Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Is Donald Trump the electoral behemoth his congressional allies think he is? – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 10 in General
Is Donald Trump the electoral behemoth his congressional allies think he is? – politicalbetting.com

!function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var e in a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var t=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-"+e)||document.querySelector("iframe[src*='"+e+"']");t&&(t.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][e]+"px")}}))}();

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    QTWAIN.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,714
    Second like Dirty Leeds.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 6,266

    QTWAIN.

    Spot on 👍
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 12,184

    QTWAIN.

    Worst acronym ever. Quicker to just say "no".
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 8,690
    Nice header! So Trump not even on the GOP podium. Loser!
  • eekeek Posts: 10,100
    I think you are looking at the wrong issue here.

    Trump's Congressional Allies are all (except probably Cruz in Texas) all in safe Republican seats. They don't need Trump's supporters to win their seats, they need those supporters to ensure they are standing in as Republican candidate in the next election.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 15,714
    But if you subscribe to the school of thought that says ‘statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more interesting’ and looking at actual number of voters is a better pointer.

    I might use that one the next time I'm on a stats training course for work.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,966
    This is the source of Trumpist rage in a nutshell. They're not-so-slowly becoming an electoral and demographic minority, and it's sending them round the bend. Soon they're going to have to choose between purity and power, ideally before they find themselves facing President AOC.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 2,030
    For @Gardenwalker, note the comments by Matt Hancock re the social media companies:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 10,115
    To me it was staggering that he was in the middle of that chart

    Compared to Ross Perot (the previous non-standard-politician candidate), well, Perot was a "stable genius" by comparison.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 9,230
    tlg86 said:

    But if you subscribe to the school of thought that says ‘statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more interesting’ and looking at actual number of voters is a better pointer.

    I might use that one the next time I'm on a stats training course for work.

    You might want to add 'or speedos'. Equal Opps innit.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 8,690
    The man will be a constant liability until he is measured for a fetching orange jump suit
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 88,575
    edited January 10
    tlg86 said:

    But if you subscribe to the school of thought that says ‘statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more interesting’ and looking at actual number of voters is a better pointer.

    I might use that one the next time I'm on a stats training course for work.

    Bugger, the original version had an error in it, here's the phrase I use

    'Statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more fascinating'
  • Mary_BattyMary_Batty Posts: 295

    This is the source of Trumpist rage in a nutshell. They're not-so-slowly becoming an electoral and demographic minority, and it's sending them round the bend. Soon they're going to have to choose between purity and power, ideally before they find themselves facing President AOC.

    You aren't wrong but, being picky, they've never been a majority or even a plurality. They are just noisy.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 10,115
    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:

    But if you subscribe to the school of thought that says ‘statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting but what they hide is much more interesting’ and looking at actual number of voters is a better pointer.

    I might use that one the next time I'm on a stats training course for work.

    You might want to add 'or speedos'. Equal Opps innit.
    And even then you will upset those whose culture regards either as disgusting....
  • Can we all take a moment to laugh at Dirty Bielsa's Leeds.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 8,690
    3 nil
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 6,266
    Excellent thread by the sometimes hyperbolic and hysterical Eagles.

    Yes, people are slowly clicking that Trumpton is an electoral liability who, in four miserable years, has taken the L on a grand scale.

    Sad!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 6,266
    Just the death throes of a pathetic loser whose days are numbered.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 10,115
    On the vaccinations

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-55605009

    "He* said the UK was now vaccinating more than 200,000 people a day and around a third of all over-80s had received a jab."

    *Hancock
  • pingping Posts: 182
    edited January 10
    Ok, I’m going to say it. I miss @ realdonaldtrump and the lack of media gatekeepers.

    Having the most powerful man in the world splurge on Twitter, whatever was his mind for the last 4 years has been really interesting.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732
    I think that this is a little simplistic. The number of votes Trump got is significant. He motivated certain sections of the US electorate to a very high level, people who are normally neglected or taken for granted.

    His problem is that he motivated his opposition even more and there were more of them.

    The challenge for the Republicans is to do the first without the second. It’s not going to be easy. Like it or loathe it it was Trumps enthusiasm for offending the entitled, the worthy and the self indulgent that motivated his own base. Someone who doesn’t “tell it as it is” is going to find that harder. Maybe impossible.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 4,225
    edited January 10
    Has this been posted? A deep analysis of Trump's speech on Wednesday. Obviously gives the lie to any suggestion that he was encouraging "peaceful" protest.

    Enjoy your afternoon...

    https://threader.app/thread/1347908845281095680
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 3,726
    edited January 10
    ping said:

    Ok, I’m going to say it. I miss @ realdonaldtrump and the lack of media gatekeepers.

    @realdonaldtrump

    The liberal media tried to banish me and our army of patriots. SAD ! We'll be back and our victory will NEVER be taken away !

    @jefftiedrich

    Still sulking, Donny ? If I was you and I'd quit town while you're still free.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 2,711

    Just the death throes of a pathetic loser whose days are numbered.
    But I think these death throes are going to go on for sometime and provide a lot more entertainment. I am not going to be happy until and unless he and many of his accomplices are behind bars, just so others are deterred from doing this again.
  • Mary_BattyMary_Batty Posts: 295
    DavidL said:

    I think that this is a little simplistic. The number of votes Trump got is significant. He motivated certain sections of the US electorate to a very high level, people who are normally neglected or taken for granted.

    His problem is that he motivated his opposition even more and there were more of them.

    The challenge for the Republicans is to do the first without the second. It’s not going to be easy. Like it or loathe it it was Trumps enthusiasm for offending the entitled, the worthy and the self indulgent that motivated his own base. Someone who doesn’t “tell it as it is” is going to find that harder. Maybe impossible.

    He also offended the poor, weak, humble, and disabled. He insults everyone.
    People ought to have noticed that he wasn't just pricking the balloons of those who deserved it, but everyone else besides. Once you see that, it stops looking like a healthy iconoclasm and starts to appear to be the behaviour of a very unwell man.
  • DavidL said:

    I think that this is a little simplistic. The number of votes Trump got is significant. He motivated certain sections of the US electorate to a very high level, people who are normally neglected or taken for granted.

    His problem is that he motivated his opposition even more and there were more of them.

    The challenge for the Republicans is to do the first without the second. It’s not going to be easy. Like it or loathe it it was Trumps enthusiasm for offending the entitled, the worthy and the self indulgent that motivated his own base. Someone who doesn’t “tell it as it is” is going to find that harder. Maybe impossible.

    But Trump also motivated his opponents.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 8,690

    DavidL said:

    I think that this is a little simplistic. The number of votes Trump got is significant. He motivated certain sections of the US electorate to a very high level, people who are normally neglected or taken for granted.

    His problem is that he motivated his opposition even more and there were more of them.

    The challenge for the Republicans is to do the first without the second. It’s not going to be easy. Like it or loathe it it was Trumps enthusiasm for offending the entitled, the worthy and the self indulgent that motivated his own base. Someone who doesn’t “tell it as it is” is going to find that harder. Maybe impossible.

    But Trump also motivated his opponents.
    Much like Bielsa's Leeds.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,887
    ping said:

    Ok, I’m going to say it. I miss @ realdonaldtrump and the lack of media gatekeepers.

    Having the most powerful man in the world splurge on Twitter, whatever was his mind for the last 4 years has been really interesting.

    "Interesting" is certainly a way of describing it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    edited January 10
    Not sure the backing music was really necessary. Poweful though.
    ping said:

    Ok, I’m going to say it. I miss @ realdonaldtrump and the lack of media gatekeepers.

    Having the most powerful man in the world splurge on Twitter, whatever was his mind for the last 4 years has been really interesting.

    There's a morbid fascination to it. I must say I miss not knowing the innermost thoughts of public officials and tycoons - finding out they frequently as dumb and insecure as the rest of us takes some of the mystique away from the powerful.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 4,225
    edited January 10
    There were almost certainly several Republican House Representatives who are directly implicated in the planning for Wednesday. I wouldn't be surprised if we see arrests in the next few weeks.

    I suspect the Senators were largely useful idiots, if for no other reason that they have more to lose and less secure political bases (but could be wrong). But not those in the House.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 6,266
    ping said:

    Ok, I’m going to say it. I miss @ realdonaldtrump and the lack of media gatekeepers.

    Having the most powerful man in the world splurge on Twitter, whatever was his mind for the last 4 years has been really interesting.

    Only on PB.
  • I don't think for a moment that Trump's congressional allies believe Trumpism is the way to win and keep power in the NATION. They believe it is the way to do so in the PARTY.

    Most of them understand that, although in absolute terms he won a lot of votes in 2016 and 2020, he drove Democrat turnout just as much. They know it's better to win an election with a 40% turnout than lose one with 70% turnout.

    However, they believe (or did until last week) that his endorsement wins primaries and raises money and - still more importantly - that he can destroy careers with a tweet.

    That's ripe for reassessment because he can no longer destroy careers with a tweet (obv) and it's probably the case that a Trump endorsement is a mixed blessing for a primary (although we don't yet quite know how Republican supporters' opinion will settle on this - clearly a remarkable number give him the benefit of the doubt for anything).
  • pingping Posts: 182

    ping said:

    Ok, I’m going to say it. I miss @ realdonaldtrump and the lack of media gatekeepers.

    Having the most powerful man in the world splurge on Twitter, whatever was his mind for the last 4 years has been really interesting.

    Only on PB.
    Well, yes.

    For political betting purposes it’s been useful, no?
  • If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 10,115
    MaxPB said:

    No. I think Trump's 2016 victory showed that you could get white America to vote like a minority group, which is the key learning for the GOP. I think Trump in 2020 showed that being a crybaby moron for four years is an election loser.

    My bold.

    Actually it was a specific chunk of White America, but yes. And that is the problem. They are behaving in the manner of the ethnic parties of Lebanon.
  • Mary_BattyMary_Batty Posts: 295
    James Comey's assertion that "Trump shouldn't be prosecuted when he leaves office", as reported to be in his upcoming book, it looking a little dated.

    I mean, it was probably a bad call even when it was written, but now it's looking ridiculous.
  • TresTres Posts: 286
    Yay, another Brexit benefit. Thank you Mr Johnson.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55609315
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 4,225
    edited January 10

    If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
    Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.

    We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    What a surprise. Probably good for him he cannot do so on twitter, as it make it harder to prove his last statement was an arse covering insincerity (though of course it was).
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 5,830
    MrEd said:

    For @Gardenwalker, note the comments by Matt Hancock re the social media companies:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

    V interesting.

    I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.

    Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 38,775
    alex_ said:

    If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
    Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.

    We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
    I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    Ugh. Their/there mixup.

    Other than that, no notes, looks good.
  • Mary_BattyMary_Batty Posts: 295

    MrEd said:

    For @Gardenwalker, note the comments by Matt Hancock re the social media companies:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

    V interesting.

    I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.

    Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
    What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 4,225

    alex_ said:

    If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
    Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.

    We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
    I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.

    I tend to agree. It's far more important that it happens, for constitutional reasons, than how it happens. Once it's done, it puts 3 Democrats at the front of the line of Presidential Succession.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    Very well said! Of all the celebrities whom the Simpsons joked about becoming President it is a shame the Constitution meant that it wasn't him, instead of Trump, that was eligible.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 17,156
    edited January 10

    This is the source of Trumpist rage in a nutshell. They're not-so-slowly becoming an electoral and demographic minority, and it's sending them round the bend. Soon they're going to have to choose between purity and power, ideally before they find themselves facing President AOC.

    You aren't wrong but, being picky, they've never been a majority or even a plurality. They are just noisy.
    Yes. We did this the other day a little bit. How many of the 74m are what we'd call hardcore Trumpsters? 20m? 25m? Not more that that. Probably less. It's a depressingly large number, since one is one too many, but it's not a platform to win national power on because you cannot appeal to these people without motivating a larger number to vote against you. And the direction of travel is wrong too. Fluked it in 2016, due to freaky EC maths. Lost this time even with the benefit of incumbency. Next time, I suggest, not a chance. If there were, say, 25m Trumpsters on 3/11/20, I'd think there are fewer now. And in a couple of years, with him losing power and profile, fewer still. So I think - and will be betting - that the Republican party candidate in 24 will not be carrying the Trump/MAGA flame.
  • Mary_BattyMary_Batty Posts: 295
    I know it's really a secondary point here, but why does he assume that politically active people are men and that their female relatives are the ones who should be hurt?
    There's a really strange attitude amongst some right-wing men that politics is somehow an exercise in sexual selection. These far-out "displacement" theories, and the use of the word "cuck" is all a part of this monumental weirdness.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 35,715
    The Electoral College is a gerrymander - consider Wyoming, with around 600,000 people, gets 3 electors (one per 200,000), but California, with around 40,000,000 people, gets 55 electors (one per 727,000).
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    And some people think AWS should be obliged to host this shit?

    People have a right to free speech, not to a right for others to host it for them.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 10,115
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
    Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.

    We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
    I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.

    I tend to agree. It's far more important that it happens, for constitutional reasons, than how it happens. Once it's done, it puts 3 Democrats at the front of the line of Presidential Succession.
    Lincoln's went ahead - and the threat to that one was at least as high.
  • Tres said:

    Yay, another Brexit benefit. Thank you Mr Johnson.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55609315

    If you read the article border delays play a part but so do staff absence from covid

    So far my weekly Asda order has been complete
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    edited January 10
    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
    Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.

    We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
    I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.

    I tend to agree. It's far more important that it happens, for constitutional reasons, than how it happens. Once it's done, it puts 3 Democrats at the front of the line of Presidential Succession.
    I'm wondering if the Presidential Succession should be looked at?

    The way America is polarising, if the GOP win the House in the midterms I could picture some extreme Q/GOPers wanting to 'take out' the POTUS and VEEP to 'win back' the Presidency that way.

    I would suggest perhaps the Presidential succession should go through the Presidents own Cabinet before it reverts back to the House.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 9,887

    I know it's really a secondary point here, but why does he assume that politically active people are men and that their female relatives are the ones who should be hurt?
    There's a really strange attitude amongst some right-wing men that politics is somehow an exercise in sexual selection. These far-out "displacement" theories, and the use of the word "cuck" is all a part of this monumental weirdness.
    Cos only males have agency?
    There is much comment about race in US politics, but the level of misogyny is bewildering.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845

    And some people think AWS should be obliged to host this shit?

    People have a right to free speech, not to a right for others to host it for them.
    Terrible, terrible, terrible..... "butcher there children...." Proof that DEVO was right - we are devolving back to snails.....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    dixiedean said:

    I know it's really a secondary point here, but why does he assume that politically active people are men and that their female relatives are the ones who should be hurt?
    There's a really strange attitude amongst some right-wing men that politics is somehow an exercise in sexual selection. These far-out "displacement" theories, and the use of the word "cuck" is all a part of this monumental weirdness.
    Cos only males have agency?
    There is much comment about race in US politics, but the level of misogyny is bewildering.
    As much the politics of 'incels' as the politics of white supremacists.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 24,349

    I know it's really a secondary point here, but why does he assume that politically active people are men and that their female relatives are the ones who should be hurt?
    There's a really strange attitude amongst some right-wing men that politics is somehow an exercise in sexual selection. These far-out "displacement" theories, and the use of the word "cuck" is all a part of this monumental weirdness.
    It's quite possible that women are a theoretical concept to him, either a bunch of pixels on a monitor or mythical, like unicorns.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845
    kle4 said:

    What a surprise. Probably good for him he cannot do so on twitter, as it make it harder to prove his last statement was an arse covering insincerity (though of course it was).
    The biggest surprise in that is that Trump still has "allies" plural.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 17,156
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 5,155

    alex_ said:

    If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
    Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.

    We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
    I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.

    It would be an admission of defeat if it didn't which would humiliate the USA and emasculate Biden from the get go. Security arrangements should always have assumed that there were Lee Harvey Oswalds and Osama bin Ladens out there anyway, and if you can cope with those you can cope with this.
  • Can we all take a moment to laugh at Dirty Bielsa's Leeds.

    Crawley Town 3, Leeds 0. And to rub it in, Crawley brought on that bloke from Towie. It might be time to reconsider my bet on Arsenal to win the FA Cup.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845

    I know it's really a secondary point here, but why does he assume that politically active people are men and that their female relatives are the ones who should be hurt?
    There's a really strange attitude amongst some right-wing men that politics is somehow an exercise in sexual selection. These far-out "displacement" theories, and the use of the word "cuck" is all a part of this monumental weirdness.
    It's quite possible that women are a theoretical concept to him, either a bunch of pixels on a monitor or mythical, like unicorns.
    Oh, he's seen footage of them on the internet. He just wishes he had a step-sister like that....
  • MrEd said:

    For @Gardenwalker, note the comments by Matt Hancock re the social media companies:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

    V interesting.

    I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.

    Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
    There were actually already moves well advanced for an Online Safety Bill this year: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper/online-harms-white-paper

    There are some very similar moves by the EU and by national governments in Europe and elsewhere.

    The decisions on Trump by social media companies (and Apple, Google etc as hosts) need to be seen in this context. Now is a very bad time to appear weak and unconcerned if you're one of these companies - they are certainly moving into a more regulated sphere across the developed world (they get that), but they are scrambling to manage the costs and the risk from fines etc so "we can be trusted to self-regulate to some degree" is a far more important message to get across than it has been at any time in the past.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    FPT

    eek said:

    Another one for RochdalePioneers (merely because it's your expertise). Food exports are going well



    I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.
    The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to.
    This is all their own fault.
    Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.

    I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
    You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to.
    The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
    When? When did I say that?

    I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 583

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
    Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.

    We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
    I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.

    I tend to agree. It's far more important that it happens, for constitutional reasons, than how it happens. Once it's done, it puts 3 Democrats at the front of the line of Presidential Succession.
    I'm wondering if the Presidential Succession should be looked at?

    The way America is polarising, if the GOP win the House in the midterms I could picture some extreme Q/GOPers wanting to 'take out' the POTUS and VEEP to 'win back' the Presidency that way.

    I would suggest perhaps the Presidential succession should go through the Presidents own Cabinet before it reverts back to the House.
    Good point, and that one can actually be changed through a simple bill. Having the House and Senate heads in the succession is constitutionally dodgy anyway, as it's not settled whether they qualify as "officers of the United States".
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845

    Can we all take a moment to laugh at Dirty Bielsa's Leeds.

    Crawley Town 3, Leeds 0. And to rub it in, Crawley brought on that bloke from Towie. It might be time to reconsider my bet on Arsenal to win the FA Cup.
    No excuse for any Premier League team now not hammering Leeds. Even Sheffield United should put 6 past them.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 2,711
    edited January 10

    And some people think AWS should be obliged to host this shit?

    People have a right to free speech, not to a right for others to host it for them.
    Terrible, terrible, terrible..... "butcher there children...." Proof that DEVO was right - we are devolving back to snails.....
    I take back my criticism of you the other day for focusing on this particular piece of lack of grammar. That was priceless. Excellent.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 4,225
    Can anyone clarify the situation with the 25th Amendment. Some people have said it doesn't really work because after it is triggered, the President can contest in and it must be approved by Congress with 2/3 majorities within 4 days.

    So the question is - once triggered, does the VP take command immediately subject to a subsequent reversal in Congress, or does the VP only take command once the 2/3 vote is confirmed?

    One can see why Pence doesn't want to do it until the last moment under either circumstance - because if Congress reverses or rejects it (as it quite possibly would in the House) then it would probably put him in grave danger for the last few subsequent days of the Presidency.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 13,707

    I know it's really a secondary point here, but why does he assume that politically active people are men and that their female relatives are the ones who should be hurt?
    There's a really strange attitude amongst some right-wing men that politics is somehow an exercise in sexual selection. These far-out "displacement" theories, and the use of the word "cuck" is all a part of this monumental weirdness.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 2,834
    edited January 10
    kle4 said:
    But interesting to see the repositioning. I mean, even without last week, Trump was on his way to becoming a much diminished figure from 20th so it is not a shock at all that more people would be jumping off the Trump Train than onto it.

    However, Christie is still very much involved in Republican politics and, although he was never a swivel-eyed true-believer, he had thought carefully about the weather in the GOP and positioned himself close to Trump. He plainly sees zero value in that now. He's betting that Trump is finished and there is no value (and much danger) in continued association.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 4,225
    IshmaelZ said:

    alex_ said:

    If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
    Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.

    We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
    I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.

    It would be an admission of defeat if it didn't which would humiliate the USA and emasculate Biden from the get go. Security arrangements should always have assumed that there were Lee Harvey Oswalds and Osama bin Ladens out there anyway, and if you can cope with those you can cope with this.
    Absolutely - i get the point. But just as long as there is absolute certainty about the loyalty of those arranging security. If the threat is purely external then it's probably OK.
  • GaussianGaussian Posts: 583
    alex_ said:

    Can anyone clarify the situation with the 25th Amendment. Some people have said it doesn't really work because after it is triggered, the President can contest in and it must be approved by Congress with 2/3 majorities within 4 days.

    So the question is - once triggered, does the VP take command immediately subject to a subsequent reversal in Congress, or does the VP only take command once the 2/3 vote is confirmed?

    One can see why Pence doesn't want to do it until the last moment under either circumstance - because if Congress reverses or rejects it (as it quite possibly would in the House) then it would probably put him in grave danger for the last few subsequent days of the Presidency.

    alex_ said:

    Can anyone clarify the situation with the 25th Amendment. Some people have said it doesn't really work because after it is triggered, the President can contest in and it must be approved by Congress with 2/3 majorities within 4 days.

    So the question is - once triggered, does the VP take command immediately subject to a subsequent reversal in Congress, or does the VP only take command once the 2/3 vote is confirmed?

    One can see why Pence doesn't want to do it until the last moment under either circumstance - because if Congress reverses or rejects it (as it quite possibly would in the House) then it would probably put him in grave danger for the last few subsequent days of the Presidency.

    VP takes command immediately, and Congress can drag its feet on the votes for 21 days.
  • eekeek Posts: 10,100

    FPT

    eek said:

    Another one for RochdalePioneers (merely because it's your expertise). Food exports are going well



    I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.
    The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to.
    This is all their own fault.
    Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.

    I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
    You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to.
    The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
    When? When did I say that?

    I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
    So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.

  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,668

    MrEd said:

    For @Gardenwalker, note the comments by Matt Hancock re the social media companies:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

    V interesting.

    I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.

    Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
    What would you hope to achieve through regulation?
    Accountability on how quick they are to remove hate speech and potentially libellous material would be nice.

    Some clearer guidance on the sorts of outcomes the algorithms that govern what sorts of content people view are expected to achieve would also be good. As well as a resolution in law to the question of whether they're allowed to ban people whose views management or the community don't like, or if they have to host everyone who's not actively breaking the law.

    Personally, I'd add forcing them to essentially get rid of the possibility of posting illegal stuff from behind a veil of anonymity by imposing KYC regulations on the providers, but that one seems more contentious.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845
    kjh said:

    And some people think AWS should be obliged to host this shit?

    People have a right to free speech, not to a right for others to host it for them.
    Terrible, terrible, terrible..... "butcher there children...." Proof that DEVO was right - we are devolving back to snails.....
    I take back my criticism of you the other day for focusing on this particular piece of lack of grammar. That was priceless. Excellent.
    It's what separates Us from Them.....be ever vigilant!
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 4,225
    Gaussian said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
    Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.

    We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
    I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.

    I tend to agree. It's far more important that it happens, for constitutional reasons, than how it happens. Once it's done, it puts 3 Democrats at the front of the line of Presidential Succession.
    I'm wondering if the Presidential Succession should be looked at?

    The way America is polarising, if the GOP win the House in the midterms I could picture some extreme Q/GOPers wanting to 'take out' the POTUS and VEEP to 'win back' the Presidency that way.

    I would suggest perhaps the Presidential succession should go through the Presidents own Cabinet before it reverts back to the House.
    Good point, and that one can actually be changed through a simple bill. Having the House and Senate heads in the succession is constitutionally dodgy anyway, as it's not settled whether they qualify as "officers of the United States".
    On the other hand, isn't it security against a coup from within the Executive (eg. DoD)? I'm not sure anyone in the Senate has a role do they? I thought it was just the Speaker.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,108
    Gaussian said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
    Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.

    We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
    I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.

    I tend to agree. It's far more important that it happens, for constitutional reasons, than how it happens. Once it's done, it puts 3 Democrats at the front of the line of Presidential Succession.
    I'm wondering if the Presidential Succession should be looked at?

    The way America is polarising, if the GOP win the House in the midterms I could picture some extreme Q/GOPers wanting to 'take out' the POTUS and VEEP to 'win back' the Presidency that way.

    I would suggest perhaps the Presidential succession should go through the Presidents own Cabinet before it reverts back to the House.
    Good point, and that one can actually be changed through a simple bill. Having the House and Senate heads in the succession is constitutionally dodgy anyway, as it's not settled whether they qualify as "officers of the United States".
    The reason the Speaker and President Pro Tem are next in line after the Veep is that they have been elected by the people of their district/state and by a majority of their chamber thus representing the electorate as a whole, and the Secretaries are appointed. Personally I’d replace President Pro Tem with Senate Majority Leader as by custom the Senate always elects what in UK terms would be the “father of the house” to the role as it’s purely ceremonial.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Another one for RochdalePioneers (merely because it's your expertise). Food exports are going well



    I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.
    The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to.
    This is all their own fault.
    Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.

    I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
    You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to.
    The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
    When? When did I say that?

    I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
    So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.

    Well precisely, that's the kind of disruption we'd always have and which the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium just as I always expected.

    Hence Gallowgate's nonsense in suggesting I was arguing preparations would resolve this. They won't. The disruption will occur no matter what.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 3,726
    edited January 10

    kle4 said:

    What a surprise. Probably good for him he cannot do so on twitter, as it make it harder to prove his last statement was an arse covering insincerity (though of course it was).
    The biggest surprise in that is that Trump still has "allies" plural.
    @realdonaldtrump

    We're going to have some VERY exciting news for a real media voice for Americans tomorrow. STAY TUNED !

    @jefftiedrich

    You OK, hun ? You do know even Pence has left you, and you're looking at jail time, right ? Gather up your make-up and your grifter son and head to the airport.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 2,668
    Tres said:

    Yay, another Brexit benefit. Thank you Mr Johnson.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55609315

    According to my wife (who deals with such things) the problems are nothing like as bad as they were during the first lockdown, and in any case Ocado has been more hit and miss than usual since they switched providers from Waitrose to M&S in September.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 2,030

    MrEd said:

    For @Gardenwalker, note the comments by Matt Hancock re the social media companies:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55609903

    V interesting.

    I tend to think that Twitter et al are neither pure tech platforms nor “publishers” in the traditional sense - but something in between.

    Certainly though they are today under-regulated, and this will need to change.
    There were actually already moves well advanced for an Online Safety Bill this year: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/online-harms-white-paper/online-harms-white-paper

    There are some very similar moves by the EU and by national governments in Europe and elsewhere.

    The decisions on Trump by social media companies (and Apple, Google etc as hosts) need to be seen in this context. Now is a very bad time to appear weak and unconcerned if you're one of these companies - they are certainly moving into a more regulated sphere across the developed world (they get that), but they are scrambling to manage the costs and the risk from fines etc so "we can be trusted to self-regulate to some degree" is a far more important message to get across than it has been at any time in the past.
    Poland has actually passed a law that fines social media companies every time they ban a post that is deemed as lawful and, as you said, I am sure others will follow. It's just going to be interesting what Modi and Bolsinaro do, both of whom get accused of being mini-Trumps because they may just decide to take pre-emptive action against the giants before they get banned themselves.

    The problem with the tech companies self-regulating is that they are generally awful at doing so. Saying ban Trump but then allowing the Iranians to spew out hatred towards Israel from official accounts just looks optically very bad (and is bad).
  • eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Another one for RochdalePioneers (merely because it's your expertise). Food exports are going well



    I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.
    The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to.
    This is all their own fault.
    Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.

    I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
    You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to.
    The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
    When? When did I say that?

    I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
    So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.

    Deciding to not bother trading with British companies because it's more hassle than it's worth is a form of preparation, is it not?

    Once you recognise that Europe just aren't that into us, the whole trajectory makes perfect sense.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 4,225
    rpjs said:

    Gaussian said:

    alex_ said:

    alex_ said:

    If that is true - and CNN aren't above sexing these things up - it's breathtaking. We really are in the Fuhrerbunker after the likes of Speer have f***ed off.
    Don't forget that Wednesday wasn't about a protest. It was intended to keep Trump IN POWER. After a couple of day of listening to the legal people trying to persuade him to do things to reduce his legal jeopardy, he is now back to thinking how he can still be President (probably been talking to Flynn/Powell/Trump jnr etc again) I wouldn't be surprised if he has been convinced that there is still a route - but this time it involves removing any pretence of being 'peaceful'.

    We can only hope that the wilder speculation about the leadership of the DoD definitely isn't true. And i wouldn't be wanting to be involved in security in the State Capitals over the next few days.
    I don't see how a public inauguration can safely go ahead.

    I tend to agree. It's far more important that it happens, for constitutional reasons, than how it happens. Once it's done, it puts 3 Democrats at the front of the line of Presidential Succession.
    I'm wondering if the Presidential Succession should be looked at?

    The way America is polarising, if the GOP win the House in the midterms I could picture some extreme Q/GOPers wanting to 'take out' the POTUS and VEEP to 'win back' the Presidency that way.

    I would suggest perhaps the Presidential succession should go through the Presidents own Cabinet before it reverts back to the House.
    Good point, and that one can actually be changed through a simple bill. Having the House and Senate heads in the succession is constitutionally dodgy anyway, as it's not settled whether they qualify as "officers of the United States".
    The reason the Speaker and President Pro Tem are next in line after the Veep is that they have been elected by the people of their district/state and by a majority of their chamber thus representing the electorate as a whole, and the Secretaries are appointed. Personally I’d replace President Pro Tem with Senate Majority Leader as by custom the Senate always elects what in UK terms would be the “father of the house” to the role as it’s purely ceremonial.
    Seniority is incredibly important in the US. I saw some speculation earlier on Republicans going independent/switching parties, and it was pointed out that doing that would cost them all their eg. seniority committee benefits.
  • alex_ said:
    Suicide.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 11,379
    alex_ said:

    I think it's unrelated to the Riot.

    I this it is
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 17,156
    "Maybe it starts in one city" ... quite circumspect.

    A moderate?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 5,155

    eek said:

    FPT

    eek said:

    Another one for RochdalePioneers (merely because it's your expertise). Food exports are going well



    I particularly like the 18 new steps required for exporting fish to the EU and the 8 steps the imports then have to follow. Unsurprisingly the importers are deciding that other sources that don't require 8 additional steps are easier to buy from.
    The wasters should have prepared, just like Boris Johnson and Philip_Thompson told them to.
    This is all their own fault.
    Not sure why you tagged me. I never said that.

    I said there'd be disruption but the market will resolve it and find a new equilibrium.
    You said that companies should have prepared just like they were told to.
    The logical conclusion to that is that if they weren't prepared, it's their own fault.
    When? When did I say that?

    I don't recall saying that. I said they were advised to prepare for WTO and if they had then any preparations for WTO should be best placed for if we ended up without a deal, or if we did have one. But I always expected disruption and I always said that. I never pretended or claimed it would be easy or without disruption. Nor did I say anything about fault, so no need to put words in my mouth I didn't use.
    So I've fully prepared for trading under WTO rules. The issue is that because France (pick your EU country) needs paperwork from the customer's buying my goods they no longer wish to purchase from me as other providers are less hassle.

    Well precisely, that's the kind of disruption we'd always have and which the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium just as I always expected.

    Hence Gallowgate's nonsense in suggesting I was arguing preparations would resolve this. They won't. The disruption will occur no matter what.
    "the market will need to resolve to a new equilibrium" is meaningless, because it is what always happens. If I put you out of business, your customers will obtain from others what they used to get from you, so what is your problem?
Sign In or Register to comment.