From the article: "The reproduction rate of the virus has dropped 0.9 and 1.0 - its lowest level since August - meaning the virus could already be in retreat."
Well, yes, because there's a lockdown on. And if that only just gets R under 1, even the beefed-up tiers could see it going back over again.
Hodges made a joke the other day about the Cassandra Crossing film and this coming xmas eve.
From the article: "The reproduction rate of the virus has dropped to 0.9 to 1.0 - its lowest level since August - meaning the virus could already be in retreat."
Well, yes, because there's a lockdown on. And if that only just gets R under 1, even the beefed-up tiers could see it going back over again.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
Yeah but the quality of the cases presented so far has been so poor that it's surprising Trump hasn't been cited as a vexatious litigant. I doubt the cases for Michigan and Georgia are any stronger.
Perhaps not, but you won't even find a summary of the salient points in our media, which is why you must turn to Trumpite Twitter.
The article majors on Sidney Powell being a crazy conspiracy theorist, and that her lawsuit is littered with typos (this is something we desperately needed to know because??) etc. etc. There's next to zero discussion of the salient points, and there certainly isn't a link to the document, which is publicly available.
Not useful either from an informational, or betting standpoint.
The above allegation is simple, and easy to test, and totally different from hard to prove theories about voting machines etc. I am sure (genuinely) that this is because he ran out of time, but I would have been interested to know what he'd have made of it.
So, if I have got this Telegraph piece right, the government is setting up a Czar with powers to help facilitate more people travelling across the country in the middle of a pandemic which they have repeatedly told us is so bad that 100,000s will die and the NHS will be totally swamped unless we spend a whole year locked down?
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
In which case, you do not deserve to be taken. seriously on the matter. I am done responding to you.
OK - I admit I find being obliged to read start to finish a very long piece of polemic at 9.45pm to be a slightly unreasonable demand to 'be taken seriously' on any subject, but as you wish.
Hasn’t Georgia already carried out a full audit? Did that not do enough?
Evidently some people think not, and if the audit missed the fact that 23,000 voted after moving out of the state, and significant numbers more voted without a genuine address (PO boxes, shopping centres etc.), I can see their point.
I seem to recall that the last time they claimed to have found thousands of out of state voters, it turned out they were military personnel who were well within their rights to do so. That may have been Nevada rather than Georgia, but I'd expect Georgia's military population is probably pretty big.
The fact remains that if the Georgia state apparatus was going to rig the election they wouldn't have done it for Biden: it takes a special type of conspiracy theorist to think that this is plausible.
Just remember that this is the suit from someone that Trump disavowed for being too extreme and who Tucker Carlson (sp?) on Fox called out as being unbelievable: and he is someone who takes UFO sightings seriously.
If fraud has been perpetrated, I am unsure how much cooperation would have been needed by 'Georgia's state aparatus', and how much could have been done by activists on the ground. Irregularities in counting vs. irregularities in votes being cast. You may be right about military votes - you may not be. That's why I am saying, rather boringly at this point, investigate the allegations - even the ones that you believe to be patently absurd, as there is no drawback.
So, if I have got this Telegraph piece right, the government is setting up a Czar with powers to help facilitate more people travelling across the country in the middle of a pandemic which they have repeatedly told us is so bad that 100,000s will die and the NHS will be totally swamped unless we spend a whole year locked down?
I'm trying to work out where extra carriages are going to magically appear from
Madness. Starking raving madness. None of this needed to have happened if Johnson and Cummings hadn't started briefing about 'saving xmas' several weeks ago.
As far as "Christmas rail chaos" is concerned, the long holiday period is the only time of year when significant work can take place on some lines. The scale of the work involved means it can only be done over a four or five day period.
Let's not forget some of those working on these projects, albeit well paid, are giving up Christmas with their families to do this work (along with all the many others who keep essential services running through the Christmas period) which benefits us all in terms of improved journey times and preventing serious maintenance issues in the future.
The Government's absurd "Christmas window" will concentrate travel on two days - the 23rd and the 27th (presumably). We'd better hope there's no bad weather - I mean it's December, what could go wrong other than snow, ice, frost, fog, heavy rain, strong winds and plagues of locusts? Never mind, if US Thanksgiving is any guide, people will eschew public transport and clog the roads instead.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
In which case, you do not deserve to be taken. seriously on the matter. I am done responding to you.
OK - I admit I find being obliged to read start to finish a very long piece of polemic at 9.45pm to be a slightly unreasonable demand to 'be taken seriously' on any subject, but as you wish.
Hasn’t Georgia already carried out a full audit? Did that not do enough?
Evidently some people think not, and if the audit missed the fact that 23,000 voted after moving out of the state, and significant numbers more voted without a genuine address (PO boxes, shopping centres etc.), I can see their point.
I seem to recall that the last time they claimed to have found thousands of out of state voters, it turned out they were military personnel who were well within their rights to do so. That may have been Nevada rather than Georgia, but I'd expect Georgia's military population is probably pretty big.
The fact remains that if the Georgia state apparatus was going to rig the election they wouldn't have done it for Biden: it takes a special type of conspiracy theorist to think that this is plausible.
Just remember that this is the suit from someone that Trump disavowed for being too extreme and who Tucker Carlson (sp?) on Fox called out as being unbelievable: and he is someone who takes UFO sightings seriously.
If fraud has been perpetrated, I am unsure how much cooperation would have been needed by 'Georgia's state aparatus', and how much could have been done by activists on the ground. Irregularities in counting vs. irregularities in votes being cast. You may be right about military votes - you may not be. That's why I am saying, rather boringly at this point, investigate the allegations - even the ones that you believe to be patently absurd, as there is no drawback.
Then you haven't read the complaint: it accuses the Republican Governor of conspiring with Dominion software, the CIA and various communist countries to falsify the election count.
So, if I have got this Telegraph piece right, the government is setting up a Czar with powers to help facilitate more people travelling across the country in the middle of a pandemic which they have repeatedly told us is so bad that 100,000s will die and the NHS will be totally swamped unless we spend a whole year locked down?
I'm trying to work out where extra carriages are going to magically appear from
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
Yeah but the quality of the cases presented so far has been so poor that it's surprising Trump hasn't been cited as a vexatious litigant. I doubt the cases for Michigan and Georgia are any stronger.
That's true but I think it's fair enough for Betfair to not want to prejudge the courts. If the courts chose to back Trump (they won't, they shouldn't, but hypothetically if) then Trump can still technically win on existing rules.
It's fair enough for us to say Trump won't win his court cases. But Betfair are under no obligation to say so before the courts do.
So, if I have got this Telegraph piece right, the government is setting up a Czar with powers to help facilitate more people travelling across the country in the middle of a pandemic which they have repeatedly told us is so bad that 100,000s will die and the NHS will be totally swamped unless we spend a whole year locked down?
I'm trying to work out where extra carriages are going to magically appear from
All those Pacers that have just been withdrawn from service!
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
Yeah but the quality of the cases presented so far has been so poor that it's surprising Trump hasn't been cited as a vexatious litigant. I doubt the cases for Michigan and Georgia are any stronger.
Perhaps not, but you won't even find a summary of the salient points in our media, which is why you must turn to Trumpite Twitter.
The article majors on Sidney Powell being a crazy conspiracy theorist, and that her lawsuit is littered with typos (this is something we desperately needed to know because??) etc. etc. There's next to zero discussion of the salient points, and there certainly isn't a link to the document, which is publicly available.
Not useful either from an informational, or betting standpoint.
The above allegation is simple, and easy to test, and totally different from hard to prove theories about voting machines etc. I am sure (genuinely) that this is because he ran out of time, but I would have been interested to know what he'd have made of it.
The above allegation is also a bucket of warm piss, just like the rest.
Note that under the election laws of just about ever state in the Union, voters are allowed to claim LEGAL domicle - including for voting purposes - in places other than where they may be currently laying their weary heads. For example, congresspeople & state legislators.
Note that when Mitt Romney first ran for governor of Massachusetts, the numb-nuts (no relation to Princes Nut Nuts) who ran the Mass Dem Party at the time, decided to challenge Mitt's legal (and moral) residency, because his accountant had filed paperwork in Utah claiming him as a resident there for tax purposes on a condo or some-such.
This gambit went over like a lead balloon, both in the law courts AND in court of public opinion.
Speaking of matching names against databases, you may NOT recall that THAT was the method used in Florida in the lead-up to the 2000 election by Jeb Bush's Secretary of State to deprive THOUSANDS of eligible citizens of their right to vote.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Madness. Starking raving madness. None of this needed to have happened if Johnson and Cummings hadn't started briefing about 'saving xmas' several weeks ago.
As far as "Christmas rail chaos" is concerned, the long holiday period is the only time of year when significant work can take place on some lines. The scale of the work involved means it can only be done over a four or five day period.
Let's not forget some of those working on these projects, albeit well paid, are giving up Christmas with their families to do this work (along with all the many others who keep essential services running through the Christmas period) which benefits us all in terms of improved journey times and preventing serious maintenance issues in the future.
The Government's absurd "Christmas window" will concentrate travel on two days - the 23rd and the 27th (presumably). We'd better hope there's no bad weather - I mean it's December, what could go wrong other than snow, ice, frost, fog, heavy rain, strong winds and plagues of locusts? Never mind, if US Thanksgiving is any guide, people will eschew public transport and clog the roads instead.
Wait to you see the plans for the east coast engineering works - closed from the 25th to the 30th with delays from the 23rd to January 3rd.
Is it correct that Betfair are heading for a profit of about £50 million on the presidential market, as long as it doesn't get voided for some reason? (Apologies if I've got it wrong).
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
Yeah but the quality of the cases presented so far has been so poor that it's surprising Trump hasn't been cited as a vexatious litigant. I doubt the cases for Michigan and Georgia are any stronger.
Perhaps not, but you won't even find a summary of the salient points in our media, which is why you must turn to Trumpite Twitter.
The article majors on Sidney Powell being a crazy conspiracy theorist, and that her lawsuit is littered with typos (this is something we desperately needed to know because??) etc. etc. There's next to zero discussion of the salient points, and there certainly isn't a link to the document, which is publicly available.
Not useful either from an informational, or betting standpoint.
The above allegation is simple, and easy to test, and totally different from hard to prove theories about voting machines etc. I am sure (genuinely) that this is because he ran out of time, but I would have been interested to know what he'd have made of it.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
In which case, you do not deserve to be taken. seriously on the matter. I am done responding to you.
OK - I admit I find being obliged to read start to finish a very long piece of polemic at 9.45pm to be a slightly unreasonable demand to 'be taken seriously' on any subject, but as you wish.
Hasn’t Georgia already carried out a full audit? Did that not do enough?
Evidently some people think not, and if the audit missed the fact that 23,000 voted after moving out of the state, and significant numbers more voted without a genuine address (PO boxes, shopping centres etc.), I can see their point.
I seem to recall that the last time they claimed to have found thousands of out of state voters, it turned out they were military personnel who were well within their rights to do so. That may have been Nevada rather than Georgia, but I'd expect Georgia's military population is probably pretty big.
The fact remains that if the Georgia state apparatus was going to rig the election they wouldn't have done it for Biden: it takes a special type of conspiracy theorist to think that this is plausible.
Just remember that this is the suit from someone that Trump disavowed for being too extreme and who Tucker Carlson (sp?) on Fox called out as being unbelievable: and he is someone who takes UFO sightings seriously.
If fraud has been perpetrated, I am unsure how much cooperation would have been needed by 'Georgia's state aparatus', and how much could have been done by activists on the ground. Irregularities in counting vs. irregularities in votes being cast. You may be right about military votes - you may not be. That's why I am saying, rather boringly at this point, investigate the allegations - even the ones that you believe to be patently absurd, as there is no drawback.
Then you haven't read the complaint: it accuses the Republican Governor of conspiring with Dominion software, the CIA and various communist countries to falsify the election count.
BTW, thank you for pointing out the wonderful story of Bismuth 209 earlier.
So, if I have got this Telegraph piece right, the government is setting up a Czar with powers to help facilitate more people travelling across the country in the middle of a pandemic which they have repeatedly told us is so bad that 100,000s will die and the NHS will be totally swamped unless we spend a whole year locked down?
The trouble is the Government knows (and if they know it, you and I both know it too) the emotional pull of Christmas and the understandable desire of people to spend time with their families and/or loved ones (delete as appropriate) is incredibly strong.
We are culturally brainwashed from birth to view Christmas as a special time when we get together with our families even if after 72 hours we can barely speak to each other but that's not the point.
I know from speaking to friends and work colleagues they will spend Christmas with their families irrespective of any "guideline" so short of mass arrests, the Government might as well bow to the inevitable and do as much as possible to mitigate the damage the public seems willing to inflict on itself once again in a desire to have a "normal" life.
Yes, I know - for 99% of people it's just a sniffle, apparently.
The problem and the irony is as soon as the case numbers start rising again, said public will be in the vanguard of calling for new lockdowns and urging the Government to "do something". I'm no fan of Boris Johnson and his bunch of halfwits but I would have every sympathy if sometimes, privately, they wondered why they bothered.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Sorry to hear you will be alone but I think you are doing the right thing. Been some discussion in my extended family but at the moment I'm holding the line that it is not wise to say the least to get together this xmas.
So, if I have got this Telegraph piece right, the government is setting up a Czar with powers to help facilitate more people travelling across the country in the middle of a pandemic which they have repeatedly told us is so bad that 100,000s will die and the NHS will be totally swamped unless we spend a whole year locked down?
The trouble is the Government knows (and if they know it, you and I both know it too) the emotional pull of Christmas and the understandable desire of people to spend time with their families and/or loved ones (delete as appropriate) is incredibly strong.
We are culturally brainwashed from birth to view Christmas as a special time when we get together with our families even if after 72 hours we can barely speak to each other but that's not the point.
I know from speaking to friends and work colleagues they will spend Christmas with their families irrespective of any "guideline" so short of mass arrests, the Government might as well bow to the inevitable and do as much as possible to mitigate the damage the public seems willing to inflict on itself once again in a desire to have a "normal" life.
Yes, I know - for 99% of people it's just a sniffle, apparently.
The problem and the irony is as soon as the case numbers start rising again, said public will be in the vanguard of calling for new lockdowns and urging the Government to "do something". I'm no fan of Boris Johnson and his bunch of halfwits but I would have every sympathy if sometimes, privately, they wondered why they bothered.
Describing Christmas as a "brainwashing" event is taking things a bit too far in my opinion.
Is it correct that Betfair are heading for a profit of about £50 million on the presidential market, as long as it doesn't get voided for some reason? (Apologies if I've got it wrong).
The amount matched only goes up, which means it the total exposure is actually lower.
Most of the growth since the election (c.£400m is in particular likely cashouts, although I'd be fascinated as to how the market as a whole stacks up and the distribution of punters.
Are there a few people making lots of money, with lots losing small amounts? Or a small number of people losing a lot and lots winning a small amount? etc. etc.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
You are right to say there's no equivalence in the magnitude of them two claims - one is indeed grumbling and one is actively undermining the result.
However, there is also no equivalence in the substance of what is being claimed. Claim 1 is that social media influence was brought to bear by a foreign power, and this influenced votes unfairly. Firstly, it's extremely difficult to prove, and especially that someone's entire voting decision was due to this social media influence - when people are exposed to a huge panoply of information and argument during an election campaign. Secondly, the time to expose it was before the election - it's entirely impossible to seek to do so afterwards.
Claim 2 is that votes were made fraudulently for one of the sides. That is totally different, that claim can be dismissed or verified by a number of means, and the time to expose it is necessarily after the election - as it was entirely impossible to do it before the votes had been cast.
So I don't see that either side has done something more than the other would not have done in its place.
Anything can be claimed. But that doesn't mean it is credibly claimed, and I think it is disingenuous to act as though a serious allegation in itself justifies what is going on, when the mere fact that so many of the claims have been tossed out by courts as unspecific, unevidenced and meritless.
By your logic anyone could make any serious claim, without evidence, to justify challenging the result, and pretend that that is the same thing as making legitimate challenges to serious allegations which have merit.
Yes, the start of that process would be the same and is permitted for the reason that it might be needed, but the extent of what is going on, and how meritless it has been shown to be, demonstrates it is a process being abused, not followed.
If the challenges are illegitimate then a process of rigorous checking will show them to be so.
I ask again, do you not agree with a process taking place, to ensure that one person has not voted twice? Do you not agree with a process taking place to ensure that all the ballots are signed? If it is found that votes of either colour fall outside this, would you not say they should be removed? If there has been no fraud, I can't see how this could be an objectionable process. Indeed, I'm not sure why the Democrats are not calling for it.
You are, like Trump, expecting them to prove themselves innocent rather than accusers prove them guilty, implying they have something to hide as the innocent have nothing to fear. And you didn't need to ask again, because I am perfectly clear that people have a right to make challenges where they have genuine concerns. But when we have cases where Trump appointed judges are throwing it out as unspecific and unevidenced, it is pretty clear that the Republicans are not pursuing genuine allegations in many places.
Oh, there will probably be some here or there, but when so many accusations don't even have evidence to stand up, it is pretty obvious what the goal is, and it isn't to raise genuine concerns.
I could report a real crime to the police, but if I also made up a hundred other accusations and had nothing to back up my claims, I think people would rightly question if justice was my goal, rather than slandering people and wasting time, even if that first crime did happen.
Your first part is a meaningless argument about semantics. There is no way of proving or disproving an allegation than by looking at the evidence and seeing if it happened.
To make it quite clear, I certainly don't approve of any Republican lawmakers ignoring the results of the current vote and just sending who they want to the electoral college - clearly this is the only vote that has taken place, and flawed as it may (or may not be), it is as it is. What I *do* approve of, is rigorous checking that nobody has voted twice, or voted whilst dead, non-existent, or otherwise fraudulently, and removing those votes from the totals. I can't see how this could be objectionable.
All these allegations have been brought before courts, and dismissed. Asked to present credible evidence of substantial fraud or malpractice, which they claimed to possess in copious amounts, Republicans have failed in dozens of venues.
I posted a link to detailed account of what has gone on in Michigan, which you have not responded to.
You are simply being perverse.
That's simply not correct. A large number of lawsuits have been dismissed. There are still some pending - there is one in Michigan and one in Georgia.
Yeah but the quality of the cases presented so far has been so poor that it's surprising Trump hasn't been cited as a vexatious litigant. I doubt the cases for Michigan and Georgia are any stronger.
Perhaps not, but you won't even find a summary of the salient points in our media, which is why you must turn to Trumpite Twitter.
The article majors on Sidney Powell being a crazy conspiracy theorist, and that her lawsuit is littered with typos (this is something we desperately needed to know because??) etc. etc. There's next to zero discussion of the salient points, and there certainly isn't a link to the document, which is publicly available.
Not useful either from an informational, or betting standpoint.
The above allegation is simple, and easy to test, and totally different from hard to prove theories about voting machines etc. I am sure (genuinely) that this is because he ran out of time, but I would have been interested to know what he'd have made of it.
The above allegation is also a bucket of warm piss, just like the rest.
Note that under the election laws of just about ever state in the Union, voters are allowed to claim LEGAL domicle - including for voting purposes - in places other than where they may be currently laying their weary heads. For example, congresspeople & state legislators.
Note that when Mitt Romney first ran for governor of Massachusetts, the numb-nuts (no relation to Princes Nut Nuts) who ran the Mass Dem Party at the time, decided to challenge Mitt's legal (and moral) residency, because his accountant had filed paperwork in Utah claiming him as a resident there for tax purposes on a condo or some-such.
This gambit went over like a lead balloon, both in the law courts AND in court of public opinion.
Speaking of matching names against databases, you may NOT recall that THAT was the method used in Florida in the lead-up to the 2000 election by Jeb Bush's Secretary of State to deprive THOUSANDS of eligible citizens of their right to vote.
Searching databases was also the issue with the "dead" voters: the vast majority were relatives with the same name living in the same house (a common issue in a country where many sons are named after their fathers). In one publicised case it was a widow who used the "Mrs John Smith" naming convention.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
"verifying the signatures on the ballots" -
Under state law, the identification or signature of voters is checked twice during the absentee voting process, and an accepted ballot can’t be traced back to a signed envelope once the two are separated. The process protects ballot secrecy.
It's NOT possible to undo this step after a ballot has been either accepted or passed for cure/rejected (Not sure which is state law). It's like trying to take eggs out of a cake. The lunatics in the GOP know this which is why they're banging on about it because it's simply an impossible step to take.
People who vote in two states. I watched the Clark county, NV certification meeting. They mentioned potential double voting, the votes were excluded and they said they'd go after anyone who might do this. It's taken very seriously - Raffensberger and Kemp (GA SoS/Governor) have said they'll prosecute anyone who does this too. Everyone is looking out for this.
"or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? "
Anyone who voted absentee then believed it hadn't reached destination for whatever reason was required to fill in a provisional ballot. These are the last to be checked and counted. Anyone who filled a normal ballot would be in deepest shit. Cases of this are rare but they do occasionally happen and perpetrators ARE prosecuted. There isn't a remote chance, or more importantly any evidence this has gone on on any sort of scale to change hundreds let alone tens of thousands of votes.
Oh, facts. You can prove anything with facts.
As I said above, I'm more than happy to accept facts. It also appears to be a fact that 23,000+ people cast absentee ballots in Georgia, whilst being registered on the National Change of Address database as having moved out of the state. I see no harm in that being investigated. https://twitter.com/pnjaban/status/1331850872947572736
Very simple to check, and if it's wrong, it's wrong. If it takes more votes off the Republicans, than the Dems, that's fair too.
Ummm...
That's true *every* year. People move domicile all the time, some permanently, some temporarily, some for tax reasons, some because they've got a new job.
So, you're pointing to something entirely normal, and attempting to draw a conclusion from it.
But even if there was fraud here (and unless there was a dramatic difference in the number of ballots cast by people whose domicle changed, then it's unlikely there was): how do you know it wasn't perpetrated by Republicans?
Just watched the CNN announcement of the result of the election posted in the header. Talk about 'I come to bury Caesar not to praise him!' Usually at a time like this they find SOMETHING nice to say about the vanquished. Not at CNN they don't!
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
So, if I have got this Telegraph piece right, the government is setting up a Czar with powers to help facilitate more people travelling across the country in the middle of a pandemic which they have repeatedly told us is so bad that 100,000s will die and the NHS will be totally swamped unless we spend a whole year locked down?
The trouble is the Government knows (and if they know it, you and I both know it too) the emotional pull of Christmas and the understandable desire of people to spend time with their families and/or loved ones (delete as appropriate) is incredibly strong.
We are culturally brainwashed from birth to view Christmas as a special time when we get together with our families even if after 72 hours we can barely speak to each other but that's not the point.
I know from speaking to friends and work colleagues they will spend Christmas with their families irrespective of any "guideline" so short of mass arrests, the Government might as well bow to the inevitable and do as much as possible to mitigate the damage the public seems willing to inflict on itself once again in a desire to have a "normal" life.
Yes, I know - for 99% of people it's just a sniffle, apparently.
The problem and the irony is as soon as the case numbers start rising again, said public will be in the vanguard of calling for new lockdowns and urging the Government to "do something". I'm no fan of Boris Johnson and his bunch of halfwits but I would have every sympathy if sometimes, privately, they wondered why they bothered.
Describing Christmas as a "brainwashing" event is taking things a bit too far in my opinion.
The government have made a total arse of this.
From September they should have said that it doesn't look like we will be able to have anything even remotely like a normal xmas instead of selectively briefing to favoured journos that there was some kind of special planning going on to try and 'save xmas'.
Now we have got to the point where it is clear loads of people getting together is even more of a stupid idea (given where "the science" supposedly tells us where we are with the pandemic and the fact that a vaccine is just weeks away in the new year for the most vulnerable) the government should boldly state that it will temporary not be actually illegal to gather but they strongly and heavily advise against it.
In the litany of f*ck ups along the way since early February this is going to take the No. 1 slot.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
In which case, you do not deserve to be taken. seriously on the matter. I am done responding to you.
OK - I admit I find being obliged to read start to finish a very long piece of polemic at 9.45pm to be a slightly unreasonable demand to 'be taken seriously' on any subject, but as you wish.
Hasn’t Georgia already carried out a full audit? Did that not do enough?
Evidently some people think not, and if the audit missed the fact that 23,000 voted after moving out of the state, and significant numbers more voted without a genuine address (PO boxes, shopping centres etc.), I can see their point.
I seem to recall that the last time they claimed to have found thousands of out of state voters, it turned out they were military personnel who were well within their rights to do so. That may have been Nevada rather than Georgia, but I'd expect Georgia's military population is probably pretty big.
The fact remains that if the Georgia state apparatus was going to rig the election they wouldn't have done it for Biden: it takes a special type of conspiracy theorist to think that this is plausible.
Just remember that this is the suit from someone that Trump disavowed for being too extreme and who Tucker Carlson (sp?) on Fox called out as being unbelievable: and he is someone who takes UFO sightings seriously.
If fraud has been perpetrated, I am unsure how much cooperation would have been needed by 'Georgia's state aparatus', and how much could have been done by activists on the ground. Irregularities in counting vs. irregularities in votes being cast. You may be right about military votes - you may not be. That's why I am saying, rather boringly at this point, investigate the allegations - even the ones that you believe to be patently absurd, as there is no drawback.
Then you haven't read the complaint: it accuses the Republican Governor of conspiring with Dominion software, the CIA and various communist countries to falsify the election count.
BTW, thank you for pointing out the wonderful story of Bismuth 209 earlier.
I did not know it.
It's a great story. I tell it when I teach half-life in Y11 after we go though the standard GCSE method of finding the half-life (plot a graph, draw a line when the count rate gets to half the original value) and wait to see if anyone asks the obvious question.
(The half-life of Bismuth-209 is about 2 x 10^19 years, or more than a billion years longer than the current age of the universe).
The equivalent of Clinton implying that without misinformation spreading on social media she should have won in 2016 is NOT Trump attempting a botched coup. The equivalent would be Trump saying "if the lamestream media had given me a fair hearing I would have won"
The equivalent of Clinton implying that without misinformation spreading on social media she should have won in 2016 is NOT Trump attempting a botched coup. The equivalent would be Trump saying "if the lamestream media had given me a fair hearing I would have won"
Clinton said that Biden shouldn't concede in any circumstances in August. Not a helpful thing to say.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Sorry to hear you will be alone but I think you are doing the right thing. Been some discussion in my extended family but at the moment I'm holding the line that it is not wise to say the least to get together this xmas.
The prospect of a vaccine on the horizon made it much easier for me to tell them I wouldn't be going down this year.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
Betfair simply need to explain what the phrase 'projected EC votes' means, and how it can mean something other than 'Winner under state certified results'.
It doesn't and it can't but they're switching it from projected to actual because of Trump's shenanigans.
And, quietly, because they're making a mint from it.
Yet they're still saying that "‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market".
Absolutely.
Hypothetically if Trump were to win court cases striking out enough "illegal" Biden votes then Trump would become the certified winner of those states. Trump would become the projected winner. Under Betfair's rules Trump would become the winner, before the Electoral College votes and without faithless electors.
Spot on, Philip, and you grasp a point that many here miss - and so do Betfair.
In a sense it doesn't really matter who becomes President. All that matters is who was the projected winner. That is a known known, and has been known for some weeks. The Electoral College can elect who they like, it wouldn't alter the result under the rules as originally stated by Betfair.
As you indicate, a substantial shift in votes deemed legal by the courts might cause the projected winner to change and might cause some headscratching, although I think the right answer would be to pay out on the first projected winner. Since Trump has lost so emphatically in the courts so far and is running out of claims, we don't need to go there though.
However nothing should be allowed to disguise the fact that Betfair have moved the goalposts.
You say it's a known known but since it's before the courts there is a (ludicrously slim) element of known unknowabilty to it.
I don't think Betfair have changed their rules, I think they're just being overly cautious as to the legal challenges. We all know the legal challenges are bullshit, but Betfair are under no obligation to preempt the courts.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
In which case, you do not deserve to be taken. seriously on the matter. I am done responding to you.
OK - I admit I find being obliged to read start to finish a very long piece of polemic at 9.45pm to be a slightly unreasonable demand to 'be taken seriously' on any subject, but as you wish.
Hasn’t Georgia already carried out a full audit? Did that not do enough?
Evidently some people think not, and if the audit missed the fact that 23,000 voted after moving out of the state, and significant numbers more voted without a genuine address (PO boxes, shopping centres etc.), I can see their point.
I seem to recall that the last time they claimed to have found thousands of out of state voters, it turned out they were military personnel who were well within their rights to do so. That may have been Nevada rather than Georgia, but I'd expect Georgia's military population is probably pretty big.
The fact remains that if the Georgia state apparatus was going to rig the election they wouldn't have done it for Biden: it takes a special type of conspiracy theorist to think that this is plausible.
Just remember that this is the suit from someone that Trump disavowed for being too extreme and who Tucker Carlson (sp?) on Fox called out as being unbelievable: and he is someone who takes UFO sightings seriously.
If fraud has been perpetrated, I am unsure how much cooperation would have been needed by 'Georgia's state aparatus', and how much could have been done by activists on the ground. Irregularities in counting vs. irregularities in votes being cast. You may be right about military votes - you may not be. That's why I am saying, rather boringly at this point, investigate the allegations - even the ones that you believe to be patently absurd, as there is no drawback.
Then you haven't read the complaint: it accuses the Republican Governor of conspiring with Dominion software, the CIA and various communist countries to falsify the election count.
BTW, thank you for pointing out the wonderful story of Bismuth 209 earlier.
I did not know it.
It's a great story. I tell it when I teach half-life in Y11 after we go though the standard GCSE method of finding the half-life (plot a graph, draw a line when the count rate gets to half the original value) and wait to see if anyone asks the obvious question.
(The half-life of Bismuth-209 is about 2 x 10^19 years, or more than a billion years longer than the current age of the universe).
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
In which case, you do not deserve to be taken. seriously on the matter. I am done responding to you.
OK - I admit I find being obliged to read start to finish a very long piece of polemic at 9.45pm to be a slightly unreasonable demand to 'be taken seriously' on any subject, but as you wish.
Hasn’t Georgia already carried out a full audit? Did that not do enough?
Evidently some people think not, and if the audit missed the fact that 23,000 voted after moving out of the state, and significant numbers more voted without a genuine address (PO boxes, shopping centres etc.), I can see their point.
I seem to recall that the last time they claimed to have found thousands of out of state voters, it turned out they were military personnel who were well within their rights to do so. That may have been Nevada rather than Georgia, but I'd expect Georgia's military population is probably pretty big.
The fact remains that if the Georgia state apparatus was going to rig the election they wouldn't have done it for Biden: it takes a special type of conspiracy theorist to think that this is plausible.
Just remember that this is the suit from someone that Trump disavowed for being too extreme and who Tucker Carlson (sp?) on Fox called out as being unbelievable: and he is someone who takes UFO sightings seriously.
If fraud has been perpetrated, I am unsure how much cooperation would have been needed by 'Georgia's state aparatus', and how much could have been done by activists on the ground. Irregularities in counting vs. irregularities in votes being cast. You may be right about military votes - you may not be. That's why I am saying, rather boringly at this point, investigate the allegations - even the ones that you believe to be patently absurd, as there is no drawback.
Then you haven't read the complaint: it accuses the Republican Governor of conspiring with Dominion software, the CIA and various communist countries to falsify the election count.
BTW, thank you for pointing out the wonderful story of Bismuth 209 earlier.
I did not know it.
It's a great story. I tell it when I teach half-life in Y11 after we go though the standard GCSE method of finding the half-life (plot a graph, draw a line when the count rate gets to half the original value) and wait to see if anyone asks the obvious question.
(The half-life of Bismuth-209 is about 2 x 10^19 years, or more than a billion years longer than the current age of the universe).
The equivalent of Clinton implying that without misinformation spreading on social media she should have won in 2016 is NOT Trump attempting a botched coup. The equivalent would be Trump saying "if the lamestream media had given me a fair hearing I would have won"
Clinton said that Biden shouldn't concede in any circumstances in August. Not a helpful thing to say.
That is a total misrepresentation of what she said. She said he shouldn't concede before the count had finished, which was quite right too. 🤦🏻♂️
But you know that don't you? You are a very clever individual and this has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
I still don't see the outrage. The result is being actively contested with lawsuits pending. If they paid out on Biden and the result were to be overturned, would they then also have to pay out on Trump? They are doing the only thing that they possibly can do - hold out until the result is confirmed. I'm mystified as to what anyone thinks they should have done differently.
The result can only be overturned by clearly corrupt GOP legislatures (I don't actually think it's possible, but if it was this would be the only way). It'd be as if Man City won the FA Cup 3-0 against Chelsea but the trophy was presented to Chelsea heading up the steps. ANd then Chelsea was paid out on.
I don't know where you're getting that idea from. Do you disagree with verifying the signatures on the ballots, and getting rid of those without them? Do you disagree with finding those voters who have voted in two States (one they left and one they moved to), or filed absentee ballots and then voted on the day as well, and eliminating them from the totals? All these seem to me entirely fair and above board, as long as the process is observed by both sides.
What are you on about, Trump has lost like 38 court cases. Not a single judge has accepted this nonsense, the planned attempt to steal the election is simply GOP controlled legislatures sending in their own electors regardless of any sort of official result. It's bonkers, it won't work but this is the plan rather than winning anything through court.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you agreed with the above processes. Both are (apparently - I've not read them) called for in the lawsuits pending in Georgia and Michigan.
Thanks for that link - I won't be reading that, not tonight near bedtime anyway. I am happy to engage with a summary of the main points if you can be bothered to make one (no worries if you can't), but that is a long article, and the style is of a short novel rather than a report (where one can read the basic points at the top and decide whether to dive deeper). I find those quite frustrating to read, even if I start from a basis of agreement.
Article regarding the 'Fake Voter Fraud Scandal' notwithstanding, if it is fake, and can be shown to be such, let it be shown to be so. Once again, I can see no issue with eliminating fake voters. If there was no systemic voter fraud on one side, small numbers will be removed from both, and the result will be strengthened.
In which case, you do not deserve to be taken. seriously on the matter. I am done responding to you.
OK - I admit I find being obliged to read start to finish a very long piece of polemic at 9.45pm to be a slightly unreasonable demand to 'be taken seriously' on any subject, but as you wish.
Hasn’t Georgia already carried out a full audit? Did that not do enough?
Evidently some people think not, and if the audit missed the fact that 23,000 voted after moving out of the state, and significant numbers more voted without a genuine address (PO boxes, shopping centres etc.), I can see their point.
I seem to recall that the last time they claimed to have found thousands of out of state voters, it turned out they were military personnel who were well within their rights to do so. That may have been Nevada rather than Georgia, but I'd expect Georgia's military population is probably pretty big.
The fact remains that if the Georgia state apparatus was going to rig the election they wouldn't have done it for Biden: it takes a special type of conspiracy theorist to think that this is plausible.
Just remember that this is the suit from someone that Trump disavowed for being too extreme and who Tucker Carlson (sp?) on Fox called out as being unbelievable: and he is someone who takes UFO sightings seriously.
If fraud has been perpetrated, I am unsure how much cooperation would have been needed by 'Georgia's state aparatus', and how much could have been done by activists on the ground. Irregularities in counting vs. irregularities in votes being cast. You may be right about military votes - you may not be. That's why I am saying, rather boringly at this point, investigate the allegations - even the ones that you believe to be patently absurd, as there is no drawback.
Then you haven't read the complaint: it accuses the Republican Governor of conspiring with Dominion software, the CIA and various communist countries to falsify the election count.
BTW, thank you for pointing out the wonderful story of Bismuth 209 earlier.
I did not know it.
It's a great story. I tell it when I teach half-life in Y11 after we go though the standard GCSE method of finding the half-life (plot a graph, draw a line when the count rate gets to half the original value) and wait to see if anyone asks the obvious question.
(The half-life of Bismuth-209 is about 2 x 10^19 years, or more than a billion years longer than the current age of the universe).
Billion *times* longer Shirley?
And how can they tell?
Yes to both: it is a billion times longer (my mistake) and the question is "how can they tell?". Only the bright ones get that.
Actually the really bright ones don't ask because they work out how.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
Er... I'm a teacher. Term finishes on the 18th.
Fair enough. But you're a teacher so you do the math: the chances of you having and giving it are very low.
Probably more likely to die in your car going over there.
Betfair simply need to explain what the phrase 'projected EC votes' means, and how it can mean something other than 'Winner under state certified results'.
It doesn't and it can't but they're switching it from projected to actual because of Trump's shenanigans.
And, quietly, because they're making a mint from it.
Yet they're still saying that "‘faithless elector’ will have no effect on the settlement of this market".
Absolutely.
Hypothetically if Trump were to win court cases striking out enough "illegal" Biden votes then Trump would become the certified winner of those states. Trump would become the projected winner. Under Betfair's rules Trump would become the winner, before the Electoral College votes and without faithless electors.
Spot on, Philip, and you grasp a point that many here miss - and so do Betfair.
In a sense it doesn't really matter who becomes President. All that matters is who was the projected winner. That is a known known, and has been known for some weeks. The Electoral College can elect who they like, it wouldn't alter the result under the rules as originally stated by Betfair.
As you indicate, a substantial shift in votes deemed legal by the courts might cause the projected winner to change and might cause some headscratching, although I think the right answer would be to pay out on the first projected winner. Since Trump has lost so emphatically in the courts so far and is running out of claims, we don't need to go there though.
However nothing should be allowed to disguise the fact that Betfair have moved the goalposts.
You say it's a known known but since it's before the courts there is a (ludicrously slim) element of known unknowabilty to it.
I don't think Betfair have changed their rules, I think they're just being overly cautious as to the legal challenges. We all know the legal challenges are bullshit, but Betfair are under no obligation to preempt the courts.
Betfair should be settling shortly after the 8th of December, not the 14th. The 8th is "safe harbour" - that is when no court challenge to the results can be brought in. To settle on the 14th implicitly brings in the possibilities of legislative shenanigans with electors, faithless electors and so forth. It's the 8th they should have settled on as a decideing date - not the 14th.
The equivalent of Clinton implying that without misinformation spreading on social media she should have won in 2016 is NOT Trump attempting a botched coup. The equivalent would be Trump saying "if the lamestream media had given me a fair hearing I would have won"
Clinton said that Biden shouldn't concede in any circumstances in August. Not a helpful thing to say.
That is a total misrepresentation of what she said. She said he shouldn't concede before the count had finished, which was quite right too. 🤦🏻♂️
But you know that don't you? You are a very clever individual and this has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
If the quote is accurate, she said "under any circumstances"
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
Well, no, because it was something those countries had expressly agreed to do on a quid pro quo basis. Very unsovereign of them, obvs, but their decision.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
Well, no, because it was something those countries had expressly agreed to do on a quid pro quo basis. Very unsovereign of them, obvs, but their decision.
Yeah, they designed the system knowing people would be selfish bastards. How good of them.
The equivalent of Clinton implying that without misinformation spreading on social media she should have won in 2016 is NOT Trump attempting a botched coup. The equivalent would be Trump saying "if the lamestream media had given me a fair hearing I would have won"
Clinton said that Biden shouldn't concede in any circumstances in August. Not a helpful thing to say.
You are obsessed!
Once again, Hillary is not fighting this election so what she said is largely meaningless.
There is a massive false equivalence between Hillary muttering something daft before the election and Trump and his band of deranged quarterwits attempting a coup (however amateurish the execution).
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
Er... I'm a teacher. Term finishes on the 18th.
Fair enough. But you're a teacher so you do the math: the chances of you having and giving it are very low.
Probably more likely to die in your car going over there.
As a teacher my chances of catching it are more than average I would say, certainly high enough that I don't want to run the risk of giving it to my octogenarian step-mother.
And you may be right about my driving, though it is a bit rude to say it...
The equivalent of Clinton implying that without misinformation spreading on social media she should have won in 2016 is NOT Trump attempting a botched coup. The equivalent would be Trump saying "if the lamestream media had given me a fair hearing I would have won"
Clinton said that Biden shouldn't concede in any circumstances in August. Not a helpful thing to say.
Could you stop mis quoting her. She said on election night, before the postal votes were counted, he should not concede under any circumstances. Specifically because the GOP in key stages had ensured postal voted would be counted late.
You continue to grossly mis characterise what she said.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
In the interests of full disclosure, I offered to host both sets of parents at Christmas despite disapproving of the policy. They both declined, for different reasons - the in-laws because of the train chaos, and the parents because of the risk.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
Er... I'm a teacher. Term finishes on the 18th.
Fair enough. But you're a teacher so you do the math: the chances of you having and giving it are very low.
Probably more likely to die in your car going over there.
1,770 deaths in road traffic accidents (2018). I thought Covid deaths were somewhat higher than that?
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
For those who fear the break-up of the UK, the positive message that emerges from these focus groups is that support for independence is built on sand: it’s reliant on what appears to be blind faith in Nicola Sturgeon preventing voters engaging with the economic realities.
How long do you reckon Nicola will remain in position?
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
One of the many benefits that Britons had within the EU though.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
The equivalent of Clinton implying that without misinformation spreading on social media she should have won in 2016 is NOT Trump attempting a botched coup. The equivalent would be Trump saying "if the lamestream media had given me a fair hearing I would have won"
Clinton said that Biden shouldn't concede in any circumstances in August. Not a helpful thing to say.
That is a total misrepresentation of what she said. She said he shouldn't concede before the count had finished, which was quite right too. 🤦🏻♂️
But you know that don't you? You are a very clever individual and this has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
If the quote is accurate, she said "under any circumstances"
The equivalent of Clinton implying that without misinformation spreading on social media she should have won in 2016 is NOT Trump attempting a botched coup. The equivalent would be Trump saying "if the lamestream media had given me a fair hearing I would have won"
Clinton said that Biden shouldn't concede in any circumstances in August. Not a helpful thing to say.
That is a total misrepresentation of what she said. She said he shouldn't concede before the count had finished, which was quite right too. 🤦🏻♂️
But you know that don't you? You are a very clever individual and this has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
If the quote is accurate, she said "under any circumstances"
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
Er... I'm a teacher. Term finishes on the 18th.
Fair enough. But you're a teacher so you do the math: the chances of you having and giving it are very low.
Probably more likely to die in your car going over there.
As a teacher my chances of catching it are more than average I would say, certainly high enough that I don't want to run the risk of giving it to my octogenarian step-mother.
And you may be right about my driving, though it is a bit rude to say it...
The point is while I absolutely respect your choice if we look at the actual probabilities then I think there is a danger of getting things out of proportion.
As PB has heard more times than it needs to have I have regularly visited my 90-yr old mother these past few months and I have associated with people who have been in risky situations such as you are in.
My view is that the chances of being asymptomatic are low to start with and the chances of getting it anyway are also low. How many of your colleagues have had it?
But everyone's decisions are entirely their own and should be respected.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
Well, no, because it was something those countries had expressly agreed to do on a quid pro quo basis. Very unsovereign of them, obvs, but their decision.
Yeah, they designed the system knowing people would be selfish bastards. How good of them.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
Er... I'm a teacher. Term finishes on the 18th.
Blimey, a teacher? What subject?
I'm guessing not Inglish.
I'm fine if the spell-check is working.
I'm not dyslexic, just lazy. I work on the assumption that English is spelt phonetically and then lean heavily on the computer to do the rest.
The fact that I can nearly touch-type doesn't help.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
Well, no, because it was something those countries had expressly agreed to do on a quid pro quo basis. Very unsovereign of them, obvs, but their decision.
Yes, I don't think everybody on here understands the notion of reciprocity. The EHIC costs other countries money if we need to use it abroad, but citizens of other countries benefit from its use when visiting the UK. So it works out evens, or it should. Though not after Jan 1.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
Er... I'm a teacher. Term finishes on the 18th.
Fair enough. But you're a teacher so you do the math: the chances of you having and giving it are very low.
Probably more likely to die in your car going over there.
As a teacher my chances of catching it are more than average I would say, certainly high enough that I don't want to run the risk of giving it to my octogenarian step-mother.
And you may be right about my driving, though it is a bit rude to say it...
The point is while I absolutely respect your choice if we look at the actual probabilities then I think there is a danger of getting things out of proportion.
As PB has heard more times than it needs to have I have regularly visited my 90-yr old mother these past few months and I have associated with people who have been in risky situations such as you are in.
My view is that the chances of being asymptomatic are low to start with and the chances of getting it anyway are also low. How many of your colleagues have had it?
But everyone's decisions are entirely their own and should be respected.
Agreed on all counts, especially the last point.
Yet your central contention is right: most people overestimate the risk from covid by several orders of magnitude.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
Er... I'm a teacher. Term finishes on the 18th.
Fair enough. But you're a teacher so you do the math: the chances of you having and giving it are very low.
Probably more likely to die in your car going over there.
As a teacher my chances of catching it are more than average I would say, certainly high enough that I don't want to run the risk of giving it to my octogenarian step-mother.
And you may be right about my driving, though it is a bit rude to say it...
The point is while I absolutely respect your choice if we look at the actual probabilities then I think there is a danger of getting things out of proportion.
As PB has heard more times than it needs to have I have regularly visited my 90-yr old mother these past few months and I have associated with people who have been in risky situations such as you are in.
My view is that the chances of being asymptomatic are low to start with and the chances of getting it anyway are also low. How many of your colleagues have had it?
But everyone's decisions are entirely their own and should be respected.
Agreed on all counts, especially the last point.
Yet your central contention is right: most people overestimate the risk of covid by several orders of magnitude.
I suppose with a vaccine people will not need to worry any more about the relative probabilities.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
Er... I'm a teacher. Term finishes on the 18th.
Fair enough. But you're a teacher so you do the math: the chances of you having and giving it are very low.
Probably more likely to die in your car going over there.
As a teacher my chances of catching it are more than average I would say, certainly high enough that I don't want to run the risk of giving it to my octogenarian step-mother.
And you may be right about my driving, though it is a bit rude to say it...
The point is while I absolutely respect your choice if we look at the actual probabilities then I think there is a danger of getting things out of proportion.
As PB has heard more times than it needs to have I have regularly visited my 90-yr old mother these past few months and I have associated with people who have been in risky situations such as you are in.
My view is that the chances of being asymptomatic are low to start with and the chances of getting it anyway are also low. How many of your colleagues have had it?
But everyone's decisions are entirely their own and should be respected.
We have one year group self-isolating at the moment as they have had several cases. I'm not sure how many teachers now.
But the point is why take the risk? It may be fairly low for each individual, but if several million people decide that a one in a hundred chance is fine then suddenly I can't get a CT scan I need because the hospital is full of C-19 cases.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
Er... I'm a teacher. Term finishes on the 18th.
Fair enough. But you're a teacher so you do the math: the chances of you having and giving it are very low.
Probably more likely to die in your car going over there.
As a teacher my chances of catching it are more than average I would say, certainly high enough that I don't want to run the risk of giving it to my octogenarian step-mother.
And you may be right about my driving, though it is a bit rude to say it...
The point is while I absolutely respect your choice if we look at the actual probabilities then I think there is a danger of getting things out of proportion.
As PB has heard more times than it needs to have I have regularly visited my 90-yr old mother these past few months and I have associated with people who have been in risky situations such as you are in.
My view is that the chances of being asymptomatic are low to start with and the chances of getting it anyway are also low. How many of your colleagues have had it?
But everyone's decisions are entirely their own and should be respected.
Agreed on all counts, especially the last point.
Yet your central contention is right: most people overestimate the risk of covid by several orders of magnitude.
I suppose with a vaccine people will not need to worry any more about the relative probabilities.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
Well, no, because it was something those countries had expressly agreed to do on a quid pro quo basis. Very unsovereign of them, obvs, but their decision.
Yes, I don't think everybody on here understands the notion of reciprocity. The EHIC costs other countries money if we need to use it abroad, but citizens of other countries benefit from its use when visiting the UK. So it works out evens, or it should. Though not after Jan 1.
Reciprocity is only neutral if there's neutrality in the treatments done.
Though I don't see what's wrong with just saying buy Health Insurance if you're travelling. 🤷🏻♂️
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
Er... I'm a teacher. Term finishes on the 18th.
Fair enough. But you're a teacher so you do the math: the chances of you having and giving it are very low.
Probably more likely to die in your car going over there.
As a teacher my chances of catching it are more than average I would say, certainly high enough that I don't want to run the risk of giving it to my octogenarian step-mother.
And you may be right about my driving, though it is a bit rude to say it...
The point is while I absolutely respect your choice if we look at the actual probabilities then I think there is a danger of getting things out of proportion.
As PB has heard more times than it needs to have I have regularly visited my 90-yr old mother these past few months and I have associated with people who have been in risky situations such as you are in.
My view is that the chances of being asymptomatic are low to start with and the chances of getting it anyway are also low. How many of your colleagues have had it?
But everyone's decisions are entirely their own and should be respected.
We have one year group self-isolating at the moment as they have had several cases. I'm not sure how many teachers now.
But the point is why take the risk? It may be fairly low for each individual, but if several million people decide that a one in a hundred chance is fine then suddenly I can't get a CT scan I need because the hospital is full of C-19 cases.
It’s not a 1 in 100 chance... you have to first calculate the risk of catching it in the first place.
But as Topping says, it’s your business. And in any case, you might still consider the risks too high.
(I don’t agree with the Christmas relaxation by the way)
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
Er... I'm a teacher. Term finishes on the 18th.
Fair enough. But you're a teacher so you do the math: the chances of you having and giving it are very low.
Probably more likely to die in your car going over there.
As a teacher my chances of catching it are more than average I would say, certainly high enough that I don't want to run the risk of giving it to my octogenarian step-mother.
And you may be right about my driving, though it is a bit rude to say it...
The point is while I absolutely respect your choice if we look at the actual probabilities then I think there is a danger of getting things out of proportion.
As PB has heard more times than it needs to have I have regularly visited my 90-yr old mother these past few months and I have associated with people who have been in risky situations such as you are in.
My view is that the chances of being asymptomatic are low to start with and the chances of getting it anyway are also low. How many of your colleagues have had it?
But everyone's decisions are entirely their own and should be respected.
We have one year group self-isolating at the moment as they have had several cases. I'm not sure how many teachers now.
But the point is why take the risk? It may be fairly low for each individual, but if several million people decide that a one in a hundred chance is fine then suddenly I can't get a CT scan I need because the hospital is full of C-19 cases.
Good to see you have done the math.
As I said it's absolutely up to you to decide on your risk tolerance.
Not for me to feel that it is a shame you are foregoing seeing your family this Christmas. Hell, as a physics teacher I'm sure you don't even believe in God.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
One of the many benefits that Britons had within the EU though.
As a matter of interest, I just got a quote for a weeks travel insurance for an 81 year old going to Spain. I gave a medical history of a single previous stroke more than a year previously, and full recovery, and having had a successful bowel cancer operation more than a year previously with no signs of spread and no further treatment needed. £187 for the week, which for many of my patients would not be affordable.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
I do understand the difference and for healthy people they rarely take out health insurance for travel within the EU because the EHIC allows them the same treatment at the same cost as the population in the country they are visiting. It is not free healthcare.
Well, for many of my patients EHIC is the only way for them to holiday in Europe. It gets perfectly adequate emergency cover in most countries, the same as locals.
Every time I look at the Daily Mail website, there is a story of some feckless person who went to Greece or Bulgaria without medical insurance, was involved in some tragedy or emergency and is now stuck in a hospital bed in some godforsaken remote spot with a broken skull or a liver in traction.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
Re Christmas travel: I'm having Christmas on my own this year. I normally go down to Devon to stay with my family, but the few that are left are getting on a bit and I see no reason to put any of us in danger. Zoom will have to take the strain.
Can you not all isolate for +/-10 days and see each other if you're that worried?
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
Er... I'm a teacher. Term finishes on the 18th.
Fair enough. But you're a teacher so you do the math: the chances of you having and giving it are very low.
Probably more likely to die in your car going over there.
As a teacher my chances of catching it are more than average I would say, certainly high enough that I don't want to run the risk of giving it to my octogenarian step-mother.
And you may be right about my driving, though it is a bit rude to say it...
The point is while I absolutely respect your choice if we look at the actual probabilities then I think there is a danger of getting things out of proportion.
As PB has heard more times than it needs to have I have regularly visited my 90-yr old mother these past few months and I have associated with people who have been in risky situations such as you are in.
My view is that the chances of being asymptomatic are low to start with and the chances of getting it anyway are also low. How many of your colleagues have had it?
But everyone's decisions are entirely their own and should be respected.
We have one year group self-isolating at the moment as they have had several cases. I'm not sure how many teachers now.
But the point is why take the risk? It may be fairly low for each individual, but if several million people decide that a one in a hundred chance is fine then suddenly I can't get a CT scan I need because the hospital is full of C-19 cases.
It’s not a 1 in 100 chance... you have to first calculate the risk of catching it in the first place.
I mean a 1 in a 100 chance of catching it. That’s why I don’t want to risk going down if there is even a fairly small chance that I have it as if I do there would be very little chance of not passing it on.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
One of the many benefits that Britons had within the EU though.
As a matter of interest, I just got a quote for a weeks travel insurance for an 81 year old going to Spain. I gave a medical history of a single previous stroke more than a year previously, and full recovery, and having had a successful bowel cancer operation more than a year previously with no signs of spread and no further treatment needed. £187 for the week, which for many of my patients would not be affordable.
Plus surely when A&E potential risks are added to the cost of insurance, once the EHIC benefits are lost, that cost will rocket much further???
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
I do understand the difference and for healthy people they rarely take out health insurance for travel within the EU because the EHIC allows them the same treatment at the same cost as the population in the country they are visiting. It is not free healthcare.
Which of course is another reason the scheme is absurd and not reciprocal, it means that if people travel here and get sick they get the NHS free of charge but if we travel we may end up still needing to pay which people don't realise and can end up very out of pocket from due to failing to get a proper actual insurance.
Abolish EHIC and tell tourists to get insurance. Problem solved.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
One of the many benefits that Britons had within the EU though.
As a matter of interest, I just got a quote for a weeks travel insurance for an 81 year old going to Spain. I gave a medical history of a single previous stroke more than a year previously, and full recovery, and having had a successful bowel cancer operation more than a year previously with no signs of spread and no further treatment needed. £187 for the week, which for many of my patients would not be affordable.
Plus surely when A&E potential risks are added to the cost of insurance, once the EHIC benefits are lost, that cost will rocket much further???
AIUI the UK is fully participating until the end of December. So it's likely the quote is for afterwards.
If we are sticking to the system until Easter....just in time for far too many people to bugger off on holiday.
I wonder if vaccines will be a requirement to travel at that point.
If you are going to an EU country, visas probably will be
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
If you don't understand the difference between an EHIC card and travel insurance, you're maybe best advised to stay at home.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later )
The paradox of insurance is that it is only cheap if you don't need it. For me a weeks travel insurance is the price of a cheap dinner.
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
I think you are quite wrong, if you are recommending a 80 year old cancer survivor to travel in Europe on an EHIC card. That is grossly, grossly irresponsible.
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
The height of arrogance to think that the health systems of less well-off countries should take care of you as you travel while you are grossly ill.
Well, no, because it was something those countries had expressly agreed to do on a quid pro quo basis. Very unsovereign of them, obvs, but their decision.
Yes, I don't think everybody on here understands the notion of reciprocity. The EHIC costs other countries money if we need to use it abroad, but citizens of other countries benefit from its use when visiting the UK. So it works out evens, or it should. Though not after Jan 1.
Reciprocity is only neutral if there's neutrality in the treatments done.
Though I don't see what's wrong with just saying buy Health Insurance if you're travelling. 🤷🏻♂️
Well, I wouldn't expect you to think otherwise. But some of us rather enjoyed the principles of the NHS being applied across Europe, albeit with some variation according to local health services. But it's a very socialist idea to share pooled resources for the benefit of all, so best get rid of it and go private.
Comments
Oh... and travel health insurance (no more EHIC card)
And a driving licence for the country in question if you are having a car there
Just a few extra costs for the holidays ....
Well, yes, because there's a lockdown on. And if that only just gets R under 1, even the beefed-up tiers could see it going back over again.
Here is part two:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0qncu6G_Rk
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/pope-francis-blasts-critics-covid-restrictions-personal-freedom.html
Let's not forget some of those working on these projects, albeit well paid, are giving up Christmas with their families to do this work (along with all the many others who keep essential services running through the Christmas period) which benefits us all in terms of improved journey times and preventing serious maintenance issues in the future.
The Government's absurd "Christmas window" will concentrate travel on two days - the 23rd and the 27th (presumably). We'd better hope there's no bad weather - I mean it's December, what could go wrong other than snow, ice, frost, fog, heavy rain, strong winds and plagues of locusts? Never mind, if US Thanksgiving is any guide, people will eschew public transport and clog the roads instead.
(Of course, don't come to Wales & Scotland as we have the reliable Blackford Volunteers policing the border, Shoot first, ask questions later
It's fair enough for us to say Trump won't win his court cases. But Betfair are under no obligation to say so before the courts do.
Note that under the election laws of just about ever state in the Union, voters are allowed to claim LEGAL domicle - including for voting purposes - in places other than where they may be currently laying their weary heads. For example, congresspeople & state legislators.
Note that when Mitt Romney first ran for governor of Massachusetts, the numb-nuts (no relation to Princes Nut Nuts) who ran the Mass Dem Party at the time, decided to challenge Mitt's legal (and moral) residency, because his accountant had filed paperwork in Utah claiming him as a resident there for tax purposes on a condo or some-such.
This gambit went over like a lead balloon, both in the law courts AND in court of public opinion.
Speaking of matching names against databases, you may NOT recall that THAT was the method used in Florida in the lead-up to the 2000 election by Jeb Bush's Secretary of State to deprive THOUSANDS of eligible citizens of their right to vote.
And when else can they do the work?
And now I've got to get some shut eye - night all.
I did not know it.
We are culturally brainwashed from birth to view Christmas as a special time when we get together with our families even if after 72 hours we can barely speak to each other but that's not the point.
I know from speaking to friends and work colleagues they will spend Christmas with their families irrespective of any "guideline" so short of mass arrests, the Government might as well bow to the inevitable and do as much as possible to mitigate the damage the public seems willing to inflict on itself once again in a desire to have a "normal" life.
Yes, I know - for 99% of people it's just a sniffle, apparently.
The problem and the irony is as soon as the case numbers start rising again, said public will be in the vanguard of calling for new lockdowns and urging the Government to "do something". I'm no fan of Boris Johnson and his bunch of halfwits but I would have every sympathy if sometimes, privately, they wondered why they bothered.
Most of the growth since the election (c.£400m is in particular likely cashouts, although I'd be fascinated as to how the market as a whole stacks up and the distribution of punters.
Are there a few people making lots of money, with lots losing small amounts? Or a small number of people losing a lot and lots winning a small amount? etc. etc.
That's true *every* year. People move domicile all the time, some permanently, some temporarily, some for tax reasons, some because they've got a new job.
So, you're pointing to something entirely normal, and attempting to draw a conclusion from it.
But even if there was fraud here (and unless there was a dramatic difference in the number of ballots cast by people whose domicle changed, then it's unlikely there was): how do you know it wasn't perpetrated by Republicans?
That work for you?
If you are eighty and had a recent cancer operation, it may not be available at any price. Those are the patients who travel on EHIC cards so that they can travel at all.
So losing EHIC won't be a problem for the rich, just the poor, poorly and elderly.
Take out care homes and hospitals and the chances of infection are quite low.
From September they should have said that it doesn't look like we will be able to have anything even remotely like a normal xmas instead of selectively briefing to favoured journos that there was some kind of special planning going on to try and 'save xmas'.
Now we have got to the point where it is clear loads of people getting together is even more of a stupid idea (given where "the science" supposedly tells us where we are with the pandemic and the fact that a vaccine is just weeks away in the new year for the most vulnerable) the government should boldly state that it will temporary not be actually illegal to gather but they strongly and heavily advise against it.
In the litany of f*ck ups along the way since early February this is going to take the No. 1 slot.
(The half-life of Bismuth-209 is about 2 x 10^19 years, or more than a billion years longer than the current age of the universe).
The equivalent would be Trump saying "if the lamestream media had given me a fair hearing I would have won"
https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1332346654666723331?s=20
If you are over eighty and had a recent cancer operation, you need medical insurance. It is always available, and it is costly -- but there is a reason for that. A cancer-stricken friend of mine went to the US, and he was able to get costly health insurance for a final trip. He is dead now.
Sorry, I don't agree that everyone has an automatic right to travel wherever they want in this world. There is a very good reason why, if you are seriously ill, you really do need medical insurance if you are travelling and it is costly.
I don't think Betfair have changed their rules, I think they're just being overly cautious as to the legal challenges. We all know the legal challenges are bullshit, but Betfair are under no obligation to preempt the courts.
And how can they tell?
https://www.these-islands.co.uk/publications/i363/focus_groups_report.aspx
But you know that don't you? You are a very clever individual and this has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
Actually the really bright ones don't ask because they work out how.
Probably more likely to die in your car going over there.
To settle on the 14th implicitly brings in the possibilities of legislative shenanigans with electors, faithless electors and so forth. It's the 8th they should have settled on as a decideing date - not the 14th.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/brexit-talks-uk-seeks-to-strip-fishermen-of-80-of-fish-caught-in-eu-waters-1.4421545?mode=amp
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hillary-clinton-says-biden-should-not-concede-2020-election-under-n1238156
Once again, Hillary is not fighting this election so what she said is largely meaningless.
There is a massive false equivalence between Hillary muttering something daft before the election and Trump and his band of deranged quarterwits attempting a coup (however amateurish the execution).
And you may be right about my driving, though it is a bit rude to say it...
You continue to grossly mis characterise what she said.
Or maybe they just don’t like my cooking!
How long do you reckon Nicola will remain in position?
https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1332444159827976193
As PB has heard more times than it needs to have I have regularly visited my 90-yr old mother these past few months and I have associated with people who have been in risky situations such as you are in.
My view is that the chances of being asymptomatic are low to start with and the chances of getting it anyway are also low. How many of your colleagues have had it?
But everyone's decisions are entirely their own and should be respected.
I'm not dyslexic, just lazy. I work on the assumption that English is spelt phonetically and then lean heavily on the computer to do the rest.
The fact that I can nearly touch-type doesn't help.
https://twitter.com/D_Blanchflower/status/1332464329262850049?s=20
Yet your central contention is right: most people overestimate the risk from covid by several orders of magnitude.
But the point is why take the risk? It may be fairly low for each individual, but if several million people decide that a one in a hundred chance is fine then suddenly I can't get a CT scan I need because the hospital is full of C-19 cases.
Though I don't see what's wrong with just saying buy Health Insurance if you're travelling. 🤷🏻♂️
But as Topping says, it’s your business. And in any case, you might still consider the risks too high.
(I don’t agree with the Christmas relaxation by the way)
As I said it's absolutely up to you to decide on your risk tolerance.
Not for me to feel that it is a shame you are foregoing seeing your family this Christmas. Hell, as a physics teacher I'm sure you don't even believe in God.
going to Spain. I gave a medical history of a single previous stroke more than a year previously, and full recovery, and having had a successful bowel cancer operation more than a year previously with no signs of spread and no further treatment needed. £187 for the week, which for many of my patients would not be affordable.
Their relatives are always pleading with the Daily Mail readers to crowdfund a medical plane to take them home from this unhygienic hospital to the NHS in Old Blighty (or sometimes, with a bit more chutzpah, a private hospital for a speedier recovery). "Bring Mum home", they say.
I always wondered why the Daily Mail readership contains so many reckless idiots doing this.
I know now it is you, Dr Foxy, busy advising them.
Abolish EHIC and tell tourists to get insurance. Problem solved.