walked, in a face mask, down to the local pharmacy yesterday. Saw, I suppose, some 20-30 people out and about in the small town where I live. I was the only one in a face-mask.
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death? 2. How on earth, out of 340 million people, did the USA get a choice between Hillary and Donald last time and then have to make a choice between Joe and Donald this time. 3. There have been many comments on PB about the absolutely dismal communications from the government. Can you imagine the likes of Alistair Campbell allowing the media to dictate the narrative of the day. Who on earth is running the media brief? Every Cabinet Minister or adviser (yes Mr Cummings, I'm looking at you) should be running their messages and activities past a media savvy advisor who should have the power of veto. (No Mr Cummings, I know it's your wife's birthday but do not visit Specsavers)
Insofar as your middle one is a serious question rather than a pointed comment,
I think it's a question many serious political analysts frequently ask themselves. How does a nation that is apparently so successful continually offer up complete schmucks as candidates?
In my lifetime there have been two good Presidents: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And probably one who was passable: George Bush Snr. And that's it.
Reagan was the surprise because in many ways a fifth-rate actor should have been a deadbeat. He turned out to be pretty darned good.
Sorry for your passing in 2008
You think Obama was a good President? Or are you just putting that because he wasn't white?
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death? 2. How on earth, out of 340 million people, did the USA get a choice between Hillary and Donald last time and then have to make a choice between Joe and Donald this time. 3. There have been many comments on PB about the absolutely dismal communications from the government. Can you imagine the likes of Alistair Campbell allowing the media to dictate the narrative of the day. Who on earth is running the media brief? Every Cabinet Minister or adviser (yes Mr Cummings, I'm looking at you) should be running their messages and activities past a media savvy advisor who should have the power of veto. (No Mr Cummings, I know it's your wife's birthday but do not visit Specsavers)
Insofar as your middle one is a serious question rather than a pointed comment,
I think it's a question many serious political analysts frequently ask themselves. How does a nation that is apparently so successful continually offer up complete schmucks as candidates?
In my lifetime there have been two good Presidents: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And probably one who was passable: George Bush Snr. And that's it.
Reagan was the surprise because in many ways a fifth-rate actor should have been a deadbeat. He turned out to be pretty darned good.
I remember well that he was seen as an idiot when he was elected. He had the sense to stick to his primary profession and simply read the lines that were written for him by more talented people behind him.
It’s a saving grace of the US system that the checks and balances limit the damage that even a moron can do. The flip side being that someone genuinely able like Obama cannot get much done.
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death?
It will be because of this country's brazen disregard for wearing face masks and total disregard for hand sanitizers.
Go anywhere else in the first world and both are widely used.
The British are blighted by a fatal combination of piss-poor leadership, ignorance and arrogance.
Scandinavia has the lowest mask usage. (Then the UK).
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death? 2. How on earth, out of 340 million people, did the USA get a choice between Hillary and Donald last time and then have to make a choice between Joe and Donald this time. 3. There have been many comments on PB about the absolutely dismal communications from the government. Can you imagine the likes of Alistair Campbell allowing the media to dictate the narrative of the day. Who on earth is running the media brief? Every Cabinet Minister or adviser (yes Mr Cummings, I'm looking at you) should be running their messages and activities past a media savvy advisor who should have the power of veto. (No Mr Cummings, I know it's your wife's birthday but do not visit Specsavers)
Insofar as your middle one is a serious question rather than a pointed comment, the answer has a lot to do with the political process generally being better at screening for negative characteristics than selecting for positive ones. For example when you look at the Dem primaries, a wide range of relatively talented candidates were rejected one by one for their perceived negatives until Biden as the least common denominator was left standing.
Interestingly Trump himself is the exception to this, as he had a shedload of negatives but arguably was selected initially for his electorally positive attribute of being able to tap into the contemporary discontent of his target voters. And having lots of money, of course.
He tapped in so well he got less votes than out of touch plutocrat Romney did in Wisconsin.
2016 was about Hilary being phenomenally unpopular AND an appalling campaigner.
That’s a fail for not reading the question.
The question was why the choice was Clinton or Trump, and hence why a Trump was selected, not why he was elected.
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death? 2. How on earth, out of 340 million people, did the USA get a choice between Hillary and Donald last time and then have to make a choice between Joe and Donald this time. 3. There have been many comments on PB about the absolutely dismal communications from the government. Can you imagine the likes of Alistair Campbell allowing the media to dictate the narrative of the day. Who on earth is running the media brief? Every Cabinet Minister or adviser (yes Mr Cummings, I'm looking at you) should be running their messages and activities past a media savvy advisor who should have the power of veto. (No Mr Cummings, I know it's your wife's birthday but do not visit Specsavers)
Insofar as your middle one is a serious question rather than a pointed comment,
I think it's a question many serious political analysts frequently ask themselves. How does a nation that is apparently so successful continually offer up complete schmucks as candidates?
In my lifetime there have been two good Presidents: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And probably one who was passable: George Bush Snr. And that's it.
Reagan was the surprise because in many ways a fifth-rate actor should have been a deadbeat. He turned out to be pretty darned good.
I remember well that he was seen as an idiot when he was elected. He had the sense to stick to his primary progression and simply read the lines that were written for him by more talented people behind him.
It’s a saving grace of the US system that the checks and balances limit the damage that even a moron can do. The flip side being that someone genuinely able like Obama cannot get much done.
Reagan was quite a good Union organiser and State Governor, before running for President, but he was also fortunate to be elected in benign economic times.
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death?
It will be because of this country's brazen disregard for wearing face masks and total disregard for hand sanitizers.
Go anywhere else in the first world and both are widely used.
The British are blighted by a fatal combination of piss-poor leadership, ignorance and arrogance.
Scandinavia has the lowest mask usage. (Then the UK).
Lower than Sudan? Or Mali?
I’m guessing a lot more of the population has their face covered in both those places...
Trump didn't expect to win in 2016. Winning wasn't his plan - run, massive publicity, blame the rigged system, massive business boost. Then he unexpectedly won, crying from whatever his scowling wife is called, and oh shit we have to do this thing. The reason why he has been so crap as President is that he is the least suited person possible to be President according to his friends (read Michael Wolfff's book).
So why would he pull out in 2020? If he loses he will blame the media the minorities the liars the cheats if robbing America of its greatness. Then he will invoke shitkicker America to get its guns and wage war against their enemies. Minorities. Liberals. Governors. Reporters. The last week and a half has been a warm-up for what we can expect post the election. Trump the matyr, cheated by the dems, silenced by the liberals, the Totemic hero figure for dumb bastards with guns who invoke the name of the President whikst they burn America to the ground.
Trump didn't expect to win in 2016. Winning wasn't his plan - run, massive publicity, blame the rigged system, massive business boost. Then he unexpectedly won, crying from whatever his scowling wife is called, and oh shit we have to do this thing. The reason why he has been so crap as President is that he is the least suited person possible to be President according to his friends (read Michael Wolfff's book).
You could more or less swap Trump for BoZo in that paragraph
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death? 2. How on earth, out of 340 million people, did the USA get a choice between Hillary and Donald last time and then have to make a choice between Joe and Donald this time. 3. There have been many comments on PB about the absolutely dismal communications from the government. Can you imagine the likes of Alistair Campbell allowing the media to dictate the narrative of the day. Who on earth is running the media brief? Every Cabinet Minister or adviser (yes Mr Cummings, I'm looking at you) should be running their messages and activities past a media savvy advisor who should have the power of veto. (No Mr Cummings, I know it's your wife's birthday but do not visit Specsavers)
Insofar as your middle one is a serious question rather than a pointed comment,
I think it's a question many serious political analysts frequently ask themselves. How does a nation that is apparently so successful continually offer up complete schmucks as candidates?
In my lifetime there have been two good Presidents: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And probably one who was passable: George Bush Snr. And that's it.
Reagan was the surprise because in many ways a fifth-rate actor should have been a deadbeat. He turned out to be pretty darned good.
Sorry for your passing in 2008
You think Obama was a good President? Or are you just putting that because he wasn't white?
He was pretty crap, frankly.
He is an excellent orator, warmth, empathy and the US economy did well after he took over following the GFC. Foreign misadventures were minor compared to other presidents. What were his failings do you think ?
Justin124 on previous thread re Preseli Pembs. Genuine question why is it pretty certain Wales will lose seats in boundary changes? Dynamics of 2019? Like everywhere else Brexit and Corbyn. Crabbe not popular but this is a Tory marginal. Labour could do with a bit of Cardigan!
Wales is overrepresented at Westminster in terms of its population. Formerly this was also true of Scotland, but post- Devolution the number of seats there has been reduced from over 70 to 59. Wales currently has 40 seats , but should only have 32 in a House of Commons of 650. Had the plan - now abandoned - to reduce numbers to 600 gone ahead, seats in Wales would have fallen to 30.
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death? 2. How on earth, out of 340 million people, did the USA get a choice between Hillary and Donald last time and then have to make a choice between Joe and Donald this time. 3. There have been many comments on PB about the absolutely dismal communications from the government. Can you imagine the likes of Alistair Campbell allowing the media to dictate the narrative of the day. Who on earth is running the media brief? Every Cabinet Minister or adviser (yes Mr Cummings, I'm looking at you) should be running their messages and activities past a media savvy advisor who should have the power of veto. (No Mr Cummings, I know it's your wife's birthday but do not visit Specsavers)
Insofar as your middle one is a serious question rather than a pointed comment,
I think it's a question many serious political analysts frequently ask themselves. How does a nation that is apparently so successful continually offer up complete schmucks as candidates?
In my lifetime there have been two good Presidents: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And probably one who was passable: George Bush Snr. And that's it.
Reagan was the surprise because in many ways a fifth-rate actor should have been a deadbeat. He turned out to be pretty darned good.
Sorry for your passing in 2008
You think Obama was a good President? Or are you just putting that because he wasn't white?
He was pretty crap, frankly.
He is an excellent orator, warmth, empathy and the US economy did well after he took over following the GFC. Foreign misadventures were minor compared to other presidents. What were his failings do you think ?
Ultimately he was thwarted by the checks and balances of the US system and the Repulicans' ruthlessness in being utterly shameless in using every lever to block him. His own preference for consensus and unwillingness to give up the high ground to get down and dirty compounded the problem.
There is a lot of ignorance around the use of face masks. The science is not definitive for a variety of reasons. For any mask that relies on face-fitting, especially the so-called nuisance mask, you need to be clean shaven. Female and some Asian faces don't tend to fit well on the RPE supplied.
"Oh, but it stops cough and sneezes." So does a handkerchief, And the false confidence it engenders is genuine. I can see why it could (and that depends on behaviour) help in enclosed spaces where social distancing is impossible. And outside, it can be useful as a fashion item.
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death? 2. How on earth, out of 340 million people, did the USA get a choice between Hillary and Donald last time and then have to make a choice between Joe and Donald this time. 3. There have been many comments on PB about the absolutely dismal communications from the government. Can you imagine the likes of Alistair Campbell allowing the media to dictate the narrative of the day. Who on earth is running the media brief? Every Cabinet Minister or adviser (yes Mr Cummings, I'm looking at you) should be running their messages and activities past a media savvy advisor who should have the power of veto. (No Mr Cummings, I know it's your wife's birthday but do not visit Specsavers)
Insofar as your middle one is a serious question rather than a pointed comment,
I think it's a question many serious political analysts frequently ask themselves. How does a nation that is apparently so successful continually offer up complete schmucks as candidates?
In my lifetime there have been two good Presidents: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And probably one who was passable: George Bush Snr. And that's it.
Reagan was the surprise because in many ways a fifth-rate actor should have been a deadbeat. He turned out to be pretty darned good.
Sorry for your passing in 2008
You think Obama was a good President? Or are you just putting that because he wasn't white?
He was pretty crap, frankly.
He is an excellent orator, warmth, empathy and the US economy did well after he took over following the GFC. Foreign misadventures were minor compared to other presidents. What were his failings do you think ?
He wasn't a particularly good orator at all and he never got anything done. Virtually nothing. Eight years which promised much and delivered very little.
Dems tend to look back on him more favourably but that's mainly African-Americans.
Don't get me wrong: it was brilliant to have an African-American President but take away his skin colour and he wasn't very good.
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death? 2. How on earth, out of 340 million people, did the USA get a choice between Hillary and Donald last time and then have to make a choice between Joe and Donald this time. 3. There have been many comments on PB about the absolutely dismal communications from the government. Can you imagine the likes of Alistair Campbell allowing the media to dictate the narrative of the day. Who on earth is running the media brief? Every Cabinet Minister or adviser (yes Mr Cummings, I'm looking at you) should be running their messages and activities past a media savvy advisor who should have the power of veto. (No Mr Cummings, I know it's your wife's birthday but do not visit Specsavers)
Insofar as your middle one is a serious question rather than a pointed comment,
I think it's a question many serious political analysts frequently ask themselves. How does a nation that is apparently so successful continually offer up complete schmucks as candidates?
In my lifetime there have been two good Presidents: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And probably one who was passable: George Bush Snr. And that's it.
Reagan was the surprise because in many ways a fifth-rate actor should have been a deadbeat. He turned out to be pretty darned good.
Sorry for your passing in 2008
You think Obama was a good President? Or are you just putting that because he wasn't white?
He was pretty crap, frankly.
He is an excellent orator, warmth, empathy and the US economy did well after he took over following the GFC. Foreign misadventures were minor compared to other presidents. What were his failings do you think ?
Ultimately he was thwarted by the checks and balances of the US system and the Repulicans' ruthlessness in being utterly shameless in using every lever to block him. His own preference for consensus and unwillingness to give up the high ground to get down and dirty compounded the problem.
A great President works Congress. This was one of his biggest failings. He was poor on International relations and REALLY poor on handling Congress.
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death?
It will be because of this country's brazen disregard for wearing face masks and total disregard for hand sanitizers.
Go anywhere else in the first world and both are widely used.
The British are blighted by a fatal combination of piss-poor leadership, ignorance and arrogance.
Four weeks ago everyone on here was predicting a massive spike in cases two weeks ago because of VE Day. English posters of both left and right on this board, for different reasons, do not hold their countrymen in high regard. “It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him," wrote George Bernard Shaw. You could add “or go outside”
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death? 2. How on earth, out of 340 million people, did the USA get a choice between Hillary and Donald last time and then have to make a choice between Joe and Donald this time. 3. There have been many comments on PB about the absolutely dismal communications from the government. Can you imagine the likes of Alistair Campbell allowing the media to dictate the narrative of the day. Who on earth is running the media brief? Every Cabinet Minister or adviser (yes Mr Cummings, I'm looking at you) should be running their messages and activities past a media savvy advisor who should have the power of veto. (No Mr Cummings, I know it's your wife's birthday but do not visit Specsavers)
Insofar as your middle one is a serious question rather than a pointed comment,
I think it's a question many serious political analysts frequently ask themselves. How does a nation that is apparently so successful continually offer up complete schmucks as candidates?
In my lifetime there have been two good Presidents: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And probably one who was passable: George Bush Snr. And that's it.
Reagan was the surprise because in many ways a fifth-rate actor should have been a deadbeat. He turned out to be pretty darned good.
Sorry for your passing in 2008
You think Obama was a good President? Or are you just putting that because he wasn't white?
He was pretty crap, frankly.
He is an excellent orator, warmth, empathy and the US economy did well after he took over following the GFC. Foreign misadventures were minor compared to other presidents. What were his failings do you think ?
He wasn't a particularly good orator at all and he never got anything done. Virtually nothing. Eight years which promised much and delivered very little.
Dems tend to look back on him more favourably but that's mainly African-Americans.
Don't get me wrong: it was brilliant to have an African-American President but take away his skin colour and he wasn't very good.
Apart from the complete overhaul eh? The thing the everyone said was completely impossible?
Whilst I don't want to go down the flag-waving 'we won the Cold War' route, which has it's antecedents in the national ignominy of Vietnam, there's no doubt that Ronald Reagan was brilliant on the international stage. He got on famously with Thatcher and was crucial in the massive changes taking place behind the Iron Curtain.
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death? 2. How on earth, out of 340 million people, did the USA get a choice between Hillary and Donald last time and then have to make a choice between Joe and Donald this time. 3. There have been many comments on PB about the absolutely dismal communications from the government. Can you imagine the likes of Alistair Campbell allowing the media to dictate the narrative of the day. Who on earth is running the media brief? Every Cabinet Minister or adviser (yes Mr Cummings, I'm looking at you) should be running their messages and activities past a media savvy advisor who should have the power of veto. (No Mr Cummings, I know it's your wife's birthday but do not visit Specsavers)
Insofar as your middle one is a serious question rather than a pointed comment,
I think it's a question many serious political analysts frequently ask themselves. How does a nation that is apparently so successful continually offer up complete schmucks as candidates?
In my lifetime there have been two good Presidents: Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. And probably one who was passable: George Bush Snr. And that's it.
Reagan was the surprise because in many ways a fifth-rate actor should have been a deadbeat. He turned out to be pretty darned good.
Sorry for your passing in 2008
You think Obama was a good President? Or are you just putting that because he wasn't white?
He was pretty crap, frankly.
He is an excellent orator, warmth, empathy and the US economy did well after he took over following the GFC. Foreign misadventures were minor compared to other presidents. What were his failings do you think ?
He wasn't a particularly good orator at all and he never got anything done. Virtually nothing. Eight years which promised much and delivered very little.
Dems tend to look back on him more favourably but that's mainly African-Americans.
Don't get me wrong: it was brilliant to have an African-American President but take away his skin colour and he wasn't very good.
Apart from the complete overhaul eh? The thing the everyone said was completely impossible?
One to file under you can not make these people up
Darwin Awards have announced their temporary suspension during 2020.
‘With so many contenders, it was impossible to keep track,’ said Wendy Northcutt. ‘In particular, there were so many utter fucking cretins who caught Covid 19 while protesting that it was perfectly safe and they should be allowed to ignore lockdown it put an intolerable strain on the whole system.’
Northcutt hopes to restart the awards next year, but is concerned that the clearout of so many utter morons will leave the field next year very threadbare.
I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.
Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.
Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
It's not impossible for a pint. I've had four takeaway pints of lager in the last week from the Black Lion in Hammersmith and drank them on the Thames "beach". Safe queues and no crowds on the "beach"!
I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.
Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
My local garage has had that arrangement for about nine weeks now.
I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.
Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.
Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
It's not impossible for a pint. I've had four takeaway pints of lager in the last week from the Black Lion in Hammersmith and drank them on the Thames "beach". Safe queues and no crowds on the "beach"!
There ought to be an academic convention that people's titles should be modified where appropriate to "Prof (FADS)" and so on, for "From A Different Specialism". In some cases the letters LTL could be added after the name as an additional note of caution, for "Loving The Limelight".
Same with political affiliation. A doctor who also happens to be a leading Momentum activist who stood at the 2019 election, is unlikely to be giving a professional medic’s view of the situation when interviewed on the TV news.
I don't know who will win the 2020 US Presidential election.
President Trump is a great campaigner and he likes nothing more than stumping from arena to arena and giving long self aggrandising speeches. The recent riots in the US play into his hands, and probably help get his core vote out.
Against that, I think CV-19 pain in the US is likely to worsen. In Arizona, Saturday and Sunday were the worst two days for new cases. In Georgia, the new case count continues to climb. North Carolina is also seeing CV-19 cases running at all time highs.
Almost a third of the world's CV-19 cases are now in the US.
We could well see another New York situation somewhere else in America between now and polling day.
Rioting in cities - and bear in mind that 99.9% of Americans will see nothing more than is on Fox or CNN - actually affects very few people. Granny dying of CV-19 while you mother-in-law is hospitalised could affect 100x as many people.
I don't doubt that on the stump, Trump will blame the spread of CV-19 on Democrat-backed rioters....
I don't know who will win the 2020 US Presidential election.
President Trump is a great campaigner and he likes nothing more than stumping from arena to arena and giving long self aggrandising speeches. The recent riots in the US play into his hands, and probably help get his core vote out.
Against that, I think CV-19 pain in the US is likely to worsen. In Arizona, Saturday and Sunday were the worst two days for new cases. In Georgia, the new case count continues to climb. North Carolina is also seeing CV-19 cases running at all time highs.
Almost a third of the world's CV-19 cases are now in the US.
We could well see another New York situation somewhere else in America between now and polling day.
Rioting in cities - and bear in mind that 99.9% of Americans will see nothing more than is on Fox or CNN - actually affects very few people. Granny dying of CV-19 while you mother-in-law is hospitalised could affect 100x as many people.
It’s hard to campaign on a law and order platform when you are the incumbent. This rioting all happened on his watch and, for all his bluster, he’s done nothing about it. In fact Democrats will campaign on the fact his rhetoric made it worse.
The HSL Laboratories in Sheffiel,d and later when they located to Buxton, had a whole section of scientists working on RPE issues. They published loads of papers in the science journals. HSE sponsored most of the research. Obviously work on COVID-19 wasn't included at that time.
But "The science is solid. Wear a face mask and you are around 97% less likely to catch a virus like CV-19." is a bold assertion. Have you a reference from peer-reviewed journal?
So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
I would put the first Bush above Reagan. We now know that Reagan's overly aggressive rhetoric towards the Soviet Union could have caused a nuclear war in 1983, had our intelligence been just a little worse.
The end of the Cold War had little to do with Reagan - it was much more influenced by changes within the Soviet system, in particular its loss of the moral high ground and its disastrous economic performance. And Reagan almost blundered at Rekjavik.
But the first Bush managed the collapse of the eastern bloc pretty well and was spectacularly good at the first Gulf War, though he stopped a day or two too early.
If FN rebranded (new name) and had a new leader (not Le Pen) leading it then I could see Macron being defeated in the second round of a presidential election.
Things I think are really weird (such as anti-americanism, anti-NATO and pro-Russian sentiment) seem to have a big constituency there. And the French can be fairly nationalist.
Interesting that Rightmove has reported its busiest day ever last week, and estate agents say there are tons of people now looking to move out of cities.
I'm still calling peak London, as I did back in March.
Those saying Clinton would have won had she campaigned in the Midwest states in 2016 are making a rather big assumption that she'd have won rather than lost votes.
Specifically based on OPOV Florida would have roughly 12.5x the number of voters than West Virginia has.
The House element of the Electoral College vote is 3 for West Virginia to 27 for Florida. But both States get the same fixed 2 for the Senate. That extra 2 boosts Florida from 27 to 29, but boosts West Virginia from 3 to 5. Pretty significant for them!
As a result via the Electoral College Florida outweighs West Virginia by 5.8 to 1 instead of 12.5 to 1.
Small states like West Virginia definitely gain from the system.
The gain by smaller states has pretty much zero bias towards either side.
Good morning g everybody. Wasn't a bias towards smaller states the Founding Fathers aim; to prevent a couple of big states overwhelming several smaller ones.
The Senate provides the equal representation for small states. Every state getting two Senators.
The electoral college was the mechanism they came up with to deal with slavery/slave states (by counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person when apportioning EC votes by state.
No slavery, no electoral college.
That's not true.
The three fifths compromise wasn't coined for the Electoral College it was coined for the legislature (House of Representatives) and taxation.
It indirectly featured in the Electoral College because the Electoral College is House plus Senate but that wasn't the primary concern.
Furthermore if they'd wanted to purely let that be the factor they could have done the Electoral College as the House alone but they didn't do that. They deliberately did House plus Senate which deliberately scaled up the EC representation of smaller States.
So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
I would put the first Bush above Reagan. We now know that Reagan's overly aggressive rhetoric towards the Soviet Union could have caused a nuclear war in 1983, had our intelligence been just a little worse.
The end of the Cold War had little to do with Reagan - it was much more influenced by changes within the Soviet system, in particular its loss of the moral high ground and its disastrous economic performance. And Reagan almost blundered at Rekjavik.
But the first Bush managed the collapse of the eastern bloc pretty well and was spectacularly good at the first Gulf War, though he stopped a day or two too early.
That last point is open to interpretation. Granted it meant Saddam remained in power but if Bush had taken Saddam out the entire next 20 years would just have been very different.
Questions for tonight: 1. In a week or two's Time, when the number of CV19 positive tests in London increase, will it be because of the Lockdown easing or because many, many people stood n the middle of London shouting for all they could about the injustice of George Floyd's death?
It will be because of this country's brazen disregard for wearing face masks and total disregard for hand sanitizers.
Go anywhere else in the first world and both are widely used.
The British are blighted by a fatal combination of piss-poor leadership, ignorance and arrogance.
Scandinavia has the lowest mask usage. (Then the UK).
Lower than Sudan? Or Mali?
I’m guessing a lot more of the population has their face covered in both those places...
So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
The attention you were paying at such a young age is remarkable...
Specifically based on OPOV Florida would have roughly 12.5x the number of voters than West Virginia has.
The House element of the Electoral College vote is 3 for West Virginia to 27 for Florida. But both States get the same fixed 2 for the Senate. That extra 2 boosts Florida from 27 to 29, but boosts West Virginia from 3 to 5. Pretty significant for them!
As a result via the Electoral College Florida outweighs West Virginia by 5.8 to 1 instead of 12.5 to 1.
Small states like West Virginia definitely gain from the system.
The gain by smaller states has pretty much zero bias towards either side.
Good morning g everybody. Wasn't a bias towards smaller states the Founding Fathers aim; to prevent a couple of big states overwhelming several smaller ones.
The Senate provides the equal representation for small states. Every state getting two Senators.
The electoral college was the mechanism they came up with to deal with slavery/slave states (by counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person when apportioning EC votes by state.
They decided they would oppose everything he did. Every move, every announcement, everything.
Hence how you ended up with complete GOP opposition to a healthcare bill that had essentially been written by a republican think tank (heritage foundation) and implemented by a republican governor (Romeny in Massachusetts).
When the republicans took the house in 2010, this effectively ended his domestic policy agenda.
Mitch McConnell poisoned the well. It's his enduring legacy.
They decided they would oppose everything he did. Every move, every announcement, everything.
Hence how you ended up with complete GOP opposition to a healthcare bill that had essentially been written by a republican think tank (heritage foundation) and implemented by a republican governor (Romeny in Massachusetts).
When the republicans took the house in 2010, this effectively ended his domestic policy agenda.
Mitch McConnell poisoned the well. It's his enduring legacy.
True, but the same applied to Clinton from 1992 to 1994, when the republicans took the House for the first time in 40 years.
This quarantine is the most ridiculous and untimely initiative and the gvt minister on R4 is completely unable to present any logic to justify it at all.
Edit/ and the minister has just said that the Police won't be responsible for checking whether returning travellers are staying where they have said they would - apparently this responsibility will fall to the NHS!
So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
The attention you were paying at such a young age is remarkable...
Not only that, many of he achievements I list above occurred while I was gestating or before.
I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.
Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
My local garage has had that arrangement for about nine weeks now.
So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
If Nixon had been assassinated just after the 72 election he'd have been (even with Watergate as it was then known about) regarded as one of the all time greats. Like JFK or Lincoln.
So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
I would put the first Bush above Reagan. We now know that Reagan's overly aggressive rhetoric towards the Soviet Union could have caused a nuclear war in 1983, had our intelligence been just a little worse.
The end of the Cold War had little to do with Reagan - it was much more influenced by changes within the Soviet system, in particular its loss of the moral high ground and its disastrous economic performance. And Reagan almost blundered at Rekjavik.
But the first Bush managed the collapse of the eastern bloc pretty well and was spectacularly good at the first Gulf War, though he stopped a day or two too early.
There is a good argument to be made that the economic collapse of the Soviet Union was due to their attempt to keep up militarily with the USA. The Strategic Defence Initiative was derided by some in the West as “Star Wars”, but I think it was taken much more seriously by the Soviets, based on a visit to Moscow back in ‘86.
Those saying Clinton would have won had she campaigned in the Midwest states in 2016 are making a rather big assumption that she'd have won rather than lost votes.
Specifically based on OPOV Florida would have roughly 12.5x the number of voters than West Virginia has.
The House element of the Electoral College vote is 3 for West Virginia to 27 for Florida. But both States get the same fixed 2 for the Senate. That extra 2 boosts Florida from 27 to 29, but boosts West Virginia from 3 to 5. Pretty significant for them!
As a result via the Electoral College Florida outweighs West Virginia by 5.8 to 1 instead of 12.5 to 1.
Small states like West Virginia definitely gain from the system.
The gain by smaller states has pretty much zero bias towards either side.
Good morning g everybody. Wasn't a bias towards smaller states the Founding Fathers aim; to prevent a couple of big states overwhelming several smaller ones.
The Senate provides the equal representation for small states. Every state getting two Senators.
The electoral college was the mechanism they came up with to deal with slavery/slave states (by counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person when apportioning EC votes by state.
No slavery, no electoral college.
Of course. Thanks.
$Edit: And I note Mr T's post. Must look it up.
OK, according to Wikipedia, I was originally partially right. Had a dim memory of the slavery issue, which confused me.
Trouble is, at my school doing Science meant no History after the Third Form. As a result my historical knowledge tends to be a ragbag of 'stuff' I've picked en route through life.
This quarantine is the most ridiculous and untimely initiative and the gvt minister on R4 is completely unable to present any logic to justify it at all.
Edit/ and the minister has just said that the Police won't be responsible for checking whether returning travellers are staying where they have said they would - apparently this responsibility will fall to the NHS!
If you're going to compulsorily quarantine arrivals, it needs to be in isolated facilities. Take over hotels and charge the guests £50 a night for their bed and board, as numerous other countries are doing.
This quarantine is the most ridiculous and untimely initiative and the gvt minister on R4 is completely unable to present any logic to justify it at all.
Edit/ and the minister has just said that the Police won't be responsible for checking whether returning travellers are staying where they have said they would - apparently this responsibility will fall to the NHS!
Rachel Reeves has just said she supports it as do all the First Ministers
Of course the very fact it comes into place on monday will by its nature prevent tens of thousands coming in the first place
The silver lining is that it should boost staycations and help the hotel and leisure industry
F1: about four and a half weeks until the first race. I do wonder how all the downtime and prolonged gap from testing might affect things. No idea how much development teams have been doing either.
Specifically based on OPOV Florida would have roughly 12.5x the number of voters than West Virginia has.
The House element of the Electoral College vote is 3 for West Virginia to 27 for Florida. But both States get the same fixed 2 for the Senate. That extra 2 boosts Florida from 27 to 29, but boosts West Virginia from 3 to 5. Pretty significant for them!
As a result via the Electoral College Florida outweighs West Virginia by 5.8 to 1 instead of 12.5 to 1.
Small states like West Virginia definitely gain from the system.
The gain by smaller states has pretty much zero bias towards either side.
Good morning g everybody. Wasn't a bias towards smaller states the Founding Fathers aim; to prevent a couple of big states overwhelming several smaller ones.
The Senate provides the equal representation for small states. Every state getting two Senators.
The electoral college was the mechanism they came up with to deal with slavery/slave states (by counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person when apportioning EC votes by state.
No slavery, no electoral college.
That's not true.
The three fifths compromise wasn't coined for the Electoral College it was coined for the legislature (House of Representatives) and taxation.
It indirectly featured in the Electoral College because the Electoral College is House plus Senate but that wasn't the primary concern.
Furthermore if they'd wanted to purely let that be the factor they could have done the Electoral College as the House alone but they didn't do that. They deliberately did House plus Senate which deliberately scaled up the EC representation of smaller States.
The Electoral. College only exists because of slavery. It is very clear and obvious from contemporary writing.
One man one vote was proposed for electing the president but was opposed by Slave States.
Madison opposed one man one vote specifically because it put slave owning states at a disadvantage and his counter offer was the 2/5 th slaves.
F1: about four and a half weeks until the first race. I do wonder how all the downtime and prolonged gap from testing might affect things. No idea how much development teams have been doing either.
The teams just went back to their factories this week, after an F1-imposed 63-day shutdown. So the cars now look very much like they just came back from Melbourne, with very little work having been done since then.
30 days until first practice in Austria, nyyooommmmmm!!!
I cannot accept that this is a good idea but looking across social media and facebook it does surprise me how many actual support it and ask why mps should not experience queing when the public are
So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
If Nixon had been assassinated just after the 72 election he'd have been (even with Watergate as it was then known about) regarded as one of the all time greats. Like JFK or Lincoln.
There is a Red Dwarf episode (of all things) that looks at what would have happened if Kennedy had not been assassinated. Lots of things would not have gone well is the general conclusion.
Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.
It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
My latest calculation of R based on reported cases as of 25th May (more recent days data will change so ignored):
England 0.64 (-0.02) London 0.57 (-0.01) No reported cases in Richmond in the last seven days. No sign of any uptick in R.
Technical question. Are you assuming a serial interval for your calculations ?
Seven days. I'm calculating R as the ratio of the previous seven days (i.e. days -1 to -7) reported cases to the previous seven days (i.e. days -8 to -14). This removes the "weekend effect" and allows seven days for new cases to show. I've done sensitivity analyses for different periods and it is not highly sensitive. The message is the same. A very small reduction in R so far. It will be interesting to see what it is in a week or two's time following the sunny weather and the demos.
This quarantine is the most ridiculous and untimely initiative and the gvt minister on R4 is completely unable to present any logic to justify it at all.
Edit/ and the minister has just said that the Police won't be responsible for checking whether returning travellers are staying where they have said they would - apparently this responsibility will fall to the NHS!
If you're going to compulsorily quarantine arrivals, it needs to be in isolated facilities. Take over hotels and charge the guests £50 a night for their bed and board, as numerous other countries are doing.
The fact that the NHS is to be tasked with policing it (calling in the real police where they find transgressions, presumably) is even more idiotic than the policy itself.
It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
My latest calculation of R based on reported cases as of 25th May (more recent days data will change so ignored):
England 0.64 (-0.02) London 0.57 (-0.01) No reported cases in Richmond in the last seven days. No sign of any uptick in R.
Technical question. Are you assuming a serial interval for your calculations ?
Seven days. I'm calculating R as the ratio of the previous seven days (i.e. days -1 to -7) reported cases to the previous seven days (i.e. days -8 to -14). This removes the "weekend effect" and allows seven days for new cases to show. I've done sensitivity analyses for different periods and it is not highly sensitive. The message is the same. A very small reduction in R so far. It will be interesting to see what it is in a week or two's time following the sunny weather and the demos.
Cheers, I've been using 7.5 days for my calculations based on deaths and have numbers not dissimilar to yours. 7 days seems about right based off both anecdotes and published papers
So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
If Nixon had been assassinated just after the 72 election he'd have been (even with Watergate as it was then known about) regarded as one of the all time greats. Like JFK or Lincoln.
There is a Red Dwarf episode (of all things) that looks at what would have happened if Kennedy had not been assassinated. Lots of things would not have gone well is the general conclusion.
It's hard to say. All the indications are, for instance, that he'd have avoided the LBJ escalation in Vietnam.
The interesting thing about both JFK, and his brother Robert, is that they both appeared to learn from experience while in office. A much underrated quality in politicians.
And Johnson would still have been there to manage Congress for him.
I cannot accept that this is a good idea but looking across social media and facebook it does surprise me how many actual support it and ask why mps should not experience queing when the public are
Presumably MPs have to queue to do the same things the public does, like buy groceries (although in my experience you can avoid queueing if you get there early). Asking them to queue just to do a core part of their job, which can easily be done without queueing thus freeing up their time to do the other parts of their job and allowing shielding MPs to participate, just seems plain daft. Rees Mogg is doing serious reputational damage to Eton College and Oxford University. What are they teaching these people?
Specifically based on OPOV Florida would have roughly 12.5x the number of voters than West Virginia has.
The House element of the Electoral College vote is 3 for West Virginia to 27 for Florida. But both States get the same fixed 2 for the Senate. That extra 2 boosts Florida from 27 to 29, but boosts West Virginia from 3 to 5. Pretty significant for them!
As a result via the Electoral College Florida outweighs West Virginia by 5.8 to 1 instead of 12.5 to 1.
Small states like West Virginia definitely gain from the system.
The gain by smaller states has pretty much zero bias towards either side.
Good morning g everybody. Wasn't a bias towards smaller states the Founding Fathers aim; to prevent a couple of big states overwhelming several smaller ones.
The Senate provides the equal representation for small states. Every state getting two Senators.
The electoral college was the mechanism they came up with to deal with slavery/slave states (by counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person when apportioning EC votes by state.
No slavery, no electoral college.
Of course. Thanks.
$Edit: And I note Mr T's post. Must look it up.
OK, according to Wikipedia, I was originally partially right. Had a dim memory of the slavery issue, which confused me.
Trouble is, at my school doing Science meant no History after the Third Form. As a result my historical knowledge tends to be a ragbag of 'stuff' I've picked en route through life.
I’m not sure there are many British schools where you would have had a detailed look at the Workings of the American constitution below Sixth form level or equivalent in Scotland. Even then it would probably be only an option on a particular course. The good Doctor will know better if he is around.
'It just doesn't seem right': Pentagon officials on edge over military leaders' dealings with Trump
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/02/it-just-doesnt-seem-right-pentagon-officials-on-edge-over-military-leaders-dealings-with-trump-297820 ...“The decision to use active military forces in crowd control in the United States should only be made as a last resort,” said Mick Mulroy, former deputy assistant secretary of defense under President Donald Trump. “Active Army and Marine Corps units are trained to fight our nation’s enemies, not their fellow Americans. American cities are not battlefields. The anxiety hit a high point on Monday, when word leaked out that Defense Secretary Mark Esper referred to cities undergoing protests as a "battlespace," and as Esper and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley walked with Trump across the street from the White House after protesters were cleared from Lafayette Square in advance of a staged photo op in front of St. John's Episcopal Church...
Maybe the journalists need to ask why the only opposition to this policy is coming from some conservatives. All the other parties and devolved governments support it as does 65% of the public in yesterdays poll
Specifically based on OPOV Florida would have roughly 12.5x the number of voters than West Virginia has.
The House element of the Electoral College vote is 3 for West Virginia to 27 for Florida. But both States get the same fixed 2 for the Senate. That extra 2 boosts Florida from 27 to 29, but boosts West Virginia from 3 to 5. Pretty significant for them!
As a result via the Electoral College Florida outweighs West Virginia by 5.8 to 1 instead of 12.5 to 1.
Small states like West Virginia definitely gain from the system.
The gain by smaller states has pretty much zero bias towards either side.
Good morning g everybody. Wasn't a bias towards smaller states the Founding Fathers aim; to prevent a couple of big states overwhelming several smaller ones.
The Senate provides the equal representation for small states. Every state getting two Senators.
The electoral college was the mechanism they came up with to deal with slavery/slave states (by counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person when apportioning EC votes by state.
No slavery, no electoral college.
That's not true.
The three fifths compromise wasn't coined for the Electoral College it was coined for the legislature (House of Representatives) and taxation.
It indirectly featured in the Electoral College because the Electoral College is House plus Senate but that wasn't the primary concern.
Furthermore if they'd wanted to purely let that be the factor they could have done the Electoral College as the House alone but they didn't do that. They deliberately did House plus Senate which deliberately scaled up the EC representation of smaller States.
The Electoral. College only exists because of slavery. It is very clear and obvious from contemporary writing.
One man one vote was proposed for electing the president but was opposed by Slave States.
Madison opposed one man one vote specifically because it put slave owning states at a disadvantage and his counter offer was the 2/5 th slaves.
Yes, that's true, the South threatened to walk out if the Electoral College or the House were apportioned by population.
The EC was a fudged compromise, in which many other factors were at play besides slavery, but slavery was the crucial one.
It manages to combine the disadvantages of both the Parliamentary and the Presidential systems without the advantages of either.
Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.
It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
The virtual parliament was working well. I think it's desperately sad we've abandoned that for an extreme form of inefficient presenteeism
Selfishly most of us out in Spain are not keen on the borders being opened to the UK whilst the levels of infection remain relatively high in the UK. Our lockdown was more brutal than that of the UK and most of us don’t want to throw the gains away. Given that the community is 90% over 65 if the virus took hold it could reek havoc. Even someone knowingly free of the virus whilst in the UK has to pass through two airports and sit on a plane to get here.
When your down to 200 or so new cases a day then that’s the time to start traveling.
Specifically based on OPOV Florida would have roughly 12.5x the number of voters than West Virginia has.
The House element of the Electoral College vote is 3 for West Virginia to 27 for Florida. But both States get the same fixed 2 for the Senate. That extra 2 boosts Florida from 27 to 29, but boosts West Virginia from 3 to 5. Pretty significant for them!
As a result via the Electoral College Florida outweighs West Virginia by 5.8 to 1 instead of 12.5 to 1.
Small states like West Virginia definitely gain from the system.
The gain by smaller states has pretty much zero bias towards either side.
Good morning g everybody. Wasn't a bias towards smaller states the Founding Fathers aim; to prevent a couple of big states overwhelming several smaller ones.
The Senate provides the equal representation for small states. Every state getting two Senators.
The electoral college was the mechanism they came up with to deal with slavery/slave states (by counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person when apportioning EC votes by state.
No slavery, no electoral college.
Of course. Thanks.
$Edit: And I note Mr T's post. Must look it up.
OK, according to Wikipedia, I was originally partially right. Had a dim memory of the slavery issue, which confused me.
Trouble is, at my school doing Science meant no History after the Third Form. As a result my historical knowledge tends to be a ragbag of 'stuff' I've picked en route through life.
"Had a dim memory of the slavery issue" - you're certainly older than I thought OKC.
I bought a takeout coffee at Pret a Manger yesterday. I went up to the counter and the barista served from behind a perspex screen, passing me the coffee through an aperture.
Why is that feasible for coffee yet impossible for a pint?!
My local garage has had that arrangement for about nine weeks now.
So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
If Nixon had been assassinated just after the 72 election he'd have been (even with Watergate as it was then known about) regarded as one of the all time greats. Like JFK or Lincoln.
The US has had three great presidents, in my opinion: Washington, Lincoln and FDR. Of whom Lincoln was easily the greatest. I don't think I'd put JFK in even the second tier.
I cannot accept that this is a good idea but looking across social media and facebook it does surprise me how many actual support it and ask why mps should not experience queing when the public are
Presumably MPs have to queue to do the same things the public does, like buy groceries (although in my experience you can avoid queueing if you get there early). Asking them to queue just to do a core part of their job, which can easily be done without queueing thus freeing up their time to do the other parts of their job and allowing shielding MPs to participate, just seems plain daft. Rees Mogg is doing serious reputational damage to Eton College and Oxford University. What are they teaching these people?
I agree but you may be surprised how much support he has
I cannot accept that this is a good idea but looking across social media and facebook it does surprise me how many actual support it and ask why mps should not experience queing when the public are
Presumably MPs have to queue to do the same things the public does, like buy groceries (although in my experience you can avoid queueing if you get there early). Asking them to queue just to do a core part of their job, which can easily be done without queueing thus freeing up their time to do the other parts of their job and allowing shielding MPs to participate, just seems plain daft. Rees Mogg is doing serious reputational damage to Eton College and Oxford University. What are they teaching these people?
He did the same course at the same college as me at Oxford four years earlier. Am changing my Linkedin profile ASAP.
There ought to be an academic convention that people's titles should be modified where appropriate to "Prof (FADS)" and so on, for "From A Different Specialism". In some cases the letters LTL could be added after the name as an additional note of caution, for "Loving The Limelight".
So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
If Nixon had been assassinated just after the 72 election he'd have been (even with Watergate as it was then known about) regarded as one of the all time greats. Like JFK or Lincoln.
There is a Red Dwarf episode (of all things) that looks at what would have happened if Kennedy had not been assassinated. Lots of things would not have gone well is the general conclusion.
It's the entire plot of Stephen King's 1963. And a dimly remembered one off 2000AD strip from the Eighties.
Selfishly most of us out in Spain are not keen on the borders being opened to the UK whilst the levels of infection remain relatively high in the UK. Our lockdown was more brutal than that of the UK and most of us don’t want to throw the gains away. Given that the community is 90% over 65 if the virus took hold it could reek havoc. Even someone knowingly free of the virus whilst in the UK has to pass through two airports and sit on a plane to get here.
When your down to 200 or so new cases a day then that’s the time to start traveling.
I doubt Spain will see more than a trickle of UK visitors this year.
I expect the UK economy will benefit from staycations
So I stand by my comment. Two great Presidents in my lifetime:
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
I was born while Watergate was unfolding, nine months before Nixon resigned, so he’s just about in my lifetime. The tragedy of Nixon is that although he was personally a sh*t, he nevertheless founded the Environmental Protection Agency, ended the draft, Native Americans the right to a measure of tribal self-determination, went to China, got the US out of Vietnam...Republican presidents used to do things like that. He could have been remembered as one of the greats but let his paranoia destroy him.
If Nixon had been assassinated just after the 72 election he'd have been (even with Watergate as it was then known about) regarded as one of the all time greats. Like JFK or Lincoln.
There is a Red Dwarf episode (of all things) that looks at what would have happened if Kennedy had not been assassinated. Lots of things would not have gone well is the general conclusion.
It's hard to say. All the indications are, for instance, that he'd have avoided the LBJ escalation in Vietnam.
The interesting thing about both JFK, and his brother Robert, is that they both appeared to learn from experience while in office. A much underrated quality in politicians.
And Johnson would still have been there to manage Congress for him.
But LBJ went hard on Civil Rights in a way I think Kennedy wouldn't.
LBJ saw delivering the full package as his moral obligation to JFK's memory despite not personally agreeing with it. Kennedy would probably have moderated somewhat to get the legislation through.
The contrast with LBJ and Andrew Johnson could not be starker.
Obviously this is all crazy, but with big outfits like universities rethinking their entire academic and social model for into the next academic year, people are having to think about change long term.
It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
The virtual parliament was working well. I think it's desperately sad we've abandoned that for an extreme form of inefficient presenteeism
I think it's weird and surely unsustainable. However, algarkirk's suggestion would appear to mean 300 or so by-elections, which would give PB plenty to discuss, and might lead to one or two other changes too.
Comments
There is real neglect of Kansas Democrats and Massachusets Republicans despite both being fairly substantial minorities. Matched by neglect of Leicester Tories, and Labour voters in Melton.
There is little point electorally in nurturing these voters, but if the Tories needed to care for the cities, and Labour their countryside vote, both parties would be better for it.
I was the only one in a face-mask.
He was pretty crap, frankly.
It’s a saving grace of the US system that the checks and balances limit the damage that even a moron can do. The flip side being that someone genuinely able like Obama cannot get much done.
The question was why the choice was Clinton or Trump, and hence why a Trump was selected, not why he was elected.
Obama took over in bad economic times.
So why would he pull out in 2020? If he loses he will blame the media the minorities the liars the cheats if robbing America of its greatness. Then he will invoke shitkicker America to get its guns and wage war against their enemies. Minorities. Liberals. Governors. Reporters. The last week and a half has been a warm-up for what we can expect post the election. Trump the matyr, cheated by the dems, silenced by the liberals, the Totemic hero figure for dumb bastards with guns who invoke the name of the President whikst they burn America to the ground.
Why would he pull out?
What were his failings do you think ?
https://bcomm-wales.gov.uk/sites/bcomm/files/review/180910finalrecommendations_en.pdf (Page 4).
One to file under you can not make these people up
There is a lot of ignorance around the use of face masks. The science is not definitive for a variety of reasons. For any mask that relies on face-fitting, especially the so-called nuisance mask, you need to be clean shaven. Female and some Asian faces don't tend to fit well on the RPE supplied.
"Oh, but it stops cough and sneezes." So does a handkerchief, And the false confidence it engenders is genuine. I can see why it could (and that depends on behaviour) help in enclosed spaces where social distancing is impossible. And outside, it can be useful as a fashion item.
Dems tend to look back on him more favourably but that's mainly African-Americans.
Don't get me wrong: it was brilliant to have an African-American President but take away his skin colour and he wasn't very good.
He was a great President.
‘With so many contenders, it was impossible to keep track,’ said Wendy Northcutt. ‘In particular, there were so many utter fucking cretins who caught Covid 19 while protesting that it was perfectly safe and they should be allowed to ignore lockdown it put an intolerable strain on the whole system.’
Northcutt hopes to restart the awards next year, but is concerned that the clearout of so many utter morons will leave the field next year very threadbare.
(With apologies to the Daily Mash.)
The science is solid. Wear a face mask and you are around 97% less likely to catch a virus like CV-19.
The stupidity of some, almost solely British*, people on this topic beggars belief.
*And Donald Trump, obvs.
Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
The rest? Meh.
And one who is demented, an apt adjective used on here a couple of days ago.
The HSL Laboratories in Sheffiel,d and later when they located to Buxton, had a whole section of scientists working on RPE issues. They published loads of papers in the science journals. HSE sponsored most of the research. Obviously work on COVID-19 wasn't included at that time.
But "The science is solid. Wear a face mask and you are around 97% less likely to catch a virus like CV-19." is a bold assertion. Have you a reference from peer-reviewed journal?
I think people cut him a lot of slack because he sounded and looked good.
(Also, a lot of Asians and Arabs who don’t find it as culturally awkward as Westerners do).
The end of the Cold War had little to do with Reagan - it was much more influenced by changes within the Soviet system, in particular its loss of the moral high ground and its disastrous economic performance. And Reagan almost blundered at Rekjavik.
But the first Bush managed the collapse of the eastern bloc pretty well and was spectacularly good at the first Gulf War, though he stopped a day or two too early.
Things I think are really weird (such as anti-americanism, anti-NATO and pro-Russian sentiment) seem to have a big constituency there. And the French can be fairly nationalist.
I'm still calling peak London, as I did back in March.
The three fifths compromise wasn't coined for the Electoral College it was coined for the legislature (House of Representatives) and taxation.
It indirectly featured in the Electoral College because the Electoral College is House plus Senate but that wasn't the primary concern.
Furthermore if they'd wanted to purely let that be the factor they could have done the Electoral College as the House alone but they didn't do that. They deliberately did House plus Senate which deliberately scaled up the EC representation of smaller States.
Like this guy...
https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1267946229402656769
$Edit: And I note Mr T's post. Must look it up.
http://apps.frontline.org/divided-states-of-america-the-frontline-interviews/moments/the-opposition-strategy.html
They decided they would oppose everything he did. Every move, every announcement, everything.
Hence how you ended up with complete GOP opposition to a healthcare bill that had essentially been written by a republican think tank (heritage foundation) and implemented by a republican governor (Romeny in Massachusetts).
When the republicans took the house in 2010, this effectively ended his domestic policy agenda.
Mitch McConnell poisoned the well. It's his enduring legacy.
Edit/ and the minister has just said that the Police won't be responsible for checking whether returning travellers are staying where they have said they would - apparently this responsibility will fall to the NHS!
England 0.64 (-0.02)
London 0.57 (-0.01)
No reported cases in Richmond in the last seven days.
No sign of any uptick in R.
Had a dim memory of the slavery issue, which confused me.
Trouble is, at my school doing Science meant no History after the Third Form. As a result my historical knowledge tends to be a ragbag of 'stuff' I've picked en route through life.
Of course the very fact it comes into place on monday will by its nature prevent tens of thousands coming in the first place
The silver lining is that it should boost staycations and help the hotel and leisure industry
F1: about four and a half weeks until the first race. I do wonder how all the downtime and prolonged gap from testing might affect things. No idea how much development teams have been doing either.
One man one vote was proposed for electing the president but was opposed by Slave States.
Madison opposed one man one vote specifically because it put slave owning states at a disadvantage and his counter offer was the 2/5 th slaves.
"We hold all the cards".
30 days until first practice in Austria, nyyooommmmmm!!!
Lots of things would not have gone well is the general conclusion.
It is being reported that very large numbers of MPs just can't come to Westminster in the present situation because of shielding, family situations etc. It has never been the case in modern times that it is acceptable for MPs to be absentees from the House, and my feeling is that this must remain so. If that is so then a lot of MPs have some hard thinking to do about whether they can do their job. In this respect their situation would be similar to millions of other people facing destructive change.
This removes the "weekend effect" and allows seven days for new cases to show.
I've done sensitivity analyses for different periods and it is not highly sensitive. The message is the same. A very small reduction in R so far. It will be interesting to see what it is in a week or two's time following the sunny weather and the demos.
All the indications are, for instance, that he'd have avoided the LBJ escalation in Vietnam.
The interesting thing about both JFK, and his brother Robert, is that they both appeared to learn from experience while in office. A much underrated quality in politicians.
And Johnson would still have been there to manage Congress for him.
The good Doctor will know better if he is around.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/02/it-just-doesnt-seem-right-pentagon-officials-on-edge-over-military-leaders-dealings-with-trump-297820
...“The decision to use active military forces in crowd control in the United States should only be made as a last resort,” said Mick Mulroy, former deputy assistant secretary of defense under President Donald Trump. “Active Army and Marine Corps units are trained to fight our nation’s enemies, not their fellow Americans. American cities are not battlefields.
The anxiety hit a high point on Monday, when word leaked out that Defense Secretary Mark Esper referred to cities undergoing protests as a "battlespace," and as Esper and Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Mark Milley walked with Trump across the street from the White House after protesters were cleared from Lafayette Square in advance of a staged photo op in front of St. John's Episcopal Church...
The EC was a fudged compromise, in which many other factors were at play besides slavery, but slavery was the crucial one.
It manages to combine the disadvantages of both the Parliamentary and the Presidential systems without the advantages of either.
When your down to 200 or so new cases a day then that’s the time to start traveling.
I expect the UK economy will benefit from staycations
LBJ saw delivering the full package as his moral obligation to JFK's memory despite not personally agreeing with it. Kennedy would probably have moderated somewhat to get the legislation through.
The contrast with LBJ and Andrew Johnson could not be starker.