politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden says Trump will have to be “escorted from the White House” if he’s not re-elected
One of the increasing worries about November’s US Presidential election is that Trump might not willingly leave the White House if he fails to get re-elected.
"My guess is that leaders of America’s allies, like Johnson, could possibly have role to play in such a scenario saying publicly that they won’t recognise Trump as President beyond January 20th."
I imagine Johnson and others will be desperate not to get involved, as if they did it would only inflame the situation. Let SCOTUS sort it out.
I think Congress has the power to take away power from Trump and Pence if they don't go as their terms expire next January and they cannot just continue if they've lost.
I suspect if defeat looks certain Trump will pull an LBJ before November and let Pence be the fall guy so he can brag throughout Biden's term that the Democrats never beat him.
I think Congress has the power to take away power from Trump and Pence if they don't go as their terms expire next January and they cannot just continue if they've lost.
Don't they lose the power automatically at noon on 20th Jan?
I think Congress has the power to take away power from Trump and Pence if they don't go as their terms expire next January and they cannot just continue if they've lost.
I suppose the tricky bit will be if there is a court case about it that has not been resolved by the time he was supposed to have left. I mean by January California may have almost finished counting but Florida could still easily be arguing about what is a valid vote and what is not. Going by the caucuses several States may literally have no idea who won.
What's quite amazing about following politics for the last decade or so, is the way people of all sides shape shift depending on their opponents behaviour, so that no one can ever be happy, and they always have to be angry. Like football supporters who can only ever give credit to their own team
When Boris promised to look after the "Red Wall" voters who backed him last December, if we knew he was going to listen to a young, northern, black man and gone with a policy that benefited the poorest in society, against his free market ideals, we would have thought it a real example of the new compassionate Conservatives installing a bit of Social Democracy.
It has happened... and the people that wanted him to act in the interests of such folk, and would hold him to account had he not are lampooning him for being weak and defeated.
Of course, had he not implemented the school meal policy, he would have remained the white supremacist, tin eared, out of touch Bullingdon Boy who has no connection with anyone outside his bubble.
I think Congress has the power to take away power from Trump and Pence if they don't go as their terms expire next January and they cannot just continue if they've lost.
Don't they lose the power automatically at noon on 20th Jan?
I think Congress has the power to take away power from Trump and Pence if they don't go as their terms expire next January and they cannot just continue if they've lost.
It is more likely that the Whitehouse staff and the Secret Service will simply bundle him out the side door. Their loyalty is to the Constitution, not to Trump.
What's quite amazing about following politics for the last decade or so, is the way people of all sides shape shift depending on their opponents behaviour, so that no one can ever be happy, and they always have to be angry. Like football supporters who can only ever give credit to their own team
When Boris promised to look after the "Red Wall" voters who backed him last December, if we knew he was going to listen to a young, northern, black man and gone with a policy that benefited the poorest in society, against his free market ideals, we would have thought it a real example of the new compassionate Conservatives installing a bit of Social Democracy.
It has happened... and the people that wanted him to act in the interests of such folk, and would hold him to account had he not are lampooning him for being weak and defeated.
Of course, had he not implemented the school meal policy, he would have remained the white supremacist, tin eared, out of touch Bullingdon Boy who has no connection with anyone outside his bubble.
Either way its definitely Dom's fault. Everything is.
I think Congress has the power to take away power from Trump and Pence if they don't go as their terms expire next January and they cannot just continue if they've lost.
I suppose the tricky bit will be if there is a court case about it that has not been resolved by the time he was supposed to have left. I mean by January California may have almost finished counting but Florida could still easily be arguing about what is a valid vote and what is not. Going by the caucuses several States may literally have no idea who won.
It's democracy Jim, but not as we know it.
I have to admit the Trump/GOP approach on postal voting is baffling, without it they are screwed.
It's not overly encouraging that the image of Biden, here, makes him resemble a toothless corpse which has just been posthumously sodomised with a cattle prod
The face looks very pulled doesn't it? Shouldn't have done it - Should have left the crags and heavy chops in place - he would look younger with them.
It's not overly encouraging that the image of Biden, here, makes him resemble a toothless corpse which has just been posthumously sodomised with a cattle prod
Hahahahahaha
Very good. Probably the funniest remark on PB this year. You're improving, kiddo
I suspect Trump will lose with dishonour, and make the transition awful and leave a number of disasters for Biden to deal with.
You know starting a war with Iran and the like.
Power runs away from him if he has clearly lost. In the period before FDR took office Hoover begged him to give some support to his policies as the banking network in State after State collapsed. FDR refused to do or say anything. Things got very ugly between them and the reciprocal hospitality that is standard between an incoming and outgoing President did not occur. Hoover considered it pretty much treason. FDR did not want to be trapped by failed policies. In the end though the outgoing President has no cards to play.
A "march through the institutions", eh. I can imagine the response to briefings like that if this was a Corbyn administration. No wonder it's so easy for the Spiked and LivingMarxism/Furedi crowd to be onboard with, in some cases actually working within the administration.
It's not overly encouraging that the image of Biden, here, makes him resemble a toothless corpse which has just been posthumously sodomised with a cattle prod
And has taken plenty to cope with the pain. Those eyes. Jeez.
I suspect Trump will lose with dishonour, and make the transition awful and leave a number of disasters for Biden to deal with.
You know starting a war with Iran and the like.
Power runs away from him if he has clearly lost. In the period before FDR took office Hoover begged him to give some support to his policies as the banking network in State after State collapsed. FDR refused to do or say anything. Things got very ugly between them and the reciprocal hospitality that is standard between an incoming and outgoing President did not occur. Hoover considered it pretty much treason. FDR did not want to be trapped by failed policies. In the end though the outgoing President has no cards to play.
He's still Commander-in-Chief, his word is the law until January 20th.
In 2016 most states which fought for the Union in the US Civil War voted for Hillary and every state bar Virginia which fought for the Confederacy voted for Trump.
What's quite amazing about following politics for the last decade or so, is the way people of all sides shape shift depending on their opponents behaviour, so that no one can ever be happy, and they always have to be angry. Like football supporters who can only ever give credit to their own team
When Boris promised to look after the "Red Wall" voters who backed him last December, if we knew he was going to listen to a young, northern, black man and gone with a policy that benefited the poorest in society, against his free market ideals, we would have thought it a real example of the new compassionate Conservatives installing a bit of Social Democracy.
It has happened... and the people that wanted him to act in the interests of such folk, and would hold him to account had he not are lampooning him for being weak and defeated.
Of course, had he not implemented the school meal policy, he would have remained the white supremacist, tin eared, out of touch Bullingdon Boy who has no connection with anyone outside his bubble.
There will be those who welcome Johnson's move - it's a fine example of Liberal Unionism in action. It's listening to the public mood and a good thing. It helps those who need it most at a difficult time.
There will be those who argue the Government, rather than Twitter, should be making these kind of decisions and making the not unreasonable point Mr Rashford and those like him could easily make a personal contribution toward school meal funding rather than it coming from the hard-pressed taxpayer.
It's called argument and democracy. Sometimes Johnson gets it right, sometimes he gets it wrong, sometimes there's merit on both sides of the argument.
It's both those who excoriate the Government on everything and those who are its uncritical adherents who do democracy the greatest disservice.
It's not overly encouraging that the image of Biden, here, makes him resemble a toothless corpse which has just been posthumously sodomised with a cattle prod
Hahahahahaha
Very good. Probably the funniest remark on PB this year. You're improving
It was fabulous. A classic piece of PB comedy by one of the site’s all time heroes.
What's quite amazing about following politics for the last decade or so, is the way people of all sides shape shift depending on their opponents behaviour, so that no one can ever be happy, and they always have to be angry. Like football supporters who can only ever give credit to their own team
When Boris promised to look after the "Red Wall" voters who backed him last December, if we knew he was going to listen to a young, northern, black man and gone with a policy that benefited the poorest in society, against his free market ideals, we would have thought it a real example of the new compassionate Conservatives installing a bit of Social Democracy.
It has happened... and the people that wanted him to act in the interests of such folk, and would hold him to account had he not are lampooning him for being weak and defeated.
Of course, had he not implemented the school meal policy, he would have remained the white supremacist, tin eared, out of touch Bullingdon Boy who has no connection with anyone outside his bubble.
Either way its definitely Dom's fault. Everything is.
I think it's because politics attracts a lot of people who think a well made argument with a very tenuous link to the truth is impressive.
It's not overly encouraging that the image of Biden, here, makes him resemble a toothless corpse which has just been posthumously sodomised with a cattle prod
Mike is an even-handed editor. He makes everyone look like that.
I think Congress has the power to take away power from Trump and Pence if they don't go as their terms expire next January and they cannot just continue if they've lost.
I suppose the tricky bit will be if there is a court case about it that has not been resolved by the time he was supposed to have left. I mean by January California may have almost finished counting but Florida could still easily be arguing about what is a valid vote and what is not. Going by the caucuses several States may literally have no idea who won.
It's democracy Jim, but not as we know it.
I have to admit the Trump/GOP approach on postal voting is baffling, without it they are screwed.
Almost like the Tories banning postal voting.
I find most of American politics baffling. The gerrymandering, the voter suppression, the constant need to find judges to keep a pitiful number of voting booths open, the use of machinery that just doesn't work, the vagueness about when you even have to vote with hundreds or thousands drifting in days late, the absurd restrictions on felons when so many convictions have racial connotations, the ridiculous numbers of people not even on the register, it goes on and on. Many third world democracies would be enraged by any comparison. Its appalling.
In 2016 most states which fought for the Union in the US Civil War voted for Hillary and every state bar Virginia which fought for the Confederacy voted for Trump.
A "march through the institutions", eh. I can imagine the response to briefings like that if this was a Corbyn administration. No wonder it's so easy for the Spiked and LivingMarxism/Furedi crowd to be onboard with, in some cases actually working within the administration.
Why has this man so much power? Could it be that Johnson has no clue himself and no idea what to do now he has won office?
I suspect Trump will lose with dishonour, and make the transition awful and leave a number of disasters for Biden to deal with.
You know starting a war with Iran and the like.
Power runs away from him if he has clearly lost. In the period before FDR took office Hoover begged him to give some support to his policies as the banking network in State after State collapsed. FDR refused to do or say anything. Things got very ugly between them and the reciprocal hospitality that is standard between an incoming and outgoing President did not occur. Hoover considered it pretty much treason. FDR did not want to be trapped by failed policies. In the end though the outgoing President has no cards to play.
The Hoover- FDR transition also occurred when the new President was not sworn in until the first week of March - so quite a bit longer period since the November election. FDR was President-elect for four months.
It's hardly blazing originality though is it - reverting something back to how it was under John Major and before? What next, bringing back the National Board for Prices and Incomes?
Are the protests against police killings in the United States hysterical? Doing a bit of digging and black people make up 13% of the US population, 26% of police killings and 52% of homicide victims. If one assumes that at least some police killings ARE justified it's fairly clear that the killings at the hands of the police are a drop in the ocean. I also understand that murder in the US tends to be pretty intraracial - whites kill whites and blacks kill blacks.
It may be that the images of Floyd bring out a deeper feeling in people that the police behave callously or are racist in general. But the idea that black men being killed by the police is the biggest problem facing the United States is absurd. I feel misled.
What's quite amazing about following politics for the last decade or so, is the way people of all sides shape shift depending on their opponents behaviour, so that no one can ever be happy, and they always have to be angry. Like football supporters who can only ever give credit to their own team
When Boris promised to look after the "Red Wall" voters who backed him last December, if we knew he was going to listen to a young, northern, black man and gone with a policy that benefited the poorest in society, against his free market ideals, we would have thought it a real example of the new compassionate Conservatives installing a bit of Social Democracy.
It has happened... and the people that wanted him to act in the interests of such folk, and would hold him to account had he not are lampooning him for being weak and defeated.
Of course, had he not implemented the school meal policy, he would have remained the white supremacist, tin eared, out of touch Bullingdon Boy who has no connection with anyone outside his bubble.
Either way its definitely Dom's fault. Everything is.
I think it's because politics attracts a lot of people who think a well made argument with a very tenuous link to the truth is impressive.
Hmm. A well made argument in our public life would have considerable novelty value whether it was true or not. We saw one today from a 22 year old footballer and it was startling.
It's hardly blazing originality though is it - reverting something back to how it was under John Major and before? What next, bringing back the National Board for Prices and Incomes?
A revolution in the relationship between citizen and state by setting up a hotline so people can report roadworks and the like that are not making adequate progress.
He still should have gone, but the breathtaking subsequent set of double standards from plenty of his detractors *cough Piers* was quite something. Let's see what he's going to do with the "institutions"
What's quite amazing about following politics for the last decade or so, is the way people of all sides shape shift depending on their opponents behaviour, so that no one can ever be happy, and they always have to be angry. Like football supporters who can only ever give credit to their own team
When Boris promised to look after the "Red Wall" voters who backed him last December, if we knew he was going to listen to a young, northern, black man and gone with a policy that benefited the poorest in society, against his free market ideals, we would have thought it a real example of the new compassionate Conservatives installing a bit of Social Democracy.
It has happened... and the people that wanted him to act in the interests of such folk, and would hold him to account had he not are lampooning him for being weak and defeated.
Of course, had he not implemented the school meal policy, he would have remained the white supremacist, tin eared, out of touch Bullingdon Boy who has no connection with anyone outside his bubble.
Either way its definitely Dom's fault. Everything is.
I think it's because politics attracts a lot of people who think a well made argument with a very tenuous link to the truth is impressive.
Hmm. A well made argument in our public life would have considerable novelty value whether it was true or not. We saw one today from a 22 year old footballer and it was startling.
Yes... And the people who agreed with him are taking the piss out of the govt for implementing it!
It really is the perfect example of wanting power more than getting policies they like, if they cant just say "fair enough, good outcome", on days like today
The situation could be dangerous due to all those guns wielded by Trumpnuts. But, sorry Mike, I can't see disapproval by Boris making a blind bit of difference.
As has been demonstrated recently the US military tends to avoid politics.
I believe in old Rome the military stayed out of town. But it was the Praetorian guard wasn't it that installed Claudius? Claudius is usually considered to have been a stutterer and physically weak. Does that remind us of anyone?
What's quite amazing about following politics for the last decade or so, is the way people of all sides shape shift depending on their opponents behaviour, so that no one can ever be happy, and they always have to be angry. Like football supporters who can only ever give credit to their own team
When Boris promised to look after the "Red Wall" voters who backed him last December, if we knew he was going to listen to a young, northern, black man and gone with a policy that benefited the poorest in society, against his free market ideals, we would have thought it a real example of the new compassionate Conservatives installing a bit of Social Democracy.
It has happened... and the people that wanted him to act in the interests of such folk, and would hold him to account had he not are lampooning him for being weak and defeated.
Of course, had he not implemented the school meal policy, he would have remained the white supremacist, tin eared, out of touch Bullingdon Boy who has no connection with anyone outside his bubble.
But he didn't listen to Rashford. He was putting out ministers this very morning to say it was a bad policy. What he listened too was MP-constituent backlash.
What's quite amazing about following politics for the last decade or so, is the way people of all sides shape shift depending on their opponents behaviour, so that no one can ever be happy, and they always have to be angry. Like football supporters who can only ever give credit to their own team
When Boris promised to look after the "Red Wall" voters who backed him last December, if we knew he was going to listen to a young, northern, black man and gone with a policy that benefited the poorest in society, against his free market ideals, we would have thought it a real example of the new compassionate Conservatives installing a bit of Social Democracy.
It has happened... and the people that wanted him to act in the interests of such folk, and would hold him to account had he not are lampooning him for being weak and defeated.
Of course, had he not implemented the school meal policy, he would have remained the white supremacist, tin eared, out of touch Bullingdon Boy who has no connection with anyone outside his bubble.
Either way its definitely Dom's fault. Everything is.
I think it's because politics attracts a lot of people who think a well made argument with a very tenuous link to the truth is impressive.
Hmm. A well made argument in our public life would have considerable novelty value whether it was true or not. We saw one today from a 22 year old footballer and it was startling.
Yes... And the people who agreed with him are taking the piss out of the govt for implementing it!
It really is the perfect example of wanting power more than getting policies they like, if they cant just say "fair enough, good outcome" ,on days like today
The Tories are being lampooned for the initial resistance, defence of the indefensible and humiliating U-turn. Not for finally doing the right thing,
I actually have some sympathy for the Government on this. The fact that a Television or Radio programme exists imposes no obligation on politicians to appear on them. Harold Wilson and Ted Heath did not have to make themselves available , and I see no reason why their successors today should be cajoled into bowing to the wishes of Broadcasters.
The situation could be dangerous due to all those guns wielded by Trumpnuts. But, sorry Mike, I can't see disapproval by Boris making a blind bit of difference.
As has been demonstrated recently the US military tends to avoid politics.
I believe in old Rome the military stayed out of town. But it was the Praetorian guard wasn't it that installed Claudius? Claudius is usually considered to have been a stutterer and physically weak. Does that remind us of anyone?
The situation could be dangerous due to all those guns wielded by Trumpnuts. But, sorry Mike, I can't see disapproval by Boris making a blind bit of difference.
As has been demonstrated recently the US military tends to avoid politics.
I believe in old Rome the military stayed out of town. But it was the Praetorian guard wasn't it that installed Claudius? Claudius is usually considered to have been a stutterer and physically weak. Does that remind us of anyone?
On the argument with GMB, in All Out War it is said that Cummings tried to ban ITV from the press conference on the 24 June (you know the one with Gove and Johnson looking somber).
Our media are pig ignorant, biased, driven by gotchas, fundamentally dishonest and partisan. But I really don't understand this "we are not speaking to you any more" strategy. Its just silly and counterproductive.
Are the protests against police killings in the United States hysterical? Doing a bit of digging and black people make up 13% of the US population, 26% of police killings and 52% of homicide victims. If one assumes that at least some police killings ARE justified it's fairly clear that the killings at the hands of the police are a drop in the ocean. I also understand that murder in the US tends to be pretty intraracial - whites kill whites and blacks kill blacks.
It may be that the images of Floyd bring out a deeper feeling in people that the police behave callously or are racist in general. But the idea that black men being killed by the police is the biggest problem facing the United States is absurd. I feel misled.
I can't make any judgement on your question as I don't know. I don't live in the US, visit rarely and don't have any friends in the black community over there. So I am ill equipped to judge.
But what I find terrifying is the stat that between 1980 and 2013 262,000 black males were killed in the US. The vast majority of those were not killed by police either legitimately or illegitimately.
There is something fundamentally wrong in, and with, the US today. Much as I wish it would, I don't see the current wave of protests making it any better.
I actually have some sympathy for the Government on this. The fact that a Television or Radio programme exists imposes no obligation on politicians to appear on them. Harold Wilson and Ted Heath did not have to make themselves available , and I see no reason why their successors today should be cajoled into bowing to the wishes of Broadcasters.
This tactic, borrowed from across the Atlantic, is largely though more about pre-empting particular kinds of scrutiny than failing to respond to particular requests. It's a pattern of blanket, long-term boycotting of certain outlets once they lay down a particular challenge on a particular issue, followed by the governments' more favoured and centrally manageable channels of communication on social media. This is not a democratic advance.
What's quite amazing about following politics for the last decade or so, is the way people of all sides shape shift depending on their opponents behaviour, so that no one can ever be happy, and they always have to be angry. Like football supporters who can only ever give credit to their own team
When Boris promised to look after the "Red Wall" voters who backed him last December, if we knew he was going to listen to a young, northern, black man and gone with a policy that benefited the poorest in society, against his free market ideals, we would have thought it a real example of the new compassionate Conservatives installing a bit of Social Democracy.
It has happened... and the people that wanted him to act in the interests of such folk, and would hold him to account had he not are lampooning him for being weak and defeated.
Of course, had he not implemented the school meal policy, he would have remained the white supremacist, tin eared, out of touch Bullingdon Boy who has no connection with anyone outside his bubble.
Either way its definitely Dom's fault. Everything is.
I think it's because politics attracts a lot of people who think a well made argument with a very tenuous link to the truth is impressive.
Hmm. A well made argument in our public life would have considerable novelty value whether it was true or not. We saw one today from a 22 year old footballer and it was startling.
Yes... And the people who agreed with him are taking the piss out of the govt for implementing it!
It really is the perfect example of wanting power more than getting policies they like, if they cant just say "fair enough, good outcome" ,on days like today
The Tories are being lampooned for the initial resistance, defence of the indefensible and humiliating U-turn. Not for finally doing the right thing,
"Look in the book" as they say in Cricket. History will record Rashford's letter being written on one day, and a couple later Boris implenting it. Only the bitter, partisan, refuse-to-be-happy-niks will still be up for an argument about the wheres and whys
Our media are pig ignorant, biased, driven by gotchas, fundamentally dishonest and partisan. But I really don't understand this "we are not speaking to you any more" strategy. Its just silly and counterproductive.
It's Cummings trying to prove that all that matters now is social media.
What's quite amazing about following politics for the last decade or so, is the way people of all sides shape shift depending on their opponents behaviour, so that no one can ever be happy, and they always have to be angry. Like football supporters who can only ever give credit to their own team
When Boris promised to look after the "Red Wall" voters who backed him last December, if we knew he was going to listen to a young, northern, black man and gone with a policy that benefited the poorest in society, against his free market ideals, we would have thought it a real example of the new compassionate Conservatives installing a bit of Social Democracy.
It has happened... and the people that wanted him to act in the interests of such folk, and would hold him to account had he not are lampooning him for being weak and defeated.
Of course, had he not implemented the school meal policy, he would have remained the white supremacist, tin eared, out of touch Bullingdon Boy who has no connection with anyone outside his bubble.
Either way its definitely Dom's fault. Everything is.
I think it's because politics attracts a lot of people who think a well made argument with a very tenuous link to the truth is impressive.
Hmm. A well made argument in our public life would have considerable novelty value whether it was true or not. We saw one today from a 22 year old footballer and it was startling.
Yes... And the people who agreed with him are taking the piss out of the govt for implementing it!
It really is the perfect example of wanting power more than getting policies they like, if they cant just say "fair enough, good outcome" ,on days like today
The Tories are being lampooned for the initial resistance, defence of the indefensible and humiliating U-turn. Not for finally doing the right thing,
On the argument with GMB, in All Out War it is said that Cummings tried to ban ITV from the press conference on the 24 June (you know the one with Gove and Johnson looking somber).
24th June??? You can see 8 days into the future? That should help with betting....
Our media are pig ignorant, biased, driven by gotchas, fundamentally dishonest and partisan. But I really don't understand this "we are not speaking to you any more" strategy. Its just silly and counterproductive.
I do think governments need to accept getting a hard time, even unreasonably, as the price of getting info out there even in normal times. Like the mere act of asking people to vote for you it is an unenjoyable but necessary part of the political game.
However, I do tend toward justin's take on this to a degree, in there being no obligation, and the way they are complaining about it makes it look just as pettily driven as any government response. Neil's call out of Boris during the GE campaign, not that it mattered, makes for an interesting counter example, in that while Neil has a big ego and the government held firm and won the day, the manner of his delivery was powerful and made in a way to emphasise it as a matter of principle, whether it was or not.
This, by contrast, is two sides acting like children.
I actually have some sympathy for the Government on this. The fact that a Television or Radio programme exists imposes no obligation on politicians to appear on them. Harold Wilson and Ted Heath did not have to make themselves available , and I see no reason why their successors today should be cajoled into bowing to the wishes of Broadcasters.
This tactic, borrowed from across the Atlantic, is largely though more about pre-empting particular kinds of scrutiny than failing to respond to particular requests. It's a pattern of blanket boycotting of certain outlets once they lay down a particular challenge on a particular issue, followed by the governments' more favoured and centrally manageable channels of communication on social media. This is not a democratic advance.
Ok - but how were Churchill , Attlee , Chamberlain and Baldwin scrutinized by the Broadcasters?
Are the protests against police killings in the United States hysterical? Doing a bit of digging and black people make up 13% of the US population, 26% of police killings and 52% of homicide victims. If one assumes that at least some police killings ARE justified it's fairly clear that the killings at the hands of the police are a drop in the ocean. I also understand that murder in the US tends to be pretty intraracial - whites kill whites and blacks kill blacks.
It may be that the images of Floyd bring out a deeper feeling in people that the police behave callously or are racist in general. But the idea that black men being killed by the police is the biggest problem facing the United States is absurd. I feel misled.
I can't make any judgement on your question as I don't know. I don't live in the US, visit rarely and don't have any friends in the black community over there. So I am ill equipped to judge.
But what I find terrifying is the stat that between 1980 and 2013 262,000 black males were killed in the US. The vast majority of those were not killed by police either legitimately or illegitimately.
There is something fundamentally wrong in, and with, the US today. Much as I wish it would, I don't see the current wave of protests making it any better.
From what I am reading and listening to crime/murder rates have come down considerably in recent decades.
Our media are pig ignorant, biased, driven by gotchas, fundamentally dishonest and partisan. But I really don't understand this "we are not speaking to you any more" strategy. Its just silly and counterproductive.
Cameron and Osborne were very reluctant to ever be interviewed by Andrew Neil, I think
On the argument with GMB, in All Out War it is said that Cummings tried to ban ITV from the press conference on the 24 June (you know the one with Gove and Johnson looking somber).
24th June??? You can see 8 days into the future? That should help with betting....
I actually have some sympathy for the Government on this. The fact that a Television or Radio programme exists imposes no obligation on politicians to appear on them. Harold Wilson and Ted Heath did not have to make themselves available , and I see no reason why their successors today should be cajoled into bowing to the wishes of Broadcasters.
Certainly not with presenters of the ilk of Morgan.
But I do think it was a great error for Johnson not to be interviewed by Andrew Neil. It is one thing to avoid the sensationalist types of interviewers who are looking for the gotcha moments but there are still a number of serious journalists who are on top of their briefs and who are looking to get serious answers to serious questions.
I know in the end people will say it didn't harm Johnson as he won but the basic principle of avoiding public scrutiny in that way is, I believe, a poor message to send.
Are the protests against police killings in the United States hysterical? Doing a bit of digging and black people make up 13% of the US population, 26% of police killings and 52% of homicide victims. If one assumes that at least some police killings ARE justified it's fairly clear that the killings at the hands of the police are a drop in the ocean. I also understand that murder in the US tends to be pretty intraracial - whites kill whites and blacks kill blacks.
It may be that the images of Floyd bring out a deeper feeling in people that the police behave callously or are racist in general. But the idea that black men being killed by the police is the biggest problem facing the United States is absurd. I feel misled.
I can't make any judgement on your question as I don't know. I don't live in the US, visit rarely and don't have any friends in the black community over there. So I am ill equipped to judge.
But what I find terrifying is the stat that between 1980 and 2013 262,000 black males were killed in the US. The vast majority of those were not killed by police either legitimately or illegitimately.
There is something fundamentally wrong in, and with, the US today. Much as I wish it would, I don't see the current wave of protests making it any better.
More than were killed on both sides put together in the Civil war in actual combat. Just mind blowing.
He still should have gone, but the breathtaking subsequent set of double standards from plenty of his detractors *cough Piers* was quite something. Let's see what he's going to do with the "institutions"
Just remember the political pendulum will swing in the next decade. What happens to the BBC and other valued institutions will not be forgotten. There will be an equal and opposite backlash against Cummings's no doubt hyper partisan 'reform'.
Our media are pig ignorant, biased, driven by gotchas, fundamentally dishonest and partisan. But I really don't understand this "we are not speaking to you any more" strategy. Its just silly and counterproductive.
The situation could be dangerous due to all those guns wielded by Trumpnuts. But, sorry Mike, I can't see disapproval by Boris making a blind bit of difference.
As has been demonstrated recently the US military tends to avoid politics.
I believe in old Rome the military stayed out of town. But it was the Praetorian guard wasn't it that installed Claudius? Claudius is usually considered to have been a stutterer and physically weak. Does that remind us of anyone?
All the service branches swear to serve the Constitution, not the President. The US military will simply no longer obey Trump and the USSS is the Praetorian Guard.
Trump is surrounded by people with handcuffs and guns who will simply give him the choice of being cuffed on TV or discretely leaving.
It will not be a circus. He might rant and rave between the election and the swearing in, but nobody is going to let him start WW3
I actually have some sympathy for the Government on this. The fact that a Television or Radio programme exists imposes no obligation on politicians to appear on them. Harold Wilson and Ted Heath did not have to make themselves available , and I see no reason why their successors today should be cajoled into bowing to the wishes of Broadcasters.
This tactic, borrowed from across the Atlantic, is largely though more about pre-empting particular kinds of scrutiny than failing to respond to particular requests. It's a pattern of blanket boycotting of certain outlets once they lay down a particular challenge on a particular issue, followed by the governments' more favoured and centrally manageable channels of communication on social media. This is not a democratic advance.
Ok - but how were Churchill , Attlee , Chamberlain and Baldwin scrutinized by the Broadcasters?
Usually with a deference that wouldn't be repeated now - and rightly so - but with such little media space they had very little room to pick and choose broadcasters. Douglas-Home and Macmillan, once ITV was formed, and Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major and Cameron never did this.
Are the protests against police killings in the United States hysterical? Doing a bit of digging and black people make up 13% of the US population, 26% of police killings and 52% of homicide victims. If one assumes that at least some police killings ARE justified it's fairly clear that the killings at the hands of the police are a drop in the ocean. I also understand that murder in the US tends to be pretty intraracial - whites kill whites and blacks kill blacks.
It may be that the images of Floyd bring out a deeper feeling in people that the police behave callously or are racist in general. But the idea that black men being killed by the police is the biggest problem facing the United States is absurd. I feel misled.
I can't make any judgement on your question as I don't know. I don't live in the US, visit rarely and don't have any friends in the black community over there. So I am ill equipped to judge.
But what I find terrifying is the stat that between 1980 and 2013 262,000 black males were killed in the US. The vast majority of those were not killed by police either legitimately or illegitimately.
There is something fundamentally wrong in, and with, the US today. Much as I wish it would, I don't see the current wave of protests making it any better.
More than were killed on both sides put together in the Civil war in actual combat. Just mind blowing.
I do live in the USA, and the leading cause of death among black males under 25 is gunshot wound. There is also a fundamental problem with police violence. The two are not connected.
I actually have some sympathy for the Government on this. The fact that a Television or Radio programme exists imposes no obligation on politicians to appear on them. Harold Wilson and Ted Heath did not have to make themselves available , and I see no reason why their successors today should be cajoled into bowing to the wishes of Broadcasters.
This tactic, borrowed from across the Atlantic, is largely though more about pre-empting particular kinds of scrutiny than failing to respond to particular requests. It's a pattern of blanket boycotting of certain outlets once they lay down a particular challenge on a particular issue, followed by the governments' more favoured and centrally manageable channels of communication on social media. This is not a democratic advance.
Ok - but how were Churchill , Attlee , Chamberlain and Baldwin scrutinized by the Broadcasters?
Usually with a deference that wouldn't be repeated now - and rightly so - but with such little media space they had very little room to pick and choose broadcasters. Douglas-Home and Macmillan, once ITV was formed, and Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major and Cameron never did this.
Wilson had a big blowout with David Dimbleby over his Yesterday's Men programme in 1971 and declined to be interviewed by him again.
I suspect Trump will lose with dishonour, and make the transition awful and leave a number of disasters for Biden to deal with.
You know starting a war with Iran and the like.
Power runs away from him if he has clearly lost. In the period before FDR took office Hoover begged him to give some support to his policies as the banking network in State after State collapsed. FDR refused to do or say anything. Things got very ugly between them and the reciprocal hospitality that is standard between an incoming and outgoing President did not occur. Hoover considered it pretty much treason. FDR did not want to be trapped by failed policies. In the end though the outgoing President has no cards to play.
He's still Commander-in-Chief, his word is the law until January 20th.
But once the clock strikes midday he is nothing, even if he starts WWIII first the transition must still take place (e.g. Atlee replacing Churchill in the middle of the Potsdam Conference).
I actually have some sympathy for the Government on this. The fact that a Television or Radio programme exists imposes no obligation on politicians to appear on them. Harold Wilson and Ted Heath did not have to make themselves available , and I see no reason why their successors today should be cajoled into bowing to the wishes of Broadcasters.
Certainly not with presenters of the ilk of Morgan.
But I do think it was a great error for Johnson not to be interviewed by Andrew Neil. It is one thing to avoid the sensationalist types of interviewers who are looking for the gotcha moments but there are still a number of serious journalists who are on top of their briefs and who are looking to get serious answers to serious questions.
I know in the end people will say it didn't harm Johnson as he won but the basic principle of avoiding public scrutiny in that way is, I believe, a poor message to send.
Are the protests against police killings in the United States hysterical? Doing a bit of digging and black people make up 13% of the US population, 26% of police killings and 52% of homicide victims. If one assumes that at least some police killings ARE justified it's fairly clear that the killings at the hands of the police are a drop in the ocean. I also understand that murder in the US tends to be pretty intraracial - whites kill whites and blacks kill blacks.
It may be that the images of Floyd bring out a deeper feeling in people that the police behave callously or are racist in general. But the idea that black men being killed by the police is the biggest problem facing the United States is absurd. I feel misled.
I can't make any judgement on your question as I don't know. I don't live in the US, visit rarely and don't have any friends in the black community over there. So I am ill equipped to judge.
But what I find terrifying is the stat that between 1980 and 2013 262,000 black males were killed in the US. The vast majority of those were not killed by police either legitimately or illegitimately.
There is something fundamentally wrong in, and with, the US today. Much as I wish it would, I don't see the current wave of protests making it any better.
From what I am reading and listening to crime/murder rates have come down considerably in recent decades.
Indeed that (and HIV treatments) are the main reason that the life expectancy gap with white America has substantially closed.
The problem with police killings, and cases like Trayvon Martin, or Ahmaud Arbery is that they look very much like lynching rather than accidents, or overreaction.
I actually have some sympathy for the Government on this. The fact that a Television or Radio programme exists imposes no obligation on politicians to appear on them. Harold Wilson and Ted Heath did not have to make themselves available , and I see no reason why their successors today should be cajoled into bowing to the wishes of Broadcasters.
This tactic, borrowed from across the Atlantic, is largely though more about pre-empting particular kinds of scrutiny than failing to respond to particular requests. It's a pattern of blanket boycotting of certain outlets once they lay down a particular challenge on a particular issue, followed by the governments' more favoured and centrally manageable channels of communication on social media. This is not a democratic advance.
Ok - but how were Churchill , Attlee , Chamberlain and Baldwin scrutinized by the Broadcasters?
Usually with a deference that wouldn't be repeated now - and rightly so - but with such little media space they had very little room to pick and choose broadcasters. Douglas-Home and Macmillan, once ITV was formed, and Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major and Cameron never did this.
Wilson had a big blowout with David Dimbleby over his Yesterday's Men programme in 1971 and declined to be interviewed by him again.
There were various bust-ups between individuals, but entire channels, outlets and programmes were generally not boycotted. That's a development of the modern media culture war age, and is a kind of media performance for the benefit of supporters, in itself.
Are the protests against police killings in the United States hysterical? Doing a bit of digging and black people make up 13% of the US population, 26% of police killings and 52% of homicide victims. If one assumes that at least some police killings ARE justified it's fairly clear that the killings at the hands of the police are a drop in the ocean. I also understand that murder in the US tends to be pretty intraracial - whites kill whites and blacks kill blacks.
It may be that the images of Floyd bring out a deeper feeling in people that the police behave callously or are racist in general. But the idea that black men being killed by the police is the biggest problem facing the United States is absurd. I feel misled.
I can't make any judgement on your question as I don't know. I don't live in the US, visit rarely and don't have any friends in the black community over there. So I am ill equipped to judge.
But what I find terrifying is the stat that between 1980 and 2013 262,000 black males were killed in the US. The vast majority of those were not killed by police either legitimately or illegitimately.
There is something fundamentally wrong in, and with, the US today. Much as I wish it would, I don't see the current wave of protests making it any better.
More than were killed on both sides put together in the Civil war in actual combat. Just mind blowing.
I do live in the USA, and the leading cause of death among black males under 25 is gunshot wound. There is also a fundamental problem with police violence. The two are not connected.
And every other kind of violence, particularly drug related.
Are the protests against police killings in the United States hysterical? Doing a bit of digging and black people make up 13% of the US population, 26% of police killings and 52% of homicide victims. If one assumes that at least some police killings ARE justified it's fairly clear that the killings at the hands of the police are a drop in the ocean. I also understand that murder in the US tends to be pretty intraracial - whites kill whites and blacks kill blacks.
It may be that the images of Floyd bring out a deeper feeling in people that the police behave callously or are racist in general. But the idea that black men being killed by the police is the biggest problem facing the United States is absurd. I feel misled.
I can't make any judgement on your question as I don't know. I don't live in the US, visit rarely and don't have any friends in the black community over there. So I am ill equipped to judge.
But what I find terrifying is the stat that between 1980 and 2013 262,000 black males were killed in the US. The vast majority of those were not killed by police either legitimately or illegitimately.
There is something fundamentally wrong in, and with, the US today. Much as I wish it would, I don't see the current wave of protests making it any better.
From what I am reading and listening to crime/murder rates have come down considerably in recent decades.
According to the CDC tables, if you are a black male under 44 years of age homicide is by far the largest single cause of death.
Ages 1-19 Homicide accounts for 35.3% of all black male deaths Ages 20 - 44 Homicide accounts for 27.6% of all black male deaths
Our media are pig ignorant, biased, driven by gotchas, fundamentally dishonest and partisan. But I really don't understand this "we are not speaking to you any more" strategy. Its just silly and counterproductive.
Cameron and Osborne were very reluctant to ever be interviewed by Andrew Neil, I think
As we all know being political wonks, it's the members of the Electoral College that get elected in November. They meet to cast their votes in mid-December, but not together as a whole, rather each state's electors meet separately. The electoral votes cast are sent by the state officials to DC, and the current VP, as President of the Senate, opens the votes in early January before the two houses of new Congress.
So, if Trump loses the electoral vote in November, he's only really got two options for actually using his inevitable claims of election fraud to subvert the process and claim victory:
1) He can try to get the courts to disqualify votes that he claims are fraudulent, and/or get the state administrations, where controlled by Republicans, to do likewise, awarding the electoral votes to the Republican electoral slate. The former is a possibility, but I don't think the latter is very likely.
2) He can get Pence as President of the Senate to refuse to allow the count of electoral votes received from the states where he claims fraud took place. However, the Constitution does not make it clear that the VP actually has the power to conduct the count: the general consensus is that the VP just presides over the process and that the authority to count rests with the houses of Congress in joint session, which is almost certainly going to be majority Democratic.
There's precedent for all this, mostly from the disputed election of 1876, where some states ended up sending two competing returns, signed by governors and secretaries of state of different parties (in most states the secretary of state is elected independently of the governor). That was resolved by Congress appointing a bipartisan commission to rule on which electoral returns to accept.
The bottom line though, is that by January 20th 2021, someone will have been legally declared the victor of the presidential election, and if that someone is not Donald J. Trump, then Trump can sit and glower in the White House until noon, but at that point he will cease to be POTUS and will be removed just as soon as the new President orders it.
Our media are pig ignorant, biased, driven by gotchas, fundamentally dishonest and partisan. But I really don't understand this "we are not speaking to you any more" strategy. Its just silly and counterproductive.
Cameron and Osborne were very reluctant to ever be interviewed by Andrew Neil, I think
Well yes, but he's terrifying.
What got me into politics as much as I am was working from home from around 2009 onwards, and watching the politics shows on tv, generally featuring Andrew Neil. I loved This Week, but although sad that it has gone it did become a bit silly near the end, and I didn't like Neil's intro monologues one little bit, I found them quite cringey.
I suspect Trump will lose with dishonour, and make the transition awful and leave a number of disasters for Biden to deal with.
You know starting a war with Iran and the like.
Power runs away from him if he has clearly lost. In the period before FDR took office Hoover begged him to give some support to his policies as the banking network in State after State collapsed. FDR refused to do or say anything. Things got very ugly between them and the reciprocal hospitality that is standard between an incoming and outgoing President did not occur. Hoover considered it pretty much treason. FDR did not want to be trapped by failed policies. In the end though the outgoing President has no cards to play.
He's still Commander-in-Chief, his word is the law until January 20th.
But once the clock strikes midday he is nothing, even if he starts WWIII first the transition must still take place (e.g. Atlee replacing Churchill in the middle of the Potsdam Conference).
I think China will be at the centerpiece of that. The Democrats could not have selected a worse candidate to make an argument to the American people than Joe Biden. So I think 2020 is really a continuation almost of 2016. We still have not worked through these issues. Remember, the campaign slogan was “Make America Great Again.”
I said that that is going to be a generational struggle. You’re not going to wave a magic wand. I think 2020 is shaping up in the last 150 days to be just this classic counter of the globalism of Joe Biden and the Wall Street faction of the Democratic Party versus the economic nationalism and populism of Trump and potentially some slice of the Bernie [Sanders] contingent.
This confrontation with the Chinese Communist Party, I believe, will be the single defining aspect of 2020. And yes, I think for President Trump, because I think he’s just getting the sea legs now. Focusing on the law and order aspect of this, he was kind of quiet for the first week, as are the poll numbers.
The situation could be dangerous due to all those guns wielded by Trumpnuts. But, sorry Mike, I can't see disapproval by Boris making a blind bit of difference.
As has been demonstrated recently the US military tends to avoid politics.
I believe in old Rome the military stayed out of town. But it was the Praetorian guard wasn't it that installed Claudius? Claudius is usually considered to have been a stutterer and physically weak. Does that remind us of anyone?
The difference with Rome is that the Roman military weren't really the army of the state as we understand it, or even the army of the emperor as commander-in-chief of the state, but the personal troops of the emperor. The Roman Republic did not have standing armies in the modern sense: each magistrate or pro-magistrate raised armies as needed by exercising their imperium - their legal right to make commands binding on Roman citizens. The emperors abolished imperium as something shared among the magistrates and held it all themselves. As each emperor came to the throne, they would buy the troops personal loyalty to themselves by giving out a huge cash bonus, and individual army commanders were literally delegates of the emperor (legatus augustii) Conversely, emperors would be overthrown when a large enough mass of the army became dissatisfied with the current emperor's rule and acclaimed their local commander as imperator (so long as that new imperator could actually defeat the old one on the battle field of course!).
It's not overly encouraging that the image of Biden, here, makes him resemble a toothless corpse which has just been posthumously sodomised with a cattle prod
Hahahahahaha
Very good. Probably the funniest remark on PB this year. You're improving, kiddo
I suspect Trump will lose with dishonour, and make the transition awful and leave a number of disasters for Biden to deal with.
You know starting a war with Iran and the like.
Power runs away from him if he has clearly lost. In the period before FDR took office Hoover begged him to give some support to his policies as the banking network in State after State collapsed. FDR refused to do or say anything. Things got very ugly between them and the reciprocal hospitality that is standard between an incoming and outgoing President did not occur. Hoover considered it pretty much treason. FDR did not want to be trapped by failed policies. In the end though the outgoing President has no cards to play.
He's still Commander-in-Chief, his word is the law until January 20th.
But once the clock strikes midday he is nothing, even if he starts WWIII first the transition must still take place (e.g. Atlee replacing Churchill in the middle of the Potsdam Conference).
Stalin thought Churchill had been purged.
How did he explain the lack of an ice-pick sticking out of the back of Churchill's head then?
"We send 0.7% of GDP to despots and dictators, no strings attached. Let's keep sending it to them but demand that they buy weaponry from us in return"
British foreign policy, 2020.
Mitchell was actually a pretty good head of DfID. The organisation is thoughtful about what it funds and, in the main, pretty effective.
The waste comes from some of the multilateral schemes it funds (eg the £1bn it gives to the EU to hand out on our behalf despite the fact that we are objectively better at it).
I actually have more issue with the fixed 0.7% target - I’d rather we spent money that is value added rather than to hit an arbitrary target
I actually have some sympathy for the Government on this. The fact that a Television or Radio programme exists imposes no obligation on politicians to appear on them. Harold Wilson and Ted Heath did not have to make themselves available , and I see no reason why their successors today should be cajoled into bowing to the wishes of Broadcasters.
This tactic, borrowed from across the Atlantic, is largely though more about pre-empting particular kinds of scrutiny than failing to respond to particular requests. It's a pattern of blanket boycotting of certain outlets once they lay down a particular challenge on a particular issue, followed by the governments' more favoured and centrally manageable channels of communication on social media. This is not a democratic advance.
Ok - but how were Churchill , Attlee , Chamberlain and Baldwin scrutinized by the Broadcasters?
Usually with a deference that wouldn't be repeated now - and rightly so - but with such little media space they had very little room to pick and choose broadcasters. Douglas-Home and Macmillan, once ITV was formed, and Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major and Cameron never did this.
Wilson had a big blowout with David Dimbleby over his Yesterday's Men programme in 1971 and declined to be interviewed by him again.
There were various bust-ups between individuals, but entire channels, outlets and programmes were generally not boycotted. That's a development of the modern media culture war age, and is a kind of media performance for the benefit of supporters, in itself.
The Government is not boycotting the BBC as a whole though - it does send on representatives for Andrew Marr's programme.
Comments
I imagine Johnson and others will be desperate not to get involved, as if they did it would only inflame the situation. Let SCOTUS sort it out.
But it won't happen.
Surely not.
You know starting a war with Iran and the like.
It's democracy Jim, but not as we know it.
When Boris promised to look after the "Red Wall" voters who backed him last December, if we knew he was going to listen to a young, northern, black man and gone with a policy that benefited the poorest in society, against his free market ideals, we would have thought it a real example of the new compassionate Conservatives installing a bit of Social Democracy.
It has happened... and the people that wanted him to act in the interests of such folk, and would hold him to account had he not are lampooning him for being weak and defeated.
Of course, had he not implemented the school meal policy, he would have remained the white supremacist, tin eared, out of touch Bullingdon Boy who has no connection with anyone outside his bubble.
Almost like the Tories banning postal voting.
The Electoral Kindergarten is an outdated means to gift the White House to LOSERS like DICKHEAD DONALD!
Very good. Probably the funniest remark on PB this year. You're improving, kiddo
64.2 million to Clinton
62.2 million to Trump
Just saying...
There will be those who argue the Government, rather than Twitter, should be making these kind of decisions and making the not unreasonable point Mr Rashford and those like him could easily make a personal contribution toward school meal funding rather than it coming from the hard-pressed taxpayer.
It's called argument and democracy. Sometimes Johnson gets it right, sometimes he gets it wrong, sometimes there's merit on both sides of the argument.
It's both those who excoriate the Government on everything and those who are its uncritical adherents who do democracy the greatest disservice.
Let's keep sending it to them but demand that they buy weaponry from us in return"
British foreign policy, 2020.
Looks that way.
It may be that the images of Floyd bring out a deeper feeling in people that the police behave callously or are racist in general. But the idea that black men being killed by the police is the biggest problem facing the United States is absurd. I feel misled.
Let's see what he's going to do with the "institutions"
https://twitter.com/stancollymore/status/1272967210689069057?s=21
https://twitter.com/NarangVipin/status/1272924908704727042
It really is the perfect example of wanting power more than getting policies they like, if they cant just say "fair enough, good outcome", on days like today
But, sorry Mike, I can't see disapproval by Boris making a blind bit of difference.
As has been demonstrated recently the US military tends to avoid politics.
I believe in old Rome the military stayed out of town. But it was the Praetorian guard wasn't it that installed Claudius? Claudius is usually considered to have been a stutterer and physically weak. Does that remind us of anyone?
"Race and Revolution: Is Change Going to Come?"
https://news.sky.com/story/race-and-revolution-is-change-going-to-come-12007980
A Trump-like petulance operating somewhere, I think.
But what I find terrifying is the stat that between 1980 and 2013 262,000 black males were killed in the US. The vast majority of those were not killed by police either legitimately or illegitimately.
There is something fundamentally wrong in, and with, the US today. Much as I wish it would, I don't see the current wave of protests making it any better.
I am sure it's always been the same
However, I do tend toward justin's take on this to a degree, in there being no obligation, and the way they are complaining about it makes it look just as pettily driven as any government response. Neil's call out of Boris during the GE campaign, not that it mattered, makes for an interesting counter example, in that while Neil has a big ego and the government held firm and won the day, the manner of his delivery was powerful and made in a way to emphasise it as a matter of principle, whether it was or not.
This, by contrast, is two sides acting like children.
But I do think it was a great error for Johnson not to be interviewed by Andrew Neil. It is one thing to avoid the sensationalist types of interviewers who are looking for the gotcha moments but there are still a number of serious journalists who are on top of their briefs and who are looking to get serious answers to serious questions.
I know in the end people will say it didn't harm Johnson as he won but the basic principle of avoiding public scrutiny in that way is, I believe, a poor message to send.
Trump is surrounded by people with handcuffs and guns who will simply give him the choice of being cuffed on TV or discretely leaving.
It will not be a circus. He might rant and rave between the election and the swearing in, but nobody is going to let him start WW3
The problem with police killings, and cases like Trayvon Martin, or Ahmaud Arbery is that they look very much like lynching rather than accidents, or overreaction.
Nothing to hide, no siree.
Ages 1-19 Homicide accounts for 35.3% of all black male deaths
Ages 20 - 44 Homicide accounts for 27.6% of all black male deaths
What else can you do in a pandemic though
So, if Trump loses the electoral vote in November, he's only really got two options for actually using his inevitable claims of election fraud to subvert the process and claim victory:
1) He can try to get the courts to disqualify votes that he claims are fraudulent, and/or get the state administrations, where controlled by Republicans, to do likewise, awarding the electoral votes to the Republican electoral slate. The former is a possibility, but I don't think the latter is very likely.
2) He can get Pence as President of the Senate to refuse to allow the count of electoral votes received from the states where he claims fraud took place. However, the Constitution does not make it clear that the VP actually has the power to conduct the count: the general consensus is that the VP just presides over the process and that the authority to count rests with the houses of Congress in joint session, which is almost certainly going to be majority Democratic.
There's precedent for all this, mostly from the disputed election of 1876, where some states ended up sending two competing returns, signed by governors and secretaries of state of different parties (in most states the secretary of state is elected independently of the governor). That was resolved by Congress appointing a bipartisan commission to rule on which electoral returns to accept.
The bottom line though, is that by January 20th 2021, someone will have been legally declared the victor of the presidential election, and if that someone is not Donald J. Trump, then Trump can sit and glower in the White House until noon, but at that point he will cease to be POTUS and will be removed just as soon as the new President orders it.
Hence the polls being good for Biden.
I think China will be at the centerpiece of that. The Democrats could not have selected a worse candidate to make an argument to the American people than Joe Biden. So I think 2020 is really a continuation almost of 2016. We still have not worked through these issues. Remember, the campaign slogan was “Make America Great Again.”
I said that that is going to be a generational struggle. You’re not going to wave a magic wand. I think 2020 is shaping up in the last 150 days to be just this classic counter of the globalism of Joe Biden and the Wall Street faction of the Democratic Party versus the economic nationalism and populism of Trump and potentially some slice of the Bernie [Sanders] contingent.
This confrontation with the Chinese Communist Party, I believe, will be the single defining aspect of 2020. And yes, I think for President Trump, because I think he’s just getting the sea legs now. Focusing on the law and order aspect of this, he was kind of quiet for the first week, as are the poll numbers.
https://asiatimes.com/2020/06/bannon-tells-at-us-election-is-all-about-china/?fbclid=IwAR1ZZrUWG3uwleecwCxZDzjtG_-2iBNnPbaOi6EzvcxA6V9Xy1dlnwtUMw0
Trump will leave office if he loses. I’d be worried that he’ll say “fuck in” in November, write a few pardons and go to Florida for the winter
The waste comes from some of the multilateral schemes it funds (eg the £1bn it gives to the EU to hand out on our behalf despite the fact that we are objectively better at it).
I actually have more issue with the fixed 0.7% target - I’d rather we spent money that is value added rather than to hit an arbitrary target
Difficult to know which.