Could Maryland sue Trump for the cost of raising the National Guard on Wednesday? And, as a civil matter (?), would it be outside of the scope of any pardons Trump might receive?
Father in Law, 75-80, no prior health conditions. He is **Tier 3 Vaccine Level**. He's in SW London & has just got an Pfizer jab today.
Obviously, things are cracking forward at a real pace in London.
Meanwhile in Cardiff, Drakeford is looking in his freezer to see where he put the 270 000 Welsh vaccines. "I am sure I put them by the leg of lamb"
When the worst affected areas were in the north, when they had been in stronger restrictions than the rest of the country we were repeatedly told that those areas with worse infection rates would not get priority for the vaccine above areas with lower levels of Covid.
Interesting you say that London seems to be getting further down the priority list than would be expected.
Wonder if this is a case of a policy change coming into force to benefit London when it was ruled out that such a policy would be implemented at a time the north would have benefited.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
...to the point where I had to change his name to Giuliano!
Given this is becoming a circus, should have been Galliano.
Father in Law, 75-80, no prior health conditions. He is **Tier 3 Vaccine Level**. He's in SW London & has just got an Pfizer jab today.
Obviously, things are cracking forward at a real pace in London.
Meanwhile in Cardiff, Drakeford is looking in his freezer to see where he put the 270 000 Welsh vaccines. "I am sure I put them by the leg of lamb"
When the worst affected areas were in the north, when they had been in stronger restrictions than the rest of the country we were repeatedly told that those areas with worse infection rates would not get priority for the vaccine above areas with lower levels of Covid.
Interesting you say that London seems to be getting further down the priority list than would be expected.
Wonder if this is a case of a policy change coming into force to benefit London when it was ruled out that such a policy would be implemented at a time the north would have benefited.
Yep. Certainly no sign of surging ahead up here. Tier 1 people not contacted as of yet. Doubtless Drakeford.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Father in Law, 75-80, no prior health conditions. He is **Tier 3 Vaccine Level**. He's in SW London & has just got an Pfizer jab today.
Obviously, things are cracking forward at a real pace in London.
Meanwhile in Cardiff, Drakeford is looking in his freezer to see where he put the 270 000 Welsh vaccines. "I am sure I put them by the leg of lamb"
When the worst affected areas were in the north, when they had been in stronger restrictions than the rest of the country we were repeatedly told that those areas with worse infection rates would not get priority for the vaccine above areas with lower levels of Covid.
Interesting you say that London seems to be getting further down the priority list than would be expected.
Wonder if this is a case of a policy change coming into force to benefit London when it was ruled out that such a policy would be implemented at a time the north would have benefited.
It might be as simple as because London has a younger population the leftovers go further down the list in that PCT.
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.
Cabinet isn’t elected
Presidential succession USED to go via Cabinet, but that was changed. Something that Alexander Hague, that great constitutional scholar did NOT realize when he made his infamous "I am in charge" statement to the press just after Ronald Reagan was shot.
THAT was the scariest moment of the whole business; I remember seeing him spout this nonsense on TV. General reaction was, who IS this guy? Some even thought he was part of a coup.
Haig was wrong on a huge number of levels there. Although the Secretary of State is the senior cabinet minister under the Constitution, in that particular situation where the President is incapacitated and the Vice President is absent the person in charge should be whoever holds the relevant ministerial brief - in this case, William J. Casey as Director of the CIA, or, if a military threat was perceived, Caspar Weinberger as Secretary of Defense. Haig, however, claimed that he was in charge and because those two thought a row at that moment would be counterproductive they let him think he was, which included giving the infamous ‘I am in command here’ press briefing. During this briefing, against Haig’s wishes, Weinberger raised the military threat level just as Haig was announcing it would not be raised, probably for no better reason than to show he could. Haig apparently shouted at him a lot for that, only to be told to fuck off.
It was always more about Haig’s ego than about the reality of the situationL but equally, it should be noted the cabinet did work pretty well prior to H’s return in what could have been a very serious crisis.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
You would have thought when Giuliani incited a cop riot in New York people would have pegged him as a bud 'un but it turns out people are idiots.
Note that WVa voted 68.7% for Trumpsky in November. This statement from US Senator and former Governor of the Mountain State speaks volumes AND with VOLUMN.
Interesting that members of the Boris Johnson Administration are wanting to to give aid & comfort to Trumpsky, when over here in the US folks are working hard to do the opposite.
Perhaps someone with tell your man Hancock that freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And suchlike.
I think that would be a massive mistake. They should act on this soon, before people get used to it as being one of those things that sometimes happen.
I think that would be a massive mistake. They should act on this soon, before people get used to it as being one of those things that sometimes happen.
I think it is a reaction to the GOP saying the trial would impede Biden's first days in office.
Fine, we'll do all out stuff and STILL convict him...
Father in Law, 75-80, no prior health conditions. He is **Tier 3 Vaccine Level**. He's in SW London & has just got an Pfizer jab today.
Obviously, things are cracking forward at a real pace in London.
Meanwhile in Cardiff, Drakeford is looking in his freezer to see where he put the 270 000 Welsh vaccines. "I am sure I put them by the leg of lamb"
When the worst affected areas were in the north, when they had been in stronger restrictions than the rest of the country we were repeatedly told that those areas with worse infection rates would not get priority for the vaccine above areas with lower levels of Covid.
Interesting you say that London seems to be getting further down the priority list than would be expected.
Wonder if this is a case of a policy change coming into force to benefit London when it was ruled out that such a policy would be implemented at a time the north would have benefited.
From anec-data, it seems London is ahead. It'd be nice to have the figures for each health board to check, though.
There is no greater hater of London on pb.com than me (except mebbe MalcolmG ). The whole country is run for the benefit of the super-affluent in London.
They are the sole beneficiaries of the stable well-paid jobs, flexible working, generous leave and gold-plated pensions that we were all promised a piece of, yet never received.
So I am not at all surprised that Londoners get the vaccines first.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
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.
Cabinet isn’t elected
Presidential succession USED to go via Cabinet, but that was changed. Something that Alexander Hague, that great constitutional scholar did NOT realize when he made his infamous "I am in charge" statement to the press just after Ronald Reagan was shot.
THAT was the scariest moment of the whole business; I remember seeing him spout this nonsense on TV. General reaction was, who IS this guy? Some even thought he was part of a coup.
Haig was wrong on a huge number of levels there. Although the Secretary of State is the senior cabinet minister under the Constitution, in that particular situation where the President is incapacitated and the Vice President is absent the person in charge should be whoever holds the relevant ministerial brief - in this case, James Watt as Secretary of the Interior, or, if a military threat was perceived, Caspar Weinberger as Secretary of Defense. Haig, however, claimed that he was in charge and because those two thought a row at that moment would be counterproductive they let him think he was, which included giving the infamous ‘I am in command here’ press briefing. During this briefing, against Haig’s wishes, Weinberger raised the military threat level just as Haig was announcing it would not be raised, probably for no better reason than to show he could. Haig apparently shouted at him a lot for that, only to be told to fuck off.
It was always more about Haig’s ego than about the reality of the situationL but equally, it should be noted the cabinet did work pretty well prior to H’s return in what could have been a very serious crisis.
You are wrong about a number of things:
> the top member of the Cabinet is NOT in charge in absence of Pres or VP, that may be UK practice but NOT in US.
> in USA, the Secretary of the Interior is NOT the equivalent of Home Secretary or European Interior ministers. Over here, the Department of the Interior is responsible for US public lands, for example national parks & monuments.
Haig had ZERO authority to do and say what he did. Which is why he got canned ASAP after Ronald Reagan's recovery.
Is admissions data from the first wave directly comparable or would there have been significant underreporting?
The comparison does not look good, especially as the current wave is unlikely to enter a swift decline.
In the first wave testing admissions was difficult and slow, with tests rationed to one per patient and taking days, so there was always a large pool of suspects alongside the confirmed. Hence the first wave cases are probably understated.
Nonetheless, even in Leicester which is far from the worst in the country, we have more confirmed cases as inpatients than the confirmed and suspect in the first wave. We will hit 50% covid this week according to our medical director.
Father in Law, 75-80, no prior health conditions. He is **Tier 3 Vaccine Level**. He's in SW London & has just got an Pfizer jab today.
Obviously, things are cracking forward at a real pace in London.
Meanwhile in Cardiff, Drakeford is looking in his freezer to see where he put the 270 000 Welsh vaccines. "I am sure I put them by the leg of lamb"
When the worst affected areas were in the north, when they had been in stronger restrictions than the rest of the country we were repeatedly told that those areas with worse infection rates would not get priority for the vaccine above areas with lower levels of Covid.
Interesting you say that London seems to be getting further down the priority list than would be expected.
Wonder if this is a case of a policy change coming into force to benefit London when it was ruled out that such a policy would be implemented at a time the north would have benefited.
From anec-data, it seems London is ahead. It'd be nice to have the figures for each health board to check, though.
There is no greater hater of London on pb.com than me (except mebbe MalcolmG ). The whole country is run for the benefit of the super-affluent in London.
They are the sole beneficiaries of the stable well-paid jobs, flexible working, generous leave and gold-plated pensions that we were all promised a piece of, yet never received.
So I am not at all surprised that Londoners get the vaccines first.
Doubtless Drakeford
Not post Brexit it isn't, plus London was part of the minority of the country in Tier 4 over Christmas
Boris Johnson 'wants to open 50 mass vaccination centres within weeks to help hit his target of giving jabs to 14 million people by the middle of next month'
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Yes, 9/11 WAS Rudi's shining moment. But his success as anti-crime fighter had more to do with demographics than policy. Note that he put the police department in hands of a toady whose subsequent career was distinguished by a felony conviction.
Any acclaim Rudi got from being mayor is long past. He himself has ensured that it will be scarcely remembered in a decade or two. Whereas his "Four Season" press conference and etc. will live forever in infamy in American history.
I think that would be a massive mistake. They should act on this soon, before people get used to it as being one of those things that sometimes happen.
I think it is a reaction to the GOP saying the trial would impede Biden's first days in office.
Fine, we'll do all out stuff and STILL convict him...
The best mills grind slow but sure. Or something like that.
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.
Cabinet isn’t elected
Presidential succession USED to go via Cabinet, but that was changed. Something that Alexander Hague, that great constitutional scholar did NOT realize when he made his infamous "I am in charge" statement to the press just after Ronald Reagan was shot.
THAT was the scariest moment of the whole business; I remember seeing him spout this nonsense on TV. General reaction was, who IS this guy? Some even thought he was part of a coup.
Haig was wrong on a huge number of levels there. Although the Secretary of State is the senior cabinet minister under the Constitution, in that particular situation where the President is incapacitated and the Vice President is absent the person in charge should be whoever holds the relevant ministerial brief - in this case, James Watt as Secretary of the Interior, or, if a military threat was perceived, Caspar Weinberger as Secretary of Defense. Haig, however, claimed that he was in charge and because those two thought a row at that moment would be counterproductive they let him think he was, which included giving the infamous ‘I am in command here’ press briefing. During this briefing, against Haig’s wishes, Weinberger raised the military threat level just as Haig was announcing it would not be raised, probably for no better reason than to show he could. Haig apparently shouted at him a lot for that, only to be told to fuck off.
It was always more about Haig’s ego than about the reality of the situationL but equally, it should be noted the cabinet did work pretty well prior to H’s return in what could have been a very serious crisis.
You are wrong about a number of things:
> the top member of the Cabinet is NOT in charge in absence of Pres or VP, that may be UK practice but NOT in US.
> in USA, the Secretary of the Interior is NOT the equivalent of Home Secretary or European Interior ministers. Over here, the Department of the Interior is responsible for US public lands, for example national parks & monuments.
Haig had ZERO authority to do and say what he did. Which is why he got canned ASAP after Ronald Reagan's recovery.
You are right about the Secretary of the interior but I had already realised my mistake and changed it. (Now of course it would be the Secretary of Homeland Security, but bizarrely until 2001 that was split between about five different departments.)
I’m interested in your other assertion. Who do you think is in charge in those circumstances, and why do you think that? The top member of the cabinet is of course technically the Secretary of State, and as they are not in charge except of course in matters pertaining to foreign affairs it may be that we are actually agreeing.
Boris Johnson 'wants to open 50 mass vaccination centres within weeks to help hit his target of giving jabs to 14 million people by the middle of next month'
Footage from Capitol bunker during MAGA siege captures GOP lawmakers REFUSING to put on masks - as Congress physician warns that they've ALL been exposed to COVID and must now get tested
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.
My grandfather used to say that a good speech was like a woman’s skirt - long enough to cover the important bits, but short enough to be interesting
I'd like to see him try use that analogy were he alive today!
Yeah how old fashioned! Trans folk wear them too, and so what if Cisgender men do?!
I'm sensing a bout of facetious reactionary mocking coming up. Is there a way I can stop it? Suppose not.
Is admissions data from the first wave directly comparable or would there have been significant underreporting?
The comparison does not look good, especially as the current wave is unlikely to enter a swift decline.
In the first wave testing admissions was difficult and slow, with tests rationed to one per patient and taking days, so there was always a large pool of suspects alongside the confirmed. Hence the first wave cases are probably understated.
Nonetheless, even in Leicester which is far from the worst in the country, we have more confirmed cases as inpatients than the confirmed and suspect in the first wave. We will hit 50% covid this week according to our medical director.
Thanks. Very concerning. Looks like Leicester currently has less than half the case levels of the worst-affected areas.
Not sure how Galloway knows that since he’s blocked anyone who even mildly disagrees with him. Still, looking forward to his day in court.
‘M’lud, I intend to show that defendant X has called my client a morally compromised, untrustworthy c*nt, therefore severely damaging his reputation...’
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Yes, 9/11 WAS Rudi's shining moment. But his success as anti-crime fighter had more to do with demographics than policy. Note that he put the police department in hands of a toady whose subsequent career was distinguished by a felony conviction.
Any acclaim Rudi got from being mayor is long past. He himself has ensured that it will be scarcely remembered in a decade or two. Whereas his "Four Season" press conference and etc. will live forever in infamy in American history.
Violent crime fell 56% under Giuliani's Mayoralty in New York city, murder by 2/3 and robbery fell by 67%.
In my view he was the most successful New York Mayor of the last 100 years. That is a far more significant legacy than being Trump's personal lawyer and there was nothing illegal about challenging the vote count until its final confirmation and while Rudy may have spoken at the rally on Wednesday he did not take any personal part in the attack on the Capitol and condemned it strongly.
I salute his (Galloway's) failure to understand Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
Edit to add: of course, I presume that Galloway will be suing in the UK, so this isn't really applicable.
Edit to add (2): I really think that repealing 230 is going to be a massive own goal. Twitter will have to come down really hard on people spreading Dominion voting machine stories, because it will be liable. And - of course - this effectively goes all the way up. So, Parler's web hosting company might be liable for people spreading libel, and therefore they would get sued out of existence in about 20 minutes.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
I think that would be a massive mistake. They should act on this soon, before people get used to it as being one of those things that sometimes happen.
I think it is a reaction to the GOP saying the trial would impede Biden's first days in office.
Fine, we'll do all out stuff and STILL convict him...
I wouldn't trust that for an instant. Time will only give more reason to back out, regardless of what they might choose to imply.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Yes, 9/11 WAS Rudi's shining moment. But his success as anti-crime fighter had more to do with demographics than policy. Note that he put the police department in hands of a toady whose subsequent career was distinguished by a felony conviction.
Any acclaim Rudi got from being mayor is long past. He himself has ensured that it will be scarcely remembered in a decade or two. Whereas his "Four Season" press conference and etc. will live forever in infamy in American history.
Violent crime fell 56% under Giuliani's Mayoralty in New York city, murder by 2/3 and robbery fell by 67%.
In my view he was the most successful New York Mayor of the last 100 years. That is a far more significant legacy than being Trump's personal lawyer and there was nothing illegal about challenging the vote count until its final confirmation and while Rudy may have spoken at the rally on Wednesday he did not take any personal part in the attack on the Capitol and condemned it strongly.
You overrate Rudi. And have never heard of Fiorello La Guardia? Who was in fact the greatest mayor of the city of New York. And NEVER disgraced his city, country and himself the way your hero has.
Do NOT expect to be flying into "Giuliani Airport" anytime soon!
As for his "condemnation" what a sick joke! He WOULD say that now, as he is definitely deserving of disbarment.
He will go down in history, not as the Hero of 2001 but as one of the Scumbuckets of 2020.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Yes, 9/11 WAS Rudi's shining moment. But his success as anti-crime fighter had more to do with demographics than policy. Note that he put the police department in hands of a toady whose subsequent career was distinguished by a felony conviction.
Any acclaim Rudi got from being mayor is long past. He himself has ensured that it will be scarcely remembered in a decade or two. Whereas his "Four Season" press conference and etc. will live forever in infamy in American history.
Violent crime fell 56% under Giuliani's Mayoralty in New York city, murder by 2/3 and robbery fell by 67%.
In my view he was the most successful New York Mayor of the last 100 years. That is a far more significant legacy than being Trump's personal lawyer and there was nothing illegal about challenging the vote count until its final confirmation and while Rudy may have spoken at the rally on Wednesday he did not take any personal part in the attack on the Capitol and condemned it strongly.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Yes, 9/11 WAS Rudi's shining moment. But his success as anti-crime fighter had more to do with demographics than policy. Note that he put the police department in hands of a toady whose subsequent career was distinguished by a felony conviction.
Any acclaim Rudi got from being mayor is long past. He himself has ensured that it will be scarcely remembered in a decade or two. Whereas his "Four Season" press conference and etc. will live forever in infamy in American history.
while Rudy may have spoken at the rally on Wednesday he did not take any personal part in the attack on the Capitol and condemned it strongly.
Given what he reportedly said at the rally, the second half of the sentence seems completely meaningless. If I helped to whip people up into a rage and direct them at a target, I'm not sure covering my arse with a condemnation really matters. At the least for his professional legal standards.
I think that would be a massive mistake. They should act on this soon, before people get used to it as being one of those things that sometimes happen.
I am quite intrigued by the original tweet though. How could anyone possibly say anything about Galloway that would be worse than the truth?
It's a bit like how to his supporters quoting Corbyn's words directly could still be smearing him. For Galloway, mentioning the truth is defamation, in his mind.
Off topic technical question. Some of my friends and colleagues want to delete WhatsApp because of their new terms and conditions (seemingly exporting loads of phone data to Facebook*). Is Signal the best alternative, or any others we should look at?
*What does each of the following messengers apps collect.
Signal ——— None. (The only personal data Signal stores is your phone number)
Telegram ————— Contact Info Contacts User ID
WhatsApp —————- Device ID User ID Advertising Data Purchase History Coarse Location Phone Number Email Address Contacts Product Interaction Crash Data Performance Data Other Diagnostic Data Payment Info Customer Support Product Interaction Other User Content
Facebook Messenger ——————————— Purchase History Other Financial Info Precise Location Coarse Location Physical Address Email Address Name Phone Number Other User Contact Info Contacts Photos or Videos Gameplay Content Other User Content Search History Browsing History User ID Device ID Product Interaction Advertising Data Other Usage Data Crash Data Performance Data Other Diagnostic Data Other Data Types Browsing History Health Fitness Payment Info Photos or Videos Audio Data Gameplay Content Customer Support Other User Content Search History Sensitive Info iMessage Email address Phone number Search history Device ID
Father in Law, 75-80, no prior health conditions. He is **Tier 3 Vaccine Level**. He's in SW London & has just got an Pfizer jab today.
Obviously, things are cracking forward at a real pace in London.
Meanwhile in Cardiff, Drakeford is looking in his freezer to see where he put the 270 000 Welsh vaccines. "I am sure I put them by the leg of lamb"
When the worst affected areas were in the north, when they had been in stronger restrictions than the rest of the country we were repeatedly told that those areas with worse infection rates would not get priority for the vaccine above areas with lower levels of Covid.
Interesting you say that London seems to be getting further down the priority list than would be expected.
Wonder if this is a case of a policy change coming into force to benefit London when it was ruled out that such a policy would be implemented at a time the north would have benefited.
From anec-data, it seems London is ahead. It'd be nice to have the figures for each health board to check, though.
There is no greater hater of London on pb.com than me (except mebbe MalcolmG ). The whole country is run for the benefit of the super-affluent in London.
They are the sole beneficiaries of the stable well-paid jobs, flexible working, generous leave and gold-plated pensions that we were all promised a piece of, yet never received.
So I am not at all surprised that Londoners get the vaccines first.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Crime was falling before he became mayor.
Not as fast as under his Mayoralty.
His reorganisation of the New York Police Department was key and his broken windows strategy was crucial in cutting crime from the most minor up and he increased the size of NYPD by 12,000 officers during his term.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Yes, 9/11 WAS Rudi's shining moment. But his success as anti-crime fighter had more to do with demographics than policy. Note that he put the police department in hands of a toady whose subsequent career was distinguished by a felony conviction.
Any acclaim Rudi got from being mayor is long past. He himself has ensured that it will be scarcely remembered in a decade or two. Whereas his "Four Season" press conference and etc. will live forever in infamy in American history.
Violent crime fell 56% under Giuliani's Mayoralty in New York city, murder by 2/3 and robbery fell by 67%.
In my view he was the most successful New York Mayor of the last 100 years. That is a far more significant legacy than being Trump's personal lawyer and there was nothing illegal about challenging the vote count until its final confirmation and while Rudy may have spoken at the rally on Wednesday he did not take any personal part in the attack on the Capitol and condemned it strongly.
GOP lawmakers who were complicit in the putsch want their fellow-congressmen, who might have been killed by it, to forget all about it "in the cause of unity".
Crime fell across America. Giuliani wasn't in charge of all the cities as far as I remember
Homicide fell more in New York city in the 1990s than any other US city, falling by 73% compared to just 30% in Chicago, 48% in LA and 59% in Dallas for example.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Crime was falling before he became mayor.
Not as fast as under his Mayoralty.
His reorganisation of the New York Police Department was key and his broken windows strategy was crucial in cutting crime from the most minor up and he increased the size of NYPD by 12,000 officers during his term.
Yet amazingly crime fell in all major US cities over the same period. Implying the identity of the Major wasn't the decisive factor.
You see. I said that was the logo of a bunch of far-right loons.
Have to say the guard in front of Canada Goose man is the epitome of phlegmatic cool. Only movement to check whether his mask is still covering his nose.
Congress will impeach tomorrow, but the Senate then needs to convict.
The Senate GOP have said that would spoil Biden's first weeks in office, but Dems can hold the trial at any point (it seems)
So they get their first 100 days, then convict.
That should also give the Scotus enough time to decide whether you can impeach ex-Presidents or not.
I would say the only people doing well out of this are lawyers, but given what’s happened to the Trumpster’s attorneys I’m not even sure we can say that.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Crime was falling before he became mayor.
Not as fast as under his Mayoralty.
His reorganisation of the New York Police Department was key and his broken windows strategy was crucial in cutting crime from the most minor up and he increased the size of NYPD by 12,000 officers during his term.
Yet amazingly crime fell in all major US cities over the same period. Implying the identity of the Major wasn't the decisive factor.
As I have just posted below, homicide fell by more in NYC than any other city in the US in the 1990s
Congress will impeach tomorrow, but the Senate then needs to convict.
The Senate GOP have said that would spoil Biden's first weeks in office, but Dems can hold the trial at any point (it seems)
So they get their first 100 days, then convict.
Seems like the 100 days would be a test of what Biden's priorities are, and if he tries pleasing his supporters too much in that period the Republican Senators will not agree to convict (if they ever would), deciding after all that it would be divisive.
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.
That’s exactly what I said. He didn’t just motivate his opponents, he motivated them every bit as much as his own supporters. And there are more of them.
Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)
Fake news. Odyssey was not banned anywhere.
Actually no. Read the article and it is clear that the Odyssey was removed from the school curriculum. If you have issue with the story then you can also take it up with the Wall Street Journal.
Crime fell across America. Giuliani wasn't in charge of all the cities as far as I remember
Homicide fell more in New York city in the 1990s than any other US city, falling by 73% compared to just 30% in Chicago, 48% in LA and 59% in Dallas for example.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Crime was falling before he became mayor.
Not as fast as under his Mayoralty.
His reorganisation of the New York Police Department was key and his broken windows strategy was crucial in cutting crime from the most minor up and he increased the size of NYPD by 12,000 officers during his term.
Exactly, it was a question of money. If you increased the Met Police by that amount there would be a reduction in crime, but where would you get the money from?
Maybe G deserves credit for getting the money when others couldn't, in which case fairy nuff. I suspect that others could have done much the same with the same resources though.
Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)
Fake news. Odyssey was not banned anywhere.
Actually no. Read the article and it is clear that the Odyssey was removed from the school curriculum. If you have issue with the story then you can also take it up with the Wall Street Journal.
Hmm. Slightly disingenuous given that that only works if one ignores the Arab assailants who died in the Benghazi attacks. Perhaps being Arabs they don't count...
Seems like the 100 days would be a test of what Biden's priorities are, and if he tries pleasing his supporters too much in that period the Republican Senators will not agree to convict (if they ever would), deciding after all that it would be divisive.
But the Dems have a Senate majority now. The GOP can swivel
Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)
Fake news. Odyssey was not banned anywhere.
Actually no. Read the article and it is clear that the Odyssey was removed from the school curriculum. If you have issue with the story then you can also take it up with the Wall Street Journal.
Removing from a curriculum is not the same as banning.
I've not even read this story and most such stories are not as dramatic as advertised, but that does seem like semantics - removing something from a curriculum, for reasons of controversy, would often be described as banning it from schools.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Crime was falling before he became mayor.
Not as fast as under his Mayoralty.
His reorganisation of the New York Police Department was key and his broken windows strategy was crucial in cutting crime from the most minor up and he increased the size of NYPD by 12,000 officers during his term.
Yet amazingly crime fell in all major US cities over the same period. Implying the identity of the Major wasn't the decisive factor.
This looks on the face of it, like you just can't accept giving Giuliani the credit for anything, because he supports Trump. See also, Trump isn't a successful businessman, Trump isn't good at getting votes etc. See also, people getting slated for expressing the opinion that Hitler was good at making speeches, building autobahns etc. It seems quite a simple-minded position to me to have to obliterate any area where the focus of your ire might have been successful or shown merit. Obviously you're not the only one, there's a lot of it about.
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.
Cabinet isn’t elected
Presidential succession USED to go via Cabinet, but that was changed. Something that Alexander Hague, that great constitutional scholar did NOT realize when he made his infamous "I am in charge" statement to the press just after Ronald Reagan was shot.
THAT was the scariest moment of the whole business; I remember seeing him spout this nonsense on TV. General reaction was, who IS this guy? Some even thought he was part of a coup.
Haig was wrong on a huge number of levels there. Although the Secretary of State is the senior cabinet minister under the Constitution, in that particular situation where the President is incapacitated and the Vice President is absent the person in charge should be whoever holds the relevant ministerial brief - in this case, James Watt as Secretary of the Interior, or, if a military threat was perceived, Caspar Weinberger as Secretary of Defense. Haig, however, claimed that he was in charge and because those two thought a row at that moment would be counterproductive they let him think he was, which included giving the infamous ‘I am in command here’ press briefing. During this briefing, against Haig’s wishes, Weinberger raised the military threat level just as Haig was announcing it would not be raised, probably for no better reason than to show he could. Haig apparently shouted at him a lot for that, only to be told to fuck off.
It was always more about Haig’s ego than about the reality of the situationL but equally, it should be noted the cabinet did work pretty well prior to H’s return in what could have been a very serious crisis.
You are wrong about a number of things:
> the top member of the Cabinet is NOT in charge in absence of Pres or VP, that may be UK practice but NOT in US.
> in USA, the Secretary of the Interior is NOT the equivalent of Home Secretary or European Interior ministers. Over here, the Department of the Interior is responsible for US public lands, for example national parks & monuments.
Haig had ZERO authority to do and say what he did. Which is why he got canned ASAP after Ronald Reagan's recovery.
You are right about the Secretary of the interior but I had already realised my mistake and changed it. (Now of course it would be the Secretary of Homeland Security, but bizarrely until 2001 that was split between about five different departments.)
I’m interested in your other assertion. Who do you think is in charge in those circumstances, and why do you think that? The top member of the cabinet is of course technically the Secretary of State, and as they are not in charge except of course in matters pertaining to foreign affairs it may be that we are actually agreeing.
Think the basic error you are making, is thinking that the US cabinet is THE top executive authority, as is the UK cabinet in your country. Which is NOT the case. Here, the cabinet are simply heads of individual executive departments, with VERY limited powers otherwise, indeed virtually none as a body EXCEPT for role in invoking the 25th amendment.
So the Secretary of Homeland security does NOT have any powers OTHER than those granted directly by law (limited) AND what the President (or in case of 25th Acting President) directly authorizes.
Note that in 1799 during presidency of John Adams a cabinet cabal TRIED to exercise the kind of authority you describe (if I'm understanding you correctly) BUT were shot down. And that was IT.
Further note that after Woodrow Wilson's stroke(s) in 1919, his cabinet did NOT behave that way, and never even tried. Instead, for all intents and purpose Mrs Wilson became a quasi-acting President, though she certainly tried to adhere VERY closely to her husband's wishes as she understood them.
Which is relevant to 1982, when it turned out that Nancy Reagan had a LOT more say-so than Al Haig. Something that he perhaps came to understand when she helped drive a stake through his political heart and permanently ended his career as a mover and shaker.
Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)
Fake news. Odyssey was not banned anywhere.
Actually no. Read the article and it is clear that the Odyssey was removed from the school curriculum. If you have issue with the story then you can also take it up with the Wall Street Journal.
Removing from a curriculum is not the same as banning.
Actually if the aim (and result) is to prevent the children reading it in school then yes it is. You are dancing on the head of a pin and it is pretty shameful.
I look forward to seeing you try - and fail - to defend the other fuckwits in the article who think Shakespeare and Hawthorn should be banned from schools as well.
Hmm. Slightly disingenuous given that that only works if one ignores the Arab assailants who died in the Benghazi attacks. Perhaps being Arabs they don't count...
Granted I've not looked over the detail of those hearings, but I'd have thought they were focused more on the tragic deaths of americans than the deaths of assailants? I'd actually be impressed if they were interested in the detail of the deaths of the assailants beyond a 'could there have been more?' approach, but then I cannot imagine what questions occupied that number of hearings.
Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)
Fake news. Odyssey was not banned anywhere.
Actually no. Read the article and it is clear that the Odyssey was removed from the school curriculum. If you have issue with the story then you can also take it up with the Wall Street Journal.
Removing from a curriculum is not the same as banning.
I've not even read this story and most such stories are not as dramatic as advertised, but that does seem like semantics - removing something from a curriculum, for reasons of controversy, would often be described as banning it from schools.
Can’t think of any school apart from Eton perhaps where the Odyssey would be on the curriculum.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?....
I suppose it’s a reasonable test of whether he’s completely batshit crazy at this point.
Not necessarily. If the new strain achieves the spread we've seen despite 20% immunity, that puts its unrestrained R up accordingly. Which then also pushes up the immunity level required for herd immunity.
Congress will impeach tomorrow, but the Senate then needs to convict.
The Senate GOP have said that would spoil Biden's first weeks in office, but Dems can hold the trial at any point (it seems)
So they get their first 100 days, then convict.
That should also give the Scotus enough time to decide whether you can impeach ex-Presidents or not.
I would say the only people doing well out of this are lawyers, but given what’s happened to the Trumpster’s attorneys I’m not even sure we can say that.
IF the US Senate were actually to impeach Trumpsky after his term expires, then highly doubtful SCOTUS would overturn.
The justices DO know which way the wind blows, as the Court has shown time after time after time.
Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)
Fake news. Odyssey was not banned anywhere.
Actually no. Read the article and it is clear that the Odyssey was removed from the school curriculum. If you have issue with the story then you can also take it up with the Wall Street Journal.
Removing from a curriculum is not the same as banning.
I've not even read this story and most such stories are not as dramatic as advertised, but that does seem like semantics - removing something from a curriculum, for reasons of controversy, would often be described as banning it from schools.
Can’t think of any school apart from Eton perhaps where the Odyssey would be on the curriculum.
My youngest was taught about the simple, kids version of the Odyssey (and the Iliad) at her primary school (state) - she loved the Greek myths. And had some quite shrewd comparisons about the personalities of the Greek gods, and modern celebrities.
She agreed with me, that the only one who wasn't a giant bag of issues was Athena. Who at least *pretended* to be a grown up. The rest she thought were basically toddlers and embarrassing, at that.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Crime was falling before he became mayor.
Not as fast as under his Mayoralty.
His reorganisation of the New York Police Department was key and his broken windows strategy was crucial in cutting crime from the most minor up and he increased the size of NYPD by 12,000 officers during his term.
Yet amazingly crime fell in all major US cities over the same period. Implying the identity of the Major wasn't the decisive factor.
This looks on the face of it, like you just can't accept giving Giuliani the credit for anything, because he supports Trump. See also, Trump isn't a successful businessman, Trump isn't good at getting votes etc. See also, people getting slated for expressing the opinion that Hitler was good at making speeches, building autobahns etc. It seems quite a simple-minded position to me to have to obliterate any area where the focus of your ire might have been successful or shown merit. Obviously you're not the only one, there's a lot of it about.
Guess you didn't read HYFOOLs link either then, specifically the section that says 'Six Factors that Played Little or No Role in the Crime Decline'
Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)
Fake news. Odyssey was not banned anywhere.
Actually no. Read the article and it is clear that the Odyssey was removed from the school curriculum. If you have issue with the story then you can also take it up with the Wall Street Journal.
Removing from a curriculum is not the same as banning.
I've not even read this story and most such stories are not as dramatic as advertised, but that does seem like semantics - removing something from a curriculum, for reasons of controversy, would often be described as banning it from schools.
Can’t think of any school apart from Eton perhaps where the Odyssey would be on the curriculum.
I don't care if it is on one or not, but if it was on and removed due to protests then those getting outraged are not exactly making things up if they use the word ban, even if it is not the best word to use. The implication I got from the rejoinder of fake news was that it had not been removed at all and the story was a total lie, but it turns out it is more complicated than total ban or fake news. So high horses over terminology seemed unwarranted.
Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)
Fake news. Odyssey was not banned anywhere.
Actually no. Read the article and it is clear that the Odyssey was removed from the school curriculum. If you have issue with the story then you can also take it up with the Wall Street Journal.
Thanks for sharing the link. I've been wanting to know this for a while. 30% had it round our way.
Is it not worth antibody testing pre vaccination and if you have antibodies you move down the queue? If its 20% surely it becomes significant and worthwhile to test to get the queue priority more accurate?
Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)
Fake news. Odyssey was not banned anywhere.
Actually no. Read the article and it is clear that the Odyssey was removed from the school curriculum. If you have issue with the story then you can also take it up with the Wall Street Journal.
Removing from a curriculum is not the same as banning.
Actually if the aim (and result) is to prevent the children reading it in school then yes it is. You are dancing on the head of a pin and it is pretty shameful.
I look forward to seeing you try - and fail - to defend the other fuckwits in the article who think Shakespeare and Hawthorn should be banned from schools as well.
I doubt the curriculum includes the Ice Twins either, did they ban SeanT?
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
You would have thought when Giuliani incited a cop riot in New York people would have pegged him as a bud 'un but it turns out people are idiots.
I don’t think even Edwina after a few drinks would consider pegging Rudi.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Yes, 9/11 WAS Rudi's shining moment. But his success as anti-crime fighter had more to do with demographics than policy. Note that he put the police department in hands of a toady whose subsequent career was distinguished by a felony conviction.
Any acclaim Rudi got from being mayor is long past. He himself has ensured that it will be scarcely remembered in a decade or two. Whereas his "Four Season" press conference and etc. will live forever in infamy in American history.
Violent crime fell 56% under Giuliani's Mayoralty in New York city, murder by 2/3 and robbery fell by 67%.
In my view he was the most successful New York Mayor of the last 100 years. That is a far more significant legacy than being Trump's personal lawyer and there was nothing illegal about challenging the vote count until its final confirmation and while Rudy may have spoken at the rally on Wednesday he did not take any personal part in the attack on the Capitol and condemned it strongly.
I think that would be a massive mistake. They should act on this soon, before people get used to it as being one of those things that sometimes happen.
Agreed, that’s daft. Any impeachment has to happen now.
Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)
Fake news. Odyssey was not banned anywhere.
Actually no. Read the article and it is clear that the Odyssey was removed from the school curriculum. If you have issue with the story then you can also take it up with the Wall Street Journal.
Removing from a curriculum is not the same as banning.
My son was given an A in his Higher English last year (admittedly without the inconvenience of actually taking an exam) without ever having studied a Shakespeare play. I mean, why bother? What the hell is the point of the subject?
Father in Law, 75-80, no prior health conditions. He is **Tier 3 Vaccine Level**. He's in SW London & has just got an Pfizer jab today.
Obviously, things are cracking forward at a real pace in London.
Meanwhile in Cardiff, Drakeford is looking in his freezer to see where he put the 270 000 Welsh vaccines. "I am sure I put them by the leg of lamb"
When the worst affected areas were in the north, when they had been in stronger restrictions than the rest of the country we were repeatedly told that those areas with worse infection rates would not get priority for the vaccine above areas with lower levels of Covid.
Interesting you say that London seems to be getting further down the priority list than would be expected.
Wonder if this is a case of a policy change coming into force to benefit London when it was ruled out that such a policy would be implemented at a time the north would have benefited.
And the second tier three person done in SW London mentioned here. Clearly some areas are ahead (or have more supply) than others.
Dershowitz knows better than that (or at least he used to before he became a political hack). Sure, he can make the case that this wasn’t incitement that directly resulted in an attack on Congress, but there is a stronger case that that is exactly what it was, and if so, there is absolutely no 1st Amendment defence.
Here’s a question.
If/when Trump is put on trial for any of his manifold recent crimes, would he stick with Giuliani as his attorney or hire someone vaguely competent?
Assuming, of course, anyone vaguely competent would be willing to appear for him.
I find one of the many disappointments from the Trump Presidency is how comprehensively Giuliano trashed his reputation.
He was trashing it LONG before he latched onto Trumpsky for fun AND profit (that being predominate motive).
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
Giuliani slashed crime in New York city and made it a livable city again and was a key rallying point on 9/11 whatever his over loyalty to Trump now
Crime was falling before he became mayor.
Not as fast as under his Mayoralty.
His reorganisation of the New York Police Department was key and his broken windows strategy was crucial in cutting crime from the most minor up and he increased the size of NYPD by 12,000 officers during his term.
Yet amazingly crime fell in all major US cities over the same period. Implying the identity of the Major wasn't the decisive factor.
This looks on the face of it, like you just can't accept giving Giuliani the credit for anything, because he supports Trump. See also, Trump isn't a successful businessman, Trump isn't good at getting votes etc. See also, people getting slated for expressing the opinion that Hitler was good at making speeches, building autobahns etc. It seems quite a simple-minded position to me to have to obliterate any area where the focus of your ire might have been successful or shown merit. Obviously you're not the only one, there's a lot of it about.
Guess you didn't read HYFOOLs link either then, specifically the section that says 'Six Factors that Played Little or No Role in the Crime Decline'
I'm not passing a comment on his effectiveness or otherwise in fighting crime - that's beside the point, because even if he had gone around personally rounding up the miscreants, I still feel you would have tried to minimise his role for the reasons stated above.
Apparently the Odyssey and Shakespeare are the literary equivalent of statues of slavers (their words not mine)
Fake news. Odyssey was not banned anywhere.
Actually no. Read the article and it is clear that the Odyssey was removed from the school curriculum. If you have issue with the story then you can also take it up with the Wall Street Journal.
Removing from a curriculum is not the same as banning.
My son was given an A in his Higher English last year (admittedly without the inconvenience of actually taking an exam) without ever having studied a Shakespeare play. I mean, why bother? What the hell is the point of the subject?
Comments
Interesting you say that London seems to be getting further down the priority list than would be expected.
Wonder if this is a case of a policy change coming into force to benefit London when it was ruled out that such a policy would be implemented at a time the north would have benefited.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-55609185
Tier 1 people not contacted as of yet.
Doubtless Drakeford.
Note Rudi's ridiculous presidential "campaign" back in 2008. AND the fact that lacked the intestinal fortitude (balls in plain English) to run against Hillary Clinton for US Senator in 2000.
His success as mayor AND his role at 9/11 were WAY over-blown & overrated. A fact that more and more and more people came to realize over the past two decades.
Interesting, recently saw an old re-run of "Murder She Wrote" staring Jessica Lansbury as a character modeled after Agatha Christie & Miss Marple on hit US TV show of 1980s & 90s.
Anyway, this episode (from 80s I think) featured a character who portrayed a New York district attorney type who was Italian (or at least Italian-looking), obssesed with his public image (always looking in the mirror) AND more help than hindrance to the investigation at hand - but was there to take the credit for solving the case at the end.
Am convinced this character was a direct parody of Rudolph Guiliani.
https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1348271386566025218
Edit - Yes he did.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/oct/19/colin-powell-endorses-barack-obama
It was always more about Haig’s ego than about the reality of the situationL but equally, it should be noted the cabinet did work pretty well prior to H’s return in what could have been a very serious crisis.
Interesting that members of the Boris Johnson Administration are wanting to to give aid & comfort to Trumpsky, when over here in the US folks are working hard to do the opposite.
Perhaps someone with tell your man Hancock that freedom of speech does NOT mean freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And suchlike.
The comparison does not look good, especially as the current wave is unlikely to enter a swift decline.
Vaccination team delivers almost 350 Oxford jab doses to every single care home resident and worker in their area in just over two hours
Very working class.
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1348348521997611011
Fine, we'll do all out stuff and STILL convict him...
There is no greater hater of London on pb.com than me (except mebbe MalcolmG
They are the sole beneficiaries of the stable well-paid jobs, flexible working, generous leave and gold-plated pensions that we were all promised a piece of, yet never received.
So I am not at all surprised that Londoners get the vaccines first.
Doubtless Drakeford
> the top member of the Cabinet is NOT in charge in absence of Pres or VP, that may be UK practice but NOT in US.
> in USA, the Secretary of the Interior is NOT the equivalent of Home Secretary or European Interior ministers. Over here, the Department of the Interior is responsible for US public lands, for example national parks & monuments.
Haig had ZERO authority to do and say what he did. Which is why he got canned ASAP after Ronald Reagan's recovery.
Nonetheless, even in Leicester which is far from the worst in the country, we have more confirmed cases as inpatients than the confirmed and suspect in the first wave. We will hit 50% covid this week according to our medical director.
https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1348339476737761280
Mail
Any acclaim Rudi got from being mayor is long past. He himself has ensured that it will be scarcely remembered in a decade or two. Whereas his "Four Season" press conference and etc. will live forever in infamy in American history.
I’m interested in your other assertion. Who do you think is in charge in those circumstances, and why do you think that? The top member of the cabinet is of course technically the Secretary of State, and as they are not in charge except of course in matters pertaining to foreign affairs it may be that we are actually agreeing.
And no vaccine.
Apart from that...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9131799/Possible-virus-exposure-lawmakers-sheltering-riot.html
‘M’lud, I intend to show that defendant X has called my client a morally compromised, untrustworthy c*nt, therefore severely damaging his reputation...’
‘Case dismissed.’
In my view he was the most successful New York Mayor of the last 100 years. That is a far more significant legacy than being Trump's personal lawyer and there was nothing illegal about challenging the vote count until its final confirmation and while Rudy may have spoken at the rally on Wednesday he did not take any personal part in the attack on the Capitol and condemned it strongly.
https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani/status/1347149858000556032?s=20
Edit to add: of course, I presume that Galloway will be suing in the UK, so this isn't really applicable.
Edit to add (2): I really think that repealing 230 is going to be a massive own goal. Twitter will have to come down really hard on people spreading Dominion voting machine stories, because it will be liable. And - of course - this effectively goes all the way up. So, Parler's web hosting company might be liable for people spreading libel, and therefore they would get sued out of existence in about 20 minutes.
Think you mean very lumpen proletariat. Mobilized by Poster-Child-in-Chief of the lumpen bourgeoisie.
Do NOT expect to be flying into "Giuliani Airport" anytime soon!
As for his "condemnation" what a sick joke! He WOULD say that now, as he is definitely deserving of disbarment.
He will go down in history, not as the Hero of 2001 but as one of the Scumbuckets of 2020.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2021/jan/10/one-in-five-have-had-coronavirus-in-england-new-modelling-says
Impeach tomorrow.
*What does each of the following messengers apps collect.
Signal
———
None. (The only personal data Signal stores is your phone number)
Telegram
—————
Contact Info
Contacts
User ID
WhatsApp
—————-
Device ID
User ID
Advertising Data
Purchase History
Coarse Location
Phone Number
Email Address
Contacts
Product Interaction
Crash Data
Performance Data
Other Diagnostic Data
Payment Info
Customer Support
Product Interaction
Other User Content
Facebook Messenger
———————————
Purchase History
Other Financial Info
Precise Location
Coarse Location
Physical Address
Email Address
Name
Phone Number
Other User Contact Info
Contacts
Photos or Videos
Gameplay Content
Other User Content
Search History
Browsing History
User ID
Device ID
Product Interaction
Advertising Data
Other Usage Data
Crash Data
Performance Data
Other Diagnostic Data
Other Data Types
Browsing History
Health
Fitness
Payment Info
Photos or Videos
Audio Data
Gameplay Content
Customer Support
Other User Content
Search History
Sensitive Info
iMessage
Email address
Phone number Search history
Device ID
His reorganisation of the New York Police Department was key and his broken windows strategy was crucial in cutting crime from the most minor up and he increased the size of NYPD by 12,000 officers during his term.
Only on PB.
https://twitter.com/travisakers/status/1348338876482514944?s=21
Congress will impeach tomorrow, but the Senate then needs to convict.
The Senate GOP have said that would spoil Biden's first weeks in office, but Dems can hold the trial at any point (it seems)
So they get their first 100 days, then convict.
https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/089533004773563485
I would say the only people doing well out of this are lawyers, but given what’s happened to the Trumpster’s attorneys I’m not even sure we can say that.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/even-homer-gets-mobbed-11609095872
Maybe G deserves credit for getting the money when others couldn't, in which case fairy nuff. I suspect that others could have done much the same with the same resources though.
So the Secretary of Homeland security does NOT have any powers OTHER than those granted directly by law (limited) AND what the President (or in case of 25th Acting President) directly authorizes.
Note that in 1799 during presidency of John Adams a cabinet cabal TRIED to exercise the kind of authority you describe (if I'm understanding you correctly) BUT were shot down. And that was IT.
Further note that after Woodrow Wilson's stroke(s) in 1919, his cabinet did NOT behave that way, and never even tried. Instead, for all intents and purpose Mrs Wilson became a quasi-acting President, though she certainly tried to adhere VERY closely to her husband's wishes as she understood them.
Which is relevant to 1982, when it turned out that Nancy Reagan had a LOT more say-so than Al Haig. Something that he perhaps came to understand when she helped drive a stake through his political heart and permanently ended his career as a mover and shaker.
I look forward to seeing you try - and fail - to defend the other fuckwits in the article who think Shakespeare and Hawthorn should be banned from schools as well.
Which a study in 2007 found had been quoted by more lawyers and judges than any other line of poetry ever.
The justices DO know which way the wind blows, as the Court has shown time after time after time.
She agreed with me, that the only one who wasn't a giant bag of issues was Athena. Who at least *pretended* to be a grown up. The rest she thought were basically toddlers and embarrassing, at that.
The irony of such a move may escape the editor, of course.
Just wait until this lot read the Bible. Off the top of my head they’re going to have issues with:
Genesis 19:32-35 and 2 Samuel 13 (incest)
1 Samuel 15 (genocide)
Ephesians 6:5 (supportive of slavery).
Any impeachment has to happen now.