Howdy, Stranger!

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

On Betfair punters make it a 73% chance that not enough Republican Senators will back the impeachmen

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 17 in General
imageOn Betfair punters make it a 73% chance that not enough Republican Senators will back the impeachment move – politicalbetting.com

At the start of a momentous week in US politics the big question is whether the Senate is going to follow the the House of Representatives’ move last week and pass a resolution impeaching the outgoing president.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    First as in the queue when its a free for all to fet vaccinated.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,506
    Second.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 9,336
    "Vaccination rollout begins for over-70s in England

    People in England aged 70 and over, as well as those listed as clinically extremely vulnerable, will begin receiving offers of a coronavirus vaccine this week. It comes as 10 new mass vaccination hubs open across England."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55698132
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 62,950

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    This 0.48 proposal would QUADRUPLE my council tax.

    Lucky you. I’d be 14x greater
    You’ve got a family money though.
    As part of the ancien regime, you’re a deserved target.
    Nope. My brother has family money.

    I have to work for a living

    Can I just say that primogeniture sucks?
    I've always thought that ultimogeniture makes more sense, as parents have learned from their mistakes and the youngest will be the best raised and prepared.

    I have nothing to inherit anyway, so it is only theoretical benefit I would accrue from that kind of policy anyway.
    That a recipe for some epic jealous older sibling behaviour.
    "We keep having children but they keep disappearing down the well when we turn our backs. We can't think who might be doing this"
    They have to figure that out for themselves - Zeus managed it as a youngest son with some adversity to overcome, I'm sure I could have managed.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    dixiedean said:

    Second.

    Can you save my spot in the queue?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 62,950
    It's just plain easier to not convict than convict, don't think I agree with Mike that the chances are being understated. I think McConnell has already gotten what he wanted from Trump, which is a climbdown and relative silence, and he doesn't need to do more.

    Sure, he and a few others may be approaching their last terms, so might look a bit further ahead than others, and they could stop Trump running, but people are optimistic - they'll think he won't anyway.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    edited January 17
    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 62,950

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    edited January 17
    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    Almost a third of recovered Covid patients are readmitted to hospital within five months and up to one in eight die of Covid-related complications.

    Research by Leicester University and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that out of 47,780 people discharged from hospital in the first wave, 29.4 per cent returned to hospital within 140 days and 12.3 per cent died.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9157893/Covid-UK-One-eight-recovered-Covid-patients-DIE-140-days.html
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 3,657
    edited January 17

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    What happened to journalistic laconicism? 'Spector: Spectre' seems appropriate.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 540
    Everything will depend on what Trump does next, or indeed what those who are apparently willing to protest in support of him will do next.

    There is a delay between his exit and this thing making progress in the Senate. A lot can happen in that short time, though I will be surprised if any real street action happens in Washington.
  • MetatronMetatron Posts: 174
    Phil Spector produced maybe the most groundbreaking single ever 'River Deep Mountain High' and the worst album i have ever heard by a so-called major artist Leonard Cohens 'Death of a Ladies Man'
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 9,336

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    Good question.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    Not just London losing lots of people...

    'You start to feel stupid': Tech workers can't leave SF fast enough

    https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/They-Can-t-Leave-the-Bay-Area-Fast-Enough-15876405.php
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    Andy_JS said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    Good question.
    I think they have been having W1A style meetings about it.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 19,274
    Why did Navalny go back to Russia?

    Surely Germany didn't extradite him?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,156
    Cyclefree said:

    Why did Navalny go back to Russia?

    Surely Germany didn't extradite him?

    He chose to go back.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,156

    Andy_JS said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    Good question.
    I think they have been having W1A style meetings about it.
    I suspect it may be something more mundane involving caches and content-delivery networks.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,506

    dixiedean said:

    Second.

    Can you save my spot in the queue?
    Age before beauty ;)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    edited January 17
    rpjs said:

    Andy_JS said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    Good question.
    I think they have been having W1A style meetings about it.
    I suspect it may be something more mundane involving caches and content-delivery networks.
    They have changed it 4 times in less than 4hrs according to wayback machine, starting with "Talented but flawed producer Phil Spector dies aged 81"

    Its quite common for BBC to adjust headlines, but each time they just don't seem to be able to say he was a convicted murderer.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,506
    Yan Bingtao will win the world snooker championship multiple times.
    That he has the ability has long been known.
    That he has the temperament on the highest stage has just been confirmed.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 3,051
    On the basis that most politicians never think further ahead than their own next re-election campaign, my assumption (admittedly without checking) is that enough Republicans are up in either 2022 or 2024 that there is limited chance of convicting. 73% sounds about right.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    edited January 17
    rcs1000 said:
    If only he was as good at solving problems when he was in power as he was giving a speech, America might never have had Trump.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 82,645
    I suspect the Senate will vote to convict Trump but not by the 2/3 majority needed to remove him from office. However as he will already have left office and Biden will be President by then that is irrelevant anyway.

    The Senate will also then vote to prevent Trump from running for public office again, which will by that stage be far more significant
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 35,777

    rcs1000 said:
    If only he was as good at solving problems when he was in power as he was giving a speech, America might never have had Trump.
    Sure.

    Also, if Obama hadn't tweaked Trump's tail at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.

    But if almost anyone other than Clinton, H had been the Democratic nominee, then we would never have had Trump as President. (Indeed, it would probably be Paul Ryan taking over from Joe Biden right now.)
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 35,777

    Almost a third of recovered Covid patients are readmitted to hospital within five months and up to one in eight die of Covid-related complications.

    Research by Leicester University and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that out of 47,780 people discharged from hospital in the first wave, 29.4 per cent returned to hospital within 140 days and 12.3 per cent died.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9157893/Covid-UK-One-eight-recovered-Covid-patients-DIE-140-days.html

    Bad Covid has long lasting effects.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 35,777
    Endillion said:

    On the basis that most politicians never think further ahead than their own next re-election campaign, my assumption (admittedly without checking) is that enough Republicans are up in either 2022 or 2024 that there is limited chance of convicting. 73% sounds about right.

    The funny bit is that those Republicans who want Trump convicted most (because they want his base) are those who can least be seen to put the knife in.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 82,645
    edited January 18
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:
    If only he was as good at solving problems when he was in power as he was giving a speech, America might never have had Trump.
    Sure.

    Also, if Obama hadn't tweaked Trump's tail at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.

    But if almost anyone other than Clinton, H had been the Democratic nominee, then we would never have had Trump as President. (Indeed, it would probably be Paul Ryan taking over from Joe Biden right now.)
    Obama and Hillary saw Biden as their intellectual inferior in 2016, that was why Obama got behind Hillary and Biden decided he could not then beat the Clinton machine.

    Yet in terms of being able to connect with the average voter as 2020 proved Biden was far better than Hillary and had he been the Democratic nominee in 2016 then yes Trump would likely never have won in the first place
  • YokesYokes Posts: 540
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:
    If only he was as good at solving problems when he was in power as he was giving a speech, America might never have had Trump.
    Sure.

    Also, if Obama hadn't tweaked Trump's tail at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.

    But if almost anyone other than Clinton, H had been the Democratic nominee, then we would never have had Trump as President. (Indeed, it would probably be Paul Ryan taking over from Joe Biden right now.)
    This is likely correct, few can negatively motivate like Clinton.

    The question then is what happens in 2024. If the GOP can get rid of their Trump issue and nominate someone with the populist instinct just not the complete narcissism, lack of ability, malcontentary (maybe its a word, maybe its not) and corruption of Trump, what then?

    I went for Biden early, refused to buy the negatives claimed for him as I was convinced he was the one person in the field who could emphatically build the numbers. He's stable , known and a man of a fairly sunny disposition. i.e. the complete and total opposite of Trump.

    Biden is not likely to run in 2024, however. The country I suspect wont be doing too bad but what about the party? Harris will have had 4 years of exposure to motivate or demotivate on both sides, the socialist left of the party will try again.

    Whilst the likelihood is that the GOP will not have quite washed the stink off by then, there is no guarantee the Democrats will get anywhere near the mammoth vote in 2024 and it may not be the smooth sail that it perhaps should be for them in 2024.


  • TrèsDifficileTrèsDifficile Posts: 1,729

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    The headline on the actual story is "Phil Spector: Pop producer jailed for murder dies at 81". Its just the link on the main news page which has changed back.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,951
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    This 0.48 proposal would QUADRUPLE my council tax.

    Lucky you. I’d be 14x greater
    You’ve got a family money though.
    As part of the ancien regime, you’re a deserved target.
    Nope. My brother has family money.

    I have to work for a living

    Can I just say that primogeniture sucks?
    I've always thought that ultimogeniture makes more sense, as parents have learned from their mistakes and the youngest will be the best raised and prepared.

    I have nothing to inherit anyway, so it is only theoretical benefit I would accrue from that kind of policy anyway.
    That a recipe for some epic jealous older sibling behaviour.
    "We keep having children but they keep disappearing down the well when we turn our backs. We can't think who might be doing this"
    They have to figure that out for themselves - Zeus managed it as a youngest son with some adversity to overcome, I'm sure I could have managed.
    IIRC social services should have definitely removed Zeus from his fathers habitation. Talk about a high-risk environment....
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 917
    edited January 18
    rcs1000 said:

    Almost a third of recovered Covid patients are readmitted to hospital within five months and up to one in eight die of Covid-related complications.

    Research by Leicester University and the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found that out of 47,780 people discharged from hospital in the first wave, 29.4 per cent returned to hospital within 140 days and 12.3 per cent died.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9157893/Covid-UK-One-eight-recovered-Covid-patients-DIE-140-days.html

    Bad Covid has long lasting effects.
    No doubt. What was the expected risk of death for this group though?

    If a lot of the returnees were in the >85 contingent, then their normal risk of dying is about 16% / year. After any major illness, probably a lot higher.

    Still, another reason to put Covid in the DO NOT WANT category.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,951

    Not just London losing lots of people...

    'You start to feel stupid': Tech workers can't leave SF fast enough

    https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/They-Can-t-Leave-the-Bay-Area-Fast-Enough-15876405.php

    Apparently Elon is having trouble... with all the employees who want to move to the Starship yard in Texas.

    Crazy times. Can you imagine what a Friday night in this bar must be like -

    https://futurism.com/the-byte/spacex-bar-restaurant-starship

    A gang of PhDs in rocketry & some rough neck welders building a space ship. In the Texas wetlands....
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,951

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
    Be interesting to see the headlines when Roman Polanski goes.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 540
    edited January 18
    Whilst a few people on here peed themselves with excitement and delight that the big social media platforms purged a lot of far right accounts, I mentioned that this was not such a good thing as those involved had terrible comms security.

    The Washington Post has an article this weekend saying that law enforcement are now finding it a bit more difficult to monitor because of the loss of a valuable source of info and people knowledge. What has happened is that more of these people have moved to less visible mediums.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,506
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:
    If only he was as good at solving problems when he was in power as he was giving a speech, America might never have had Trump.
    Sure.

    Also, if Obama hadn't tweaked Trump's tail at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.

    But if almost anyone other than Clinton, H had been the Democratic nominee, then we would never have had Trump as President. (Indeed, it would probably be Paul Ryan taking over from Joe Biden right now.)
    Obama and Hillary saw Biden as their intellectual inferior in 2016, that was why Obama got behind Hillary and Biden decided he could not then beat the Clinton machine.

    Yet in terms of being able to connect with the average voter as 2020 proved Biden was far better than Hillary and had he been the Democratic nominee in 2016 then yes Trump would likely never have won in the first place
    Intellectual inferior does not mean political inferior.
    Intelligence (Of the academic kind) is vastly overrated.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 82,645

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
    To be fair to Specter he wasn't a serial killer.

    Insane yes, a genius yes, at least musically and a convicted murderer yes and all that has to be taken into account but he was not Shipman or Bundy or Brady either
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 917
    edited January 18

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
    This whole issue could have been solved by not reporting his death other than in the equivalent of a tiny column section at the bottom of page 17.

    The evening BBC Radio 4 news even decided to play about 30 seconds of music as part of their headlines. Not only was this not suitable as a headline, it definitely skirted the issue.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,506
    HYUFD said:
    Rand Paul is supposed to be a libertarian. In what Universe could Trump be described as one?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 82,645
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:
    If only he was as good at solving problems when he was in power as he was giving a speech, America might never have had Trump.
    Sure.

    Also, if Obama hadn't tweaked Trump's tail at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.

    But if almost anyone other than Clinton, H had been the Democratic nominee, then we would never have had Trump as President. (Indeed, it would probably be Paul Ryan taking over from Joe Biden right now.)
    Obama and Hillary saw Biden as their intellectual inferior in 2016, that was why Obama got behind Hillary and Biden decided he could not then beat the Clinton machine.

    Yet in terms of being able to connect with the average voter as 2020 proved Biden was far better than Hillary and had he been the Democratic nominee in 2016 then yes Trump would likely never have won in the first place
    Intellectual inferior does not mean political inferior.
    Intelligence (Of the academic kind) is vastly overrated.
    In politics anyway
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 3,657
    edited January 18
    dixiedean said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:
    If only he was as good at solving problems when he was in power as he was giving a speech, America might never have had Trump.
    Sure.

    Also, if Obama hadn't tweaked Trump's tail at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.

    But if almost anyone other than Clinton, H had been the Democratic nominee, then we would never have had Trump as President. (Indeed, it would probably be Paul Ryan taking over from Joe Biden right now.)
    Obama and Hillary saw Biden as their intellectual inferior in 2016, that was why Obama got behind Hillary and Biden decided he could not then beat the Clinton machine.

    Yet in terms of being able to connect with the average voter as 2020 proved Biden was far better than Hillary and had he been the Democratic nominee in 2016 then yes Trump would likely never have won in the first place
    Intellectual inferior does not mean political inferior.
    Intelligence (Of the academic kind) is vastly overrated.
    Well, quite - Trump became president with less brains than Lincoln had after his trip to Ford's Theatre.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 82,645
    edited January 18

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
    This whole issue could have been solved by not reporting his death other than in the equivalent of a tiny column section at the bottom of page 17.

    The evening BBC Radio 4 news even decided to play about 30 seconds of music as part of their headlines. Not only was this not suitable as a headline, it definitely skirted the issue.
    Specter's 'Wall of Sound' revolutionised popular music, his death would have been frontpage had he never committed the murder.

    His death should still be frontpage but obviously with details of his crime added too
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,506
    Yokes said:

    Whilst a few people on here peed themselves with excitement and delight that the big social media platforms purged a lot of far right accounts, I mentioned that this was not such a good thing as those involved had terrible comms security.

    The Washington Post has an article this weekend saying that law enforcement are now finding it a bit more difficult to monitor because of the loss of a valuable source of info and people knowledge. What has happened is that more of these people have moved to less visible mediums.

    True. But you are whittling it down to a hard-core difficult to find fanatical core.
    The easily influenced, radicalisable, less careful, more hot headed sympathisers won't bother.
    Just like ISIS and the Provos.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,951
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
    To be fair to Specter he wasn't a serial killer.

    Insane yes, a genius yes, at least musically and a convicted murderer yes and all that has to be taken into account but he was not Shipman or Bundy or Brady either
    It is quite clear that he was a murder waiting to happen.

    It was shear luck that he only killed one person. That we know of.

    What was the line from "Speed" -

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 11,951
    dixiedean said:

    Yokes said:

    Whilst a few people on here peed themselves with excitement and delight that the big social media platforms purged a lot of far right accounts, I mentioned that this was not such a good thing as those involved had terrible comms security.

    The Washington Post has an article this weekend saying that law enforcement are now finding it a bit more difficult to monitor because of the loss of a valuable source of info and people knowledge. What has happened is that more of these people have moved to less visible mediums.

    True. But you are whittling it down to a hard-core difficult to find fanatical core.
    The easily influenced, radicalisable, less careful, more hot headed sympathisers won't bother.
    Just like ISIS and the Provos.
    The next generation of systems will be upon us soon. They will be peer-to-peer and completely encrypted. That is, there will be no central servers to shut off. Instead each person who subscribes will host the data (or a part of it). Think Tor applied to social media...
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 10,506

    dixiedean said:

    Yokes said:

    Whilst a few people on here peed themselves with excitement and delight that the big social media platforms purged a lot of far right accounts, I mentioned that this was not such a good thing as those involved had terrible comms security.

    The Washington Post has an article this weekend saying that law enforcement are now finding it a bit more difficult to monitor because of the loss of a valuable source of info and people knowledge. What has happened is that more of these people have moved to less visible mediums.

    True. But you are whittling it down to a hard-core difficult to find fanatical core.
    The easily influenced, radicalisable, less careful, more hot headed sympathisers won't bother.
    Just like ISIS and the Provos.
    The next generation of systems will be upon us soon. They will be peer-to-peer and completely encrypted. That is, there will be no central servers to shut off. Instead each person who subscribes will host the data (or a part of it). Think Tor applied to social media...

    dixiedean said:

    Yokes said:

    Whilst a few people on here peed themselves with excitement and delight that the big social media platforms purged a lot of far right accounts, I mentioned that this was not such a good thing as those involved had terrible comms security.

    The Washington Post has an article this weekend saying that law enforcement are now finding it a bit more difficult to monitor because of the loss of a valuable source of info and people knowledge. What has happened is that more of these people have moved to less visible mediums.

    True. But you are whittling it down to a hard-core difficult to find fanatical core.
    The easily influenced, radicalisable, less careful, more hot headed sympathisers won't bother.
    Just like ISIS and the Provos.
    The next generation of systems will be upon us soon. They will be peer-to-peer and completely encrypted. That is, there will be no central servers to shut off. Instead each person who subscribes will host the data (or a part of it). Think Tor applied to social media...
    Time moves on. Twas ever thus. Been the same since the invention of writing. Possibly language itself.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 55,965
    edited January 18

    dixiedean said:

    Yokes said:

    Whilst a few people on here peed themselves with excitement and delight that the big social media platforms purged a lot of far right accounts, I mentioned that this was not such a good thing as those involved had terrible comms security.

    The Washington Post has an article this weekend saying that law enforcement are now finding it a bit more difficult to monitor because of the loss of a valuable source of info and people knowledge. What has happened is that more of these people have moved to less visible mediums.

    True. But you are whittling it down to a hard-core difficult to find fanatical core.
    The easily influenced, radicalisable, less careful, more hot headed sympathisers won't bother.
    Just like ISIS and the Provos.
    The next generation of systems will be upon us soon. They will be peer-to-peer and completely encrypted. That is, there will be no central servers to shut off. Instead each person who subscribes will host the data (or a part of it). Think Tor applied to social media...
    In a way it was lucky the people behind Parler weren't the sharpest tools in the box. Given what happened to Gab, you would have thought any new social network would be built with the USP of being decentralised from the get-go, especially one touting itself as "free speech" platform.

    If Parler had built itself properly the authorities would have a lot bigger problem now.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 540
    dixiedean said:

    Yokes said:

    Whilst a few people on here peed themselves with excitement and delight that the big social media platforms purged a lot of far right accounts, I mentioned that this was not such a good thing as those involved had terrible comms security.

    The Washington Post has an article this weekend saying that law enforcement are now finding it a bit more difficult to monitor because of the loss of a valuable source of info and people knowledge. What has happened is that more of these people have moved to less visible mediums.

    True. But you are whittling it down to a hard-core difficult to find fanatical core.
    The easily influenced, radicalisable, less careful, more hot headed sympathisers won't bother.
    Just like ISIS and the Provos.
    Not quite. Think of it like an archery target, the outer rings touch the inner rings. In old days here in NI before yon Internet you'd use people on the outer rings to gather information on the hard core that actually did stuff. In a way its no different except the likes of the open social media and the strange believe that what you post isn't going to boomerang on you is of great assistance. By default such social media is networking, just look at who is on who's list. In security terms it was a bad move short term because the threat is just as likely to be of protest by numbers not an action by a small hard core of activists using terrorism. If it was just the latter such purging of people from their social media accounts is probably less significant.

    Equally, however, you can count plenty of people number of people who do end up committing acts of violence who do come to the attention of authorities as a possible threat through their social media activity. Its often a highly used source, at least a supporting evidence source and in some cases the initiator for a deeper investigation into individuals. Watch how much open social media is used in prosecution cases in the US in particular and you will get an indication

    Greater infiltration of hard core networks is just as much about getting someone on fringes into the hard core groups as trying to turn a person already well established within that hard core. Again you only have go back to what happened in NI to see that, countless informants went through that route.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,156
    HYUFD said:

    I suspect the Senate will vote to convict Trump but not by the 2/3 majority needed to remove him from office. However as he will already have left office and Biden will be President by then that is irrelevant anyway.

    The Senate will also then vote to prevent Trump from running for public office again, which will by that stage be far more significant

    The Senate can only disqualify as a punishment after conviction by the 2/3 majority. The other option to disqualify Trump would be under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but that would require a finding by due process that Trump had indeed instigated insurrection (in which case only a 2/3 vote of both houses can remove the disqualification).

    This has only be done once since Reconstruction, to unseat Victor Berger, a Socialist representative after WW1, but SCOTUS subsequently threw out the conviction that was the basis of the disqualification and Berger won his seat back at the next election.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 540
    HYUFD said:

    I suspect the Senate will vote to convict Trump but not by the 2/3 majority needed to remove him from office. However as he will already have left office and Biden will be President by then that is irrelevant anyway.

    The Senate will also then vote to prevent Trump from running for public office again, which will by that stage be far more significant

    I thought he couldn't be barred from public office unless convicted first?
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 922
    ON TOPIC.

    “ The big attraction to the Republicans of this happening is that Trump would never be able to stand again.‘.

    You keep publishing this in headers Mike, but are you sure of it?

    In terms of precedent it’s pretty much uncharted territory.

    In terms of wording it only removes a sitting president, not bars them from standing again. Dems are saying they need an additional vote wording that,

    Any supplementary vote could be over turned by future votes.

    The Supreme Court may rule they have the ultimately say on what is and isn’t legal about debarring, on the basis the fairest thing is to let someone legislators blocked to actually stand, because being elected by the people would trump the legislators opinion.

    I’m not saying you are wrong, only it can only be said with these caveats
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,156
    gealbhan said:

    ON TOPIC.

    “ The big attraction to the Republicans of this happening is that Trump would never be able to stand again.‘.

    You keep publishing this in headers Mike, but are you sure of it?

    In terms of precedent it’s pretty much uncharted territory.

    In terms of wording it only removes a sitting president, not bars them from standing again. Dems are saying they need an additional vote wording that,

    Any supplementary vote could be over turned by future votes.

    The Supreme Court may rule they have the ultimately say on what is and isn’t legal about debarring, on the basis the fairest thing is to let someone legislators blocked to actually stand, because being elected by the people would trump the legislators opinion.

    I’m not saying you are wrong, only it can only be said with these caveats

    The text is clear that disqualification is a consequence of conviction:

    “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

    I think I’m correct in saying that the “and” before “disqualification” is interpreted as making disqualification an optional extra to removal from office, not mandatory. I think it has been the usual practice in successful impeachments though, mostly of corrupt federal judges.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 540
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
    This whole issue could have been solved by not reporting his death other than in the equivalent of a tiny column section at the bottom of page 17.

    The evening BBC Radio 4 news even decided to play about 30 seconds of music as part of their headlines. Not only was this not suitable as a headline, it definitely skirted the issue.
    Specter's 'Wall of Sound' revolutionised popular music, his death would have been frontpage had he never committed the murder.

    His death should still be frontpage but obviously with details of his crime added too
    Interesting that Spector's music was never blacklisted from radio unlike Gary Glitter's. Perhaps being "merely" the producer gave enough plausible cover for stations to keep playing it.


  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,156
    edited January 18
    dodrade said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
    This whole issue could have been solved by not reporting his death other than in the equivalent of a tiny column section at the bottom of page 17.

    The evening BBC Radio 4 news even decided to play about 30 seconds of music as part of their headlines. Not only was this not suitable as a headline, it definitely skirted the issue.
    Specter's 'Wall of Sound' revolutionised popular music, his death would have been frontpage had he never committed the murder.

    His death should still be frontpage but obviously with details of his crime added too
    Interesting that Spector's music was never blacklisted from radio unlike Gary Glitter's. Perhaps being "merely" the producer gave enough plausible cover for stations to keep playing it.
    Spector was not the performer though. It would be unfair to punish the actual performing artists, many of whom Spector ripped off in terms of royalties, for the sins of the producer.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 540
    edited January 18
    I dislike Trump and for the last near 5 years have ranted on here and to anyone else who was in earshot what an absolute first rate problem he was going to be.

    I am., however, of the view that impeachment conviction is a waste of time even it is going to succeed. I think its signalling, will only give him more victim status and will help towards a certain level of support sticking with the shyster.

    More importantly I think there are many other ways Trump can and most likely will be ruined. Mainly criminally but also on character.

    I am aware that much of the voter base that went for him in 2016 & 2020 had baked in an allowance for his character and some of those voters may not actually want Trump living next door. There are things about the man, however, that are not truly clear to the masses and there are a lot of people he has pissed off. No longer President, he is more vulnerable, he cant trumpet policies to keep some of that support onside, he cant do anything practical so its going to be negative after negative if the wagon gets rolling.

  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 917
    edited January 18
    rpjs said:

    dodrade said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
    This whole issue could have been solved by not reporting his death other than in the equivalent of a tiny column section at the bottom of page 17.

    The evening BBC Radio 4 news even decided to play about 30 seconds of music as part of their headlines. Not only was this not suitable as a headline, it definitely skirted the issue.
    Specter's 'Wall of Sound' revolutionised popular music, his death would have been frontpage had he never committed the murder.

    His death should still be frontpage but obviously with details of his crime added too
    Interesting that Spector's music was never blacklisted from radio unlike Gary Glitter's. Perhaps being "merely" the producer gave enough plausible cover for stations to keep playing it.
    Spector was not the performer though. It would be unfair to punish the actual performing artists, many of whom Spector ripped off in terms of royalties, for the sins of the producer.
    What about all of Gary Glitter's co-artists? You could argue that they knew what was going on, I suppose.

    It isn't as if Specter did anything totally novel, though. It was something old, but on tape. Worse, it was just a precursor to the loudness war and dynamic compression, which wasn't exactly a good thing.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,160

    Not just London losing lots of people...

    'You start to feel stupid': Tech workers can't leave SF fast enough

    https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/They-Can-t-Leave-the-Bay-Area-Fast-Enough-15876405.php

    There was an article on Fox News last week moaning that Republican low tax policies (and the converse in Cali) are attracting all these lefties to move from California to places like Texas and Florida and putting these stakes at risk of going Democrat.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,160
    The risk to Trump, and the opportunity for the bet, is if a key arrestee spills info that points back toward the leading politicians in terms of organisation, as well as inspiration. The suggestions on CNN that House representatives arranged tours of the Capitol in the days prior for some of the rioters already look bad.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,160

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
    To be fair to Specter he wasn't a serial killer.

    Insane yes, a genius yes, at least musically and a convicted murderer yes and all that has to be taken into account but he was not Shipman or Bundy or Brady either
    It is quite clear that he was a murder waiting to happen.

    It was shear luck that he only killed one person. That we know of.

    What was the line from "Speed" -

    The risk of cousins getting married?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,160
    CNN Breaking: over 100 pardons expected from Trump tomorrow
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 32,160
    IanB2 said:

    The risk to Trump, and the opportunity for the bet, is if a key arrestee spills info that points back toward the leading politicians in terms of organisation, as well as inspiration. The suggestions on CNN that House representatives arranged tours of the Capitol in the days prior for some of the rioters already look bad.
    CNN: Emerging details paint an even grimmer picture than the shocking images of violence broadcast live around the world last week. Evidence suggests planning by the insurrectionists, and there are concerns that they may have received support from some Capitol Police, current and former members of the military, and even some members of Congress.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 29,998
    IanB2 said:

    Not just London losing lots of people...

    'You start to feel stupid': Tech workers can't leave SF fast enough

    https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/They-Can-t-Leave-the-Bay-Area-Fast-Enough-15876405.php

    There was an article on Fox News last week moaning that Republican low tax policies (and the converse in Cali) are attracting all these lefties to move from California to places like Texas and Florida and putting these stakes at risk of going Democrat.
    There was a concerted effort from Texas Republicans at the election, to remind those emigrating from California why they left, and not to try and turn their new home into the place they hated.

  • MysticroseMysticrose Posts: 4,688
    Good morning all. Unusually for me I'm not commenting on the U.S. thread, except to say that I'm not sure impeachment will go through. It might. The GOP are in trouble and I don't think they are yet ready for their Kinnock speech moment:



    What a speech.

    Marvellous to see Eric Heffer walking out. The GOP are a long, long, way from this vital and visceral moment.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,264
    edited January 18
    I posted this a while back but The Hill has a run-down on who McConnell might be able to flip if he goes after Trump.
    Assuming Manchin votes no, we start at 49 votes to convict.

    Start with the senators who are retiring or likely in their last term: McConnell, Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), which brings the conviction total to 53 votes. This group has nothing to lose and has served in the Senate for several terms. Toomey has already signaled his dismay with Trump.

    Then there's the enemies list: John Thune (R-S.D.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), which raises the conviction vote to 58. Trump has threatened these senators, often repeatedly. They also have little to lose and have already staked out ground against Trump. Thune and Murkowski are up in 2022, but probably don't care at this point.

    Consider the friends of Thune: John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) - senators from the Dakotas and Wyoming - all have common interests and have won with big margins in small states where people have personal relationships with them. Trump is not much of a threat. They would bring the conviction vote to 62.

    Then there's "Friends of Pence": primarily James Inhofe (R-Okla.), raising the vote to 63. This list could be - and probably is - much larger. The way Trump dumped Mike Pence and left him to run from the mob infuriated Pence's allies. Inhofe went public with his disgust.

    That total - 63 - leaves McConnell a few votes short, but also with a lot of opportunities.

    Senators not in their first term who are not up for reelection until 2026 include Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). Two others aren't up until 2024. That's a pretty deep pool from which to fish four more votes. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) might vote to convict out of principle - even though he faces voters in 2022.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/534213-mcconnell-about-to-school-trump-on-political-power-for-the-last-time?amp&__twitter_impression=true
    I feel like they had to be quite optimistic just to get to the "few votes short" part, and the next step also looks tough. And that's even if McConnell flips, which is far from a given. Ironically I think the worse things look for Trump personally the less tempted the GOP will be to stick the knife in, because they don't need to worry that he'll run for the nomination again if he's already in jail.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 29,998

    Meanwhile, glorious headlines for Boris this morning.

    We're cracking this virus through the most stupendous mass vaccination success.

    I've been deeply critical of Johnson and I lean left of centre but I'm bloody impressed with the brilliance of our vaccine rollout.

    Bravo.

    Over 6% already, and that’s before the new large vaccination centres get up to speed. Still way ahead of almost all other countries, only Israel, UAE and Bahrain in front (populations 10m, 10m and 1.5m).
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 8,915
    edited January 18

    I posted this a while back but The Hill has a run-down on who McConnell might be able to flip if he goes after Trump.

    Assuming Manchin votes no, we start at 49 votes to convict.

    Start with the senators who are retiring or likely in their last term: McConnell, Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), which brings the conviction total to 53 votes. This group has nothing to lose and has served in the Senate for several terms. Toomey has already signaled his dismay with Trump.

    Then there's the enemies list: John Thune (R-S.D.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), which raises the conviction vote to 58. Trump has threatened these senators, often repeatedly. They also have little to lose and have already staked out ground against Trump. Thune and Murkowski are up in 2022, but probably don't care at this point.

    Consider the friends of Thune: John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) - senators from the Dakotas and Wyoming - all have common interests and have won with big margins in small states where people have personal relationships with them. Trump is not much of a threat. They would bring the conviction vote to 62.

    Then there's "Friends of Pence": primarily James Inhofe (R-Okla.), raising the vote to 63. This list could be - and probably is - much larger. The way Trump dumped Mike Pence and left him to run from the mob infuriated Pence's allies. Inhofe went public with his disgust.

    That total - 63 - leaves McConnell a few votes short, but also with a lot of opportunities.

    Senators not in their first term who are not up for reelection until 2026 include Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). Two others aren't up until 2024. That's a pretty deep pool from which to fish four more votes. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) might vote to convict out of principle - even though he faces voters in 2022.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/534213-mcconnell-about-to-school-trump-on-political-power-for-the-last-time?amp&__twitter_impression=true
    I feel like they had to be quite optimistic just to get to the "few votes short" part, and the next step also looks tough. And that's even if McConnell flips, which is far from a given. Ironically I think the worse things look for Trump personally the less tempted the GOP will be to stick the knife in, because they don't need to worry that he'll run for the nomination again if he's already in jail.

    ---------------------

    Pence is the key more than McConnell. I think it needs Pence to go after Trump to get the conviction, and if he does McConnell will pile on and get the votes. If Pence is silent, McConnell is probably just short.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,639
    edited January 18

    I posted this a while back but The Hill has a run-down on who McConnell might be able to flip if he goes after Trump.

    Assuming Manchin votes no, we start at 49 votes to convict.

    Start with the senators who are retiring or likely in their last term: McConnell, Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), which brings the conviction total to 53 votes. This group has nothing to lose and has served in the Senate for several terms. Toomey has already signaled his dismay with Trump.

    Then there's the enemies list: John Thune (R-S.D.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Mitt Romney (R-Utah) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), which raises the conviction vote to 58. Trump has threatened these senators, often repeatedly. They also have little to lose and have already staked out ground against Trump. Thune and Murkowski are up in 2022, but probably don't care at this point.

    Consider the friends of Thune: John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) - senators from the Dakotas and Wyoming - all have common interests and have won with big margins in small states where people have personal relationships with them. Trump is not much of a threat. They would bring the conviction vote to 62.

    Then there's "Friends of Pence": primarily James Inhofe (R-Okla.), raising the vote to 63. This list could be - and probably is - much larger. The way Trump dumped Mike Pence and left him to run from the mob infuriated Pence's allies. Inhofe went public with his disgust.

    That total - 63 - leaves McConnell a few votes short, but also with a lot of opportunities.

    Senators not in their first term who are not up for reelection until 2026 include Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.). Two others aren't up until 2024. That's a pretty deep pool from which to fish four more votes. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) might vote to convict out of principle - even though he faces voters in 2022.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/534213-mcconnell-about-to-school-trump-on-political-power-for-the-last-time?amp&__twitter_impression=true
    I feel like they had to be quite optimistic just to get to the "few votes short" part, and the next step also looks tough. And that's even if McConnell flips, which is far from a given. Ironically I think the worse things look for Trump personally the less tempted the GOP will be to stick the knife in, because they don't need to worry that he'll run for the nomination again if he's already in jail.
    Pence is the key more than McConnell. I think it needs Pence to go after Trump to get the conviction, and if he does McConnell will pile on and get the votes. If Pence is silent, McConnell is probably just short.



    AnneJGP starts here ...
    I wonder whether those brought to court after the Capitol assault will be using the line that 'the President wanted us to do it'. If so, would that add to Mr Trump's legal problems.

    Good morning, everyone.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,467
    I fully support the 0.48% property tax to replace council tax and stamp duty.
    I'm a young home owner in the Red Wall and would likely have to pay less than £400 a year!
    As a side effect I reckon it would compress house prices, making cheaper houses slightly more desirable and expensive ones less so.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,264
    edited January 18
    AnneJGP said:


    I wonder whether those brought to court after the Capitol assault will be using the line that 'the President wanted us to do it'. If so, would that add to Mr Trump's legal problems.

    Yes, I'm sure they'll be saying that. Then there are all Trump's other crimes, many of which aren't yet public, and pulling on each one will reveal connections to the next one.

    However, I don't think the GOP will need to confront any of that stuff exactly. They'll say, "impeaching an ex-president is unconstitutional, and it's time to move on". Acquitting on that basis feels like the path of least resistance for an incumbent torn between the two wings of their party.

    I know there's also the argument that they should impeach to get him out of their hair and stop him running again, but that has a "who will bell the cat" problem, unless the Dems can arrange for a secret ballot.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 13,964
    edited January 18
    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,264
    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    They can (with an additional vote) ban him from running for office again.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 29,998
    edited January 18
    Freggles said:

    I fully support the 0.48% property tax to replace council tax and stamp duty.
    I'm a young home owner in the Red Wall and would likely have to pay less than £400 a year!
    As a side effect I reckon it would compress house prices, making cheaper houses slightly more desirable and expensive ones less so.

    I still think that the only politically acceptable way to replace council tax is with something locally based. Anything based nationally on house price will create tens of millions of serious losers from the scheme.

    Let local authorities decide how much they want to charge, and let locally-elected politicians be held accountable for both the raising of the money and the spending of it.

    My ideal system is probably a cut of the 20% income tax rate to 17%, with central government grants to local authorities cut by a similar money amount, the local authorities being allowed to raise council tax and business rates as they wish. If more council tax bands are required by local authorities in areas of very high and low prices, then allow them to be added. Perhaps also reserve a proportion of employer NI contributions to local authorities, to incentivise them further to create jobs and allow building of commercial and residential property.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 13,964

    Good morning all. Unusually for me I'm not commenting on the U.S. thread, except to say that I'm not sure impeachment will go through. It might. The GOP are in trouble and I don't think they are yet ready for their Kinnock speech moment:



    What a speech.

    Marvellous to see Eric Heffer walking out. The GOP are a long, long, way from this vital and visceral moment.

    What wouldn't we give for a few more like that! What a contrast to the puffballs we've got waffling on these days
  • RogerRoger Posts: 13,964

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    They can (with an additional vote) ban him from running for office again.
    Is that it?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 29,998
    edited January 18
    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,088
    dodrade said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
    This whole issue could have been solved by not reporting his death other than in the equivalent of a tiny column section at the bottom of page 17.

    The evening BBC Radio 4 news even decided to play about 30 seconds of music as part of their headlines. Not only was this not suitable as a headline, it definitely skirted the issue.
    Specter's 'Wall of Sound' revolutionised popular music, his death would have been frontpage had he never committed the murder.

    His death should still be frontpage but obviously with details of his crime added too
    Interesting that Spector's music was never blacklisted from radio unlike Gary Glitter's. Perhaps being "merely" the producer gave enough plausible cover for stations to keep playing it.


    Phil Spector produced the Beatles' Let it be album. If you blacklist his albums you blacklist the Beatles.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 29,998
    IanB2 said:

    CNN Breaking: over 100 pardons expected from Trump tomorrow

    Trying to break Clinton’s record of 140 on the last day?

    He’ll want to leave office not only as the best President ever, but also the most pardoningest in US history!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,455
    edited January 18
    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    Good morning everybody.
    While I have sympathy with Mr S's view that it would be highly desirable to let Trump fade into obscurity, there is, unfortunately for him, the matter of those whom he urged to take violent action. Why should they be jailed when the man who, from a position of power and influence encouraged them, retires to the beach and an endless supply of Big Macs?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 6,294
    Sandpit said:

    He’s unlikely to stand again.

    Why wouldn't he stand again? Because he'll develop a sudden dislike for attention and opportunities for grifting? He'd certainly win Republican nomination.

    The MAGA Army will have plenty of grievances that can be stoked after 4 years of Biden and/or Harris.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 13,964
    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,150
    eristdoof said:

    dodrade said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
    This whole issue could have been solved by not reporting his death other than in the equivalent of a tiny column section at the bottom of page 17.

    The evening BBC Radio 4 news even decided to play about 30 seconds of music as part of their headlines. Not only was this not suitable as a headline, it definitely skirted the issue.
    Specter's 'Wall of Sound' revolutionised popular music, his death would have been frontpage had he never committed the murder.

    His death should still be frontpage but obviously with details of his crime added too
    Interesting that Spector's music was never blacklisted from radio unlike Gary Glitter's. Perhaps being "merely" the producer gave enough plausible cover for stations to keep playing it.


    Phil Spector produced the Beatles' Let it be album. If you blacklist his albums you blacklist the Beatles.
    And the downside is?
  • eekeek Posts: 11,035
    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
  • eekeek Posts: 11,035
    Freggles said:

    I fully support the 0.48% property tax to replace council tax and stamp duty.
    I'm a young home owner in the Red Wall and would likely have to pay less than £400 a year!
    As a side effect I reckon it would compress house prices, making cheaper houses slightly more desirable and expensive ones less so.

    I think you are a great example of how regressive Council tax is even in its current form, I guess you are paying over £1000 a year at the moment so your current Council tax is 1.2% of the house value - way more than the 0.2% it often is down south.

    I know some people won't like it but there are always winners and loses and for a lot of people this Change would be a win.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 13,964
    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
  • MattWMattW Posts: 5,930
    Morning all.
    dodrade said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
    This whole issue could have been solved by not reporting his death other than in the equivalent of a tiny column section at the bottom of page 17.

    The evening BBC Radio 4 news even decided to play about 30 seconds of music as part of their headlines. Not only was this not suitable as a headline, it definitely skirted the issue.
    Specter's 'Wall of Sound' revolutionised popular music, his death would have been frontpage had he never committed the murder.

    His death should still be frontpage but obviously with details of his crime added too
    Interesting that Spector's music was never blacklisted from radio unlike Gary Glitter's. Perhaps being "merely" the producer gave enough plausible cover for stations to keep playing it.


    Was that also due to Gary Glitter's profile in the UK?

    Was Glitter blacklisted in the USA? (Surely they don't do that as much, no having a maiden Auntie running the network.)
  • eekeek Posts: 11,035

    dixiedean said:

    Yokes said:

    Whilst a few people on here peed themselves with excitement and delight that the big social media platforms purged a lot of far right accounts, I mentioned that this was not such a good thing as those involved had terrible comms security.

    The Washington Post has an article this weekend saying that law enforcement are now finding it a bit more difficult to monitor because of the loss of a valuable source of info and people knowledge. What has happened is that more of these people have moved to less visible mediums.

    True. But you are whittling it down to a hard-core difficult to find fanatical core.
    The easily influenced, radicalisable, less careful, more hot headed sympathisers won't bother.
    Just like ISIS and the Provos.
    The next generation of systems will be upon us soon. They will be peer-to-peer and completely encrypted. That is, there will be no central servers to shut off. Instead each person who subscribes will host the data (or a part of it). Think Tor applied to social media...
    How would that work with a mobile phone?

    Pc not a problem - it was how edonkey and Co worked 25 years ago but mobiles have far greater restrictions on how they connect to the outside world
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 36,099

    eristdoof said:

    dodrade said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    What is going on with the BBC and their headline for Phil Spector, it keeps changing. Now back to simply "Jailed music producer Phil Spector dies".

    More and more senior people are getting brought into the discussion about it and giving contradictory instructions perhaps.
    Its definitely feels like that. It is they really don't want to just write convicted murderer in the headline.
    But he was an artistically talented, violent sociopathic murder.
    This whole issue could have been solved by not reporting his death other than in the equivalent of a tiny column section at the bottom of page 17.

    The evening BBC Radio 4 news even decided to play about 30 seconds of music as part of their headlines. Not only was this not suitable as a headline, it definitely skirted the issue.
    Specter's 'Wall of Sound' revolutionised popular music, his death would have been frontpage had he never committed the murder.

    His death should still be frontpage but obviously with details of his crime added too
    Interesting that Spector's music was never blacklisted from radio unlike Gary Glitter's. Perhaps being "merely" the producer gave enough plausible cover for stations to keep playing it.


    Phil Spector produced the Beatles' Let it be album. If you blacklist his albums you blacklist the Beatles.
    And the downside is?
    Careful. You’ll be dissing Radiohead like it was Yesterday next.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,264
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    He’s unlikely to stand again.

    Why wouldn't he stand again? Because he'll develop a sudden dislike for attention and opportunities for grifting? He'd certainly win Republican nomination.

    The MAGA Army will have plenty of grievances that can be stoked after 4 years of Biden and/or Harris.
    I reckon he'll run again even if he's disbarred, it definitely won't stop them sending him their money.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 21,455
    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    If that's it I can understand why some on his side see it as no more than show boating. I don't believe it's fully understood. I've been listening to interviews where people have been implying non impeachment was akin to letting a murderer walk away scot- free.
    It's the presidential equivalent to a criminal court case. Would you stop a criminal case if the criminal retired?
    But there are no consequences to being found guilty as far as I can tell other than humiliation which he is immune to. I'm surprised he's not encouraging it. Keeps him in the public gaze longer
    I saw Mr S's comment that barring from office was an 'add-on' but although IANAL, I thought it was automatic. Impeachment means no further Federal office-seeking.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 29,998

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    Good morning everybody.
    While I have sympathy with Mr S's view that it would be highly desirable to let Trump fade into obscurity, there is, unfortunately for him, the matter of those whom he urged to take violent action. Why should they be jailed when the man who, from a position of power and influence encouraged them, retires to the beach and an endless supply of Big Macs?
    I am sure there will be others coming for him once he is no longer in office, but in my mind it makes no sense to keep him in the headlines for months by continuing the impeachment, as well as directly contradicting Biden's stated mission of starting to bring the country back together.

    I guess it's up to the new President and what he wants from his first hundred days - does he want it to be dominated by his appointments, policies and vision, or by the raw politics of trying to see his predecessor barred from further office?

    Maybe a third way is for the Senate to postpone Trump's impeachment for a year - they might then choose to drop it *if* he behaves himself out of office, and doesn't let the start of Biden's term be overshadowed.
  • eekeek Posts: 11,035
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Would someone be able to explain 'impeachment'? As I understand it it's not a criminal trial so there are no consequences to being found guilty. There's no power to jail fine etc so what is the result beyond humiliation?

    Usually, it would be to have him removed from office - doing it after his term has expired seems to be little more than virtue signalling.

    They could, after conviction, vote to bar him from standing for office in the future, but the guy will be 78 at the time of the next election (although Biden is older and will be 81). He’s unlikely to stand again, although he may well support someone else’s campaign.

    I’m still of the opinion that they should let him disappear to wherever he wants to go. More than anything else he wants to be the centre of attention, leading the news every night as he has done for the past half a decade. Everyone simply ignoring him once he leaves office would be his worst nightmare.
    Good morning everybody.
    While I have sympathy with Mr S's view that it would be highly desirable to let Trump fade into obscurity, there is, unfortunately for him, the matter of those whom he urged to take violent action. Why should they be jailed when the man who, from a position of power and influence encouraged them, retires to the beach and an endless supply of Big Macs?
    I am sure there will be others coming for him once he is no longer in office, but in my mind it makes no sense to keep him in the headlines for months by continuing the impeachment, as well as directly contradicting Biden's stated mission of starting to bring the country back together.

    I guess it's up to the new President and what he wants from his first hundred days - does he want it to be dominated by his appointments, policies and vision, or by the raw politics of trying to see his predecessor barred from further office?

    Maybe a third way is for the Senate to postpone Trump's impeachment for a year - they might then choose to drop it *if* he behaves himself out of office, and doesn't let the start of Biden's term be overshadowed.
    I wouldn't expect anything to be done about the case in the next x months, they could use the other arrests and cases as reason to wait if they need an excuse.
This discussion has been closed.