BBC just come back with this statement: “These tweets predate the individual’s employment with the BBC but we are nevertheless taking this very seriously and are investigating.” For context, this was tweeted just 3 years before Halawa joined the Beeb.
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
The Democrats will obviously just adopt the same obstructionist tactics the GOP use if that is the only way to win power and it is naive to suggest otherwise.
Pelosi of course had already seated Hart before the House had decided on her petition to overturn a race her Republican opponent had already been certified to have won by 6 votes, Pelosi and the Dem leadership can be just as ruthless as the GOP if they need to.
This is incorrect. Hart had not been seated.
Nope, Pelosi seated Hart on a provisional basis on 3rd January despite the fact her GOP opponent had already been certified to have won the race
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
The Democrats will obviously just adopt the same obstructionist tactics the GOP use if that is the only way to win power and it is naive to suggest otherwise.
Pelosi of course had already seated Hart before the House had decided on her petition to overturn a race her Republican opponent had already been certified to have won by 6 votes, Pelosi and the Dem leadership can be just as ruthless as the GOP if they need to.
This is incorrect. Hart had not been seated.
Pelosi was trying to overturn an already certified election
Update: A BBC Spokesperson has now got in touch to say: 'These tweets predate the individual’s employment with the BBC but we are nevertheless taking this very seriously and are investigating.'
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Maybe, I don't know anything about her, or much about the constituency for that matter. Other than it voted 60% to leave the EU and now has a small ish Lab majority. If Jo Cox's sister reminds people of the BREXIT referendum when voting at this election, could it have the effect of reminding people of a reason to vote against Labour?
I am not an adviser to the Lab party but if I was, it would be to 'Move on' at least in seats like this and try to get people to forget about that credendum thing!
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
To be fair this is a bad example. For Rita Hart to win it needed almost total unanimity in the Democratic conference. That was not going to happen. Equally i think the GOP wouldn't have had the numbers (this time) if the majorities in the House had been reversed (ignoring the Senate).
The danger really is the states. It's not just about voter suppression. Many of them are writing themselves the power to disregard election results. I'm not sure at the moment that the US constitution can stop them doing that. Under the constitution Senators (and possibly House representatives - i'm not sure) MUST be elected. The same is not true of the Presidency. If a state legislature gives itself the right to appoint the electors to the Electoral college then there's nothing the courts can do to prevent it.
A "safe harbor" provision of the Electoral Count Act mandates the selection of electors under laws enacted prior to Election Day, according to the National Task Force on Election Crises. Disputes have to be handled before electors meet.
Election Day is established as the “Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President” in the Constitution. So switching chosen electors once the day has passed would be a violation of federal law.
What really strikes me about the poll is the shortage of people who actually put democracy first before their preferred political outcomes.
I think Brexit is terrible. I disapprove of the Tory government. But it would never cross my mind to deny their right to win majorities, and I've always thought most people on the centre-right agree - and in Britain, I think they do. But in the US, about a quarter of the electorate are willing to put up with anything to get their way.
Yeah, but the Left "does the same", in America
I don't think you grasp how intense the Woke agenda is, in the USA, and how it is being forced on a lot of unhappy people. The right think the Left is trying to destroy the country and remake it in a Woke style. A kind of cultural coup is underaway, and whites, Republicans and "patriots" are the target
If you believe there is a coup against your democracy, then democracy can go hang, for a while. First you need to fight and WIN
I'm not justifying this stance, of course, but I think this explains the poll above
FWIW we’ve just changed schools for our daughter because of the political agenda being imposed at ASL
Good for you @Charles - did you make your feelings known to ASL?
No. No upside and a risk of being accused of being racist.
Same. I'm planning to pop smoke when I pull my daughter out of her incipient prep school.
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
The Democrats will obviously just adopt the same obstructionist tactics the GOP use if that is the only way to win power and it is naive to suggest otherwise.
Pelosi of course had already seated Hart before the House had decided on her petition to overturn a race her Republican opponent had already been certified to have won by 6 votes, Pelosi and the Dem leadership can be just as ruthless as the GOP if they need to.
This is incorrect. Hart had not been seated.
Pelosi was trying to overturn an already certified election
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
The Democrats will obviously just adopt the same obstructionist tactics the GOP use if that is the only way to win power and it is naive to suggest otherwise.
Pelosi of course had already seated Hart before the House had decided on her petition to overturn a race her Republican opponent had already been certified to have won by 6 votes, Pelosi and the Dem leadership can be just as ruthless as the GOP if they need to.
This is incorrect. Hart had not been seated.
Pelosi was trying to overturn an already certified election
You need to back down. This did not happen. Pelosi seated Hart's Republican challenger at the start of January.
I think there was a fair bit of consternation in Democratic circles about this situation, because technically Hart had the absolute constitutional right to appeal the result to the House of Representatives. The House is the ultimate arbiter of disputed election races.
But they were fully aware that it gave a very bad look at the same time as what the GOP were trying to do with the Presidential race a few days later (for which they had no real constitutional right). Pelosi just played it by the book - seated the GOP rep, and punted the petition to the relevant House committee.
Update: A BBC Spokesperson has now got in touch to say: 'These tweets predate the individual’s employment with the BBC but we are nevertheless taking this very seriously and are investigating.'
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
To be fair this is a bad example. For Rita Hart to win it needed almost total unanimity in the Democratic conference. That was not going to happen. Equally i think the GOP wouldn't have had the numbers (this time) if the majorities in the House had been reversed (ignoring the Senate).
The danger really is the states. It's not just about voter suppression. Many of them are writing themselves the power to disregard election results. I'm not sure at the moment that the US constitution can stop them doing that. Under the constitution Senators (and possibly House representatives - i'm not sure) MUST be elected. The same is not true of the Presidency. If a state legislature gives itself the right to appoint the electors to the Electoral college then there's nothing the courts can do to prevent it.
A "safe harbor" provision of the Electoral Count Act mandates the selection of electors under laws enacted prior to Election Day, according to the National Task Force on Election Crises. Disputes have to be handled before electors meet.
Election Day is established as the “Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President” in the Constitution. So switching chosen electors once the day has passed would be a violation of federal law.
Who said anything about "switching" electors? They are writing laws to allow themselves to appoint the electors, regardless of the outcome of the elections. Effectively rendering the elections "advisory".
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
The Democrats will obviously just adopt the same obstructionist tactics the GOP use if that is the only way to win power and it is naive to suggest otherwise.
Pelosi of course had already seated Hart before the House had decided on her petition to overturn a race her Republican opponent had already been certified to have won by 6 votes, Pelosi and the Dem leadership can be just as ruthless as the GOP if they need to.
This is incorrect. Hart had not been seated.
Pelosi was trying to overturn an already certified election
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Maybe, I don't know anything about her, or much about the constituency for that matter. Other than it voted 60% to leave the EU and now has a small ish Lab majority. If Jo Cox's sister reminds people of the BREXIT referendum when voting at this election, could it have the effect of reminding people of a reason to vote against Labour?
I am not an adviser to the Lab party but if I was, it would be to 'Move on' at least in seats like this and try to get people to forget about that credendum thing!
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Depends how large a sympathy vote can be mustered five years on, to be brutally honest.
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
The Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was over 50% in 2019 in Hartlepool, the Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was less than the Labour vote in 2019 in Batley and Spen
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
The Democrats will obviously just adopt the same obstructionist tactics the GOP use if that is the only way to win power and it is naive to suggest otherwise.
Pelosi of course had already seated Hart before the House had decided on her petition to overturn a race her Republican opponent had already been certified to have won by 6 votes, Pelosi and the Dem leadership can be just as ruthless as the GOP if they need to.
This is incorrect. Hart had not been seated.
Pelosi was trying to overturn an already certified election
You need to back down. This did not happen. Pelosi seated Hart's Republican challenger at the start of January.
The Republican winner was certified by 7 votes, yet after that certification Pelosi tried to overturn the result via petition
You said that Pelosi sat Hart's challenger.
THAT DID NOT HAPPEN
He doesn't know what he's talking about. Sometimes it's good to show a bit of humility when you get something wrong. Pelosi didn't "try to overturn it via petition". Hart tried to over-turn it via a petition. The US constitution and rules of the House allowed her to do that. She withdrew her challenge before the House could rule on it.
Pelosi was pretty much irrelevant to the process. If she had wanted to over-turn it, a near unanimous number of Democratic House Reps had agreed, then it would have happened.
According to information at the disposal of the National Anti-Crisis Management, two Belarusian citizens and four Russian citizens did not fly to Vilnius from Minsk
And after they had that mass gathering, to stop the deportation of two illegal immigrants:
According to the latest figures by Public Health Scotland, Glasgow's seven-day average case rate has increased to 133.3 cases per 100,000 population. This is based on people who were tested between May 14 and 20.
It comes amid concern about the new Indian covid variant, which is believed to be driving an outbreak in the south side.
The figure is not too far off the 150 cases per threshold for when a local authority in Scotland is likely to end up under level four lockdown restrictions as per the Scottish Government's latest strategic framework which was revised back in March this year.
The city could be plunged into the Level 4 lockdown threshold if cases continue to rise.
Where pretty much everyone of a 1000 or so people were wearing masks, followed by 10k plus people, none of whom were wearing masks, pishing and fighting and slobbering over each other for 12 hours. Which 'mass gathering' do you think resulted in most cases?
Both were bad ideas. Only one of them was criticised.
I've yet to hear a smidgeon of criticism from SCons about a drunken mob assaulting police, abusing ambulance crews, battering the feck out of each other, pishing in the street, vandalising council property, dropping tons of litter and smashed glass and bellowing out sectarian hate in George Sq. Twice.
I guess once you've gone BJ cultist you'll pretty much tolerate anything.
What's Boris got to do with what your Scottish compatriots are doing in Glasgow on a night out?
Fwiw (very little) BJ is the minister for the Union, and no matter how much you wish to avert your eyes and pretend these people don't exist, they identify as British and Unionist. I know BJ lied to and shat all over Ulster Unionists but he might have more difficulty doing that to the mainland variety.
How they identify is neither here nor there, they're your Scottish compatriots.
Vote for independence and they'll be in your nation not mine.
Why do you think that banning Gary Glitter songs is a good idea?
Genuine question....
1) Damnatio memoriae ? 2) Because he gets paid per song play? (the reason I'd go for) 3) ??
Not sure when exactly but the old repeats of TOTP have relatively recently played two songs on which he'd be credited.
Perhaps more famously, 1988's number 1 Doctorin The Tardis borrows heavily from Rock and Roll (part two). They played the song but cut out GG's cameo from the repeat.
Second, in the 1987 repeats, you've got Shakey doing A Little Bit of Boogie Woogie.
I only post this to do a partial Scott 'n' Paste and throw up the link. It. Is. Glorious.
No, I never dismissed the lab leak theory. On the initial, now clearly inaccurate, data, the market hypothesis did seem the most reasonable, but as far back as 2015 I warned of the potential culture issues with regards to safety in BSL4 labs (quoted as such in Nature, no less).
I dismissed the design for purpose theory, but not other possibilities, such as accidental release or even the virus evolving in the lab. Indeed, back in April last year, I wrote a risk management scenario for use in lab training on the possibility of unintended evolution of the virus through propagation in human lung epithelial cells.
There are multiple instances of me saying similar to the NYT, WP and NPR, but I can't be bothered to find them. I have also consistently pointed out Peter Daszak's conflicts of interest and how absurd it was that he was on the WHO team.
The key attributes of a conspiracy theory: 1. Specificity 2. Plausibility 3. Undeniability 4. No real evidence for the theory in preference to other more usual explanations
The Lab Leak theory meets all four criteria. The assertion is highly specific, not only identifying the institute but suggesting a particular employee of it being responsible. A lab accidentally releasing a virus into the wild is very plausible, more so than associates of Prince Charles murdering Diana. The data isn't there to definitively prove a specific alternative explanation. From what I have seen at least, the Lab Leak is nothing more than associating the coincidence of a virology institute known to be researching similar viruses being in the neighbourhood of an early outbreak.
New viruses are regrettably common events. The likeliest explanation is that Covid 19 originated in the same way as all the others do. But that seems a feeble riposte. The theory will endure.
There is ample evidence. Try reading, rather than asserting. Start with that Bulletin essay. It is very powerful
This isn't as good but it is interesting, because it comes from an esteemed journalist who was a full on Natural Origins Wet Marketeer, and now he admits to serious doubts
Several crucial paragraphs. The genetic stuff:
'Nick Wade [author of the Bulletin article] quoted David Baltimore, who won the 1975 Nobel Prize for his work with viruses, as saying the specific amino acid sequences in the cleavage site made “a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin.” '
And then there's the biosafety angle:
"I spoke about Nick’s article last week with Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, the renowned Columbia University virus hunter who was one of the five co-authors on the seminal “proximal origin” paper.
"He favored a natural origin theory, he said, in part because he had assumed that all the Wuhan Institute’s 2019 work with SARS-like viruses had been done in its top-level BSL-4 lab, which was cleared to operate in 2017. (State Department cables from 2018 raised questions about how well-run the lab was.)
"But later he learned of studies with Dr. Shi’s name on them showing that work he considers dangerous had been done in level BSL-2 labs, which he considers highly porous to leaks, not just in 2016, but in 2020. “That’s screwed up,” he said. “It shouldn’t have happened. People should not be looking at bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has changed.”"
And it turns out the "bat woman" at the lab has been lying about her research:
"Dr. Shi herself later told Scientific American that, when news of the new virus erupted, her first fear was that it had come from her institute. She did not sleep for days, she said, until she had finished checking her lab’s logs and assured herself that it had not.
"Since then, though, more has come to light about the work done by Dr. Shi’s teams. The most startling bit of information was that, rather than “finding” RaTG13 in her freezers in February, Dr. Shi had worked with it since at least 2016, but under a different name, RaBtCoV/4991.
Of all the hypotheses, It Came From The Lab has the best evidence, the most logic, and triumphs over Occam's Razor. The other's don't
As he says:
"That is still not, as he pointed out, direct evidence of a lab leak. There is no proof of a leak.
But the Occam’s Razor argument — what’s the likeliest explanation, animal or lab? — keeps shifting in the direction of the latter."
“Correction: this apparently was filmed in Russia“
Yes. But his original tweet is still above the correction, so the damage is still being done:
Of all the videos of antisemitic attacks in recent days, this one in Germany is most haunting. This is exactly the kind of thing that was commonplace in Germany in the 1930s
If he was a decent chap, he would have taken the original tweet down and reposted it as "Russia - no idea when or where". Totally irresponsible to leave the original tweet up.
No, I never dismissed the lab leak theory. On the initial, now clearly inaccurate, data, the market hypothesis did seem the most reasonable, but as far back as 2015 I warned of the potential culture issues with regards to safety in BSL4 labs (quoted as such in Nature, no less).
I dismissed the design for purpose theory, but not other possibilities, such as accidental release or even the virus evolving in the lab. Indeed, back in April last year, I wrote a risk management scenario for use in lab training on the possibility of unintended evolution of the virus through propagation in human lung epithelial cells.
There are multiple instances of me saying similar to the NYT, WP and NPR, but I can't be bothered to find them. I have also consistently pointed out Peter Daszak's conflicts of interest and how absurd it was that he was on the WHO team.
The key attributes of a conspiracy theory: 1. Specificity 2. Plausibility 3. Undeniability 4. No real evidence for the theory in preference to other more usual explanations
The Lab Leak theory meets all four criteria. The assertion is highly specific, not only identifying the institute but suggesting a particular employee of it being responsible. A lab accidentally releasing a virus into the wild is very plausible, more so than associates of Prince Charles murdering Diana. The data isn't there to definitively prove a specific alternative explanation. From what I have seen at least, the Lab Leak is nothing more than associating the coincidence of a virology institute known to be researching similar viruses being in the neighbourhood of an early outbreak.
New viruses are regrettably common events. The likeliest explanation is that Covid 19 originated in the same way as all the others do. But that seems a feeble riposte. The theory will endure.
There is ample evidence. Try reading, rather than asserting. Start with that Bulletin essay. It is very powerful
This isn't as good but it is interesting, because it comes from an esteemed journalist who was a full on Natural Origins Wet Marketeer, and now he admits to serious doubts
Several crucial paragraphs. The genetic stuff:
'Nick Wade [author of the Bulletin article] quoted David Baltimore, who won the 1975 Nobel Prize for his work with viruses, as saying the specific amino acid sequences in the cleavage site made “a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin.” '
And then there's the biosafety angle:
"I spoke about Nick’s article last week with Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, the renowned Columbia University virus hunter who was one of the five co-authors on the seminal “proximal origin” paper.
"He favored a natural origin theory, he said, in part because he had assumed that all the Wuhan Institute’s 2019 work with SARS-like viruses had been done in its top-level BSL-4 lab, which was cleared to operate in 2017. (State Department cables from 2018 raised questions about how well-run the lab was.)
"But later he learned of studies with Dr. Shi’s name on them showing that work he considers dangerous had been done in level BSL-2 labs, which he considers highly porous to leaks, not just in 2016, but in 2020. “That’s screwed up,” he said. “It shouldn’t have happened. People should not be looking at bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has changed.”"
And it turns out the "bat woman" at the lab has been lying about her research:
"Dr. Shi herself later told Scientific American that, when news of the new virus erupted, her first fear was that it had come from her institute. She did not sleep for days, she said, until she had finished checking her lab’s logs and assured herself that it had not.
"Since then, though, more has come to light about the work done by Dr. Shi’s teams. The most startling bit of information was that, rather than “finding” RaTG13 in her freezers in February, Dr. Shi had worked with it since at least 2016, but under a different name, RaBtCoV/4991.
Of all the hypotheses, It Came From The Lab has the best evidence, the most logic, and triumphs over Occam's Razor. The other's don't
As he says:
"That is still not, as he pointed out, direct evidence of a lab leak. There is no proof of a leak.
But the Occam’s Razor argument — what’s the likeliest explanation, animal or lab? — keeps shifting in the direction of the latter."
Just one point, it's not at all uncommon to find that two viruses are basically identical but have them labelled as separate. The process of rapid identification and classification isn't that great, and labs often think they're working with a new strain.
Graham Moore @ProfGrahamMoore · 3h Feel like scientific Covid discourse has reached a new low this weekend with some of the pile-ons unleashed on PHE staff, encouraged by a handful of Twitter celebrity scientists and their media supporters.
“Correction: this apparently was filmed in Russia“
Yes. But his original tweet is still above the correction, so the damage is still being done:
Of all the videos of antisemitic attacks in recent days, this one in Germany is most haunting. This is exactly the kind of thing that was commonplace in Germany in the 1930s
If he was a decent chap, he would have taken the original tweet down and reposted it as "Russia - no idea when or where". Totally irresponsible to leave the original tweet up.
But he's probably not a decent chap: he's probably a guy pushing an agenda.
And what's worse is that people will continually share and amplify this. And this means that people will assume it is true, and they will therefore be conditioned to believe more things about the treatment of Jews in Germany.
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
The Democrats will obviously just adopt the same obstructionist tactics the GOP use if that is the only way to win power and it is naive to suggest otherwise.
Pelosi of course had already seated Hart before the House had decided on her petition to overturn a race her Republican opponent had already been certified to have won by 6 votes, Pelosi and the Dem leadership can be just as ruthless as the GOP if they need to.
This is incorrect. Hart had not been seated.
Pelosi was trying to overturn an already certified election
You need to back down. This did not happen. Pelosi seated Hart's Republican challenger at the start of January.
The Republican winner was certified by 7 votes, yet after that certification Pelosi tried to overturn the result via petition
You said that Pelosi sat Hart's challenger.
THAT DID NOT HAPPEN
He doesn't know what he's talking about. Sometimes it's good to show a bit of humility when you get something wrong. Pelosi didn't "try to overturn it via petition". Hart tried to over-turn it via a petition. The US constitution and rules of the House allowed her to do that. She withdrew her challenge before the House could rule on it.
Pelosi was pretty much irrelevant to the process. If she had wanted to over-turn it, a near unanimous number of Democratic House Reps had agreed, then it would have happened.
Incidentally Hart lost by 6 votes. The basis for her challenge was that there were a batch of votes for her that were discovered after certification (or possibly during the process of a recount) that for some reason could not be counted under Iowan state election law.
And after they had that mass gathering, to stop the deportation of two illegal immigrants:
According to the latest figures by Public Health Scotland, Glasgow's seven-day average case rate has increased to 133.3 cases per 100,000 population. This is based on people who were tested between May 14 and 20.
It comes amid concern about the new Indian covid variant, which is believed to be driving an outbreak in the south side.
The figure is not too far off the 150 cases per threshold for when a local authority in Scotland is likely to end up under level four lockdown restrictions as per the Scottish Government's latest strategic framework which was revised back in March this year.
The city could be plunged into the Level 4 lockdown threshold if cases continue to rise.
Where pretty much everyone of a 1000 or so people were wearing masks, followed by 10k plus people, none of whom were wearing masks, pishing and fighting and slobbering over each other for 12 hours. Which 'mass gathering' do you think resulted in most cases?
Both were bad ideas. Only one of them was criticised.
I've yet to hear a smidgeon of criticism from SCons about a drunken mob assaulting police, abusing ambulance crews, battering the feck out of each other, pishing in the street, vandalising council property, dropping tons of litter and smashed glass and bellowing out sectarian hate in George Sq. Twice.
I guess once you've gone BJ cultist you'll pretty much tolerate anything.
What's Boris got to do with what your Scottish compatriots are doing in Glasgow on a night out?
Fwiw (very little) BJ is the minister for the Union, and no matter how much you wish to avert your eyes and pretend these people don't exist, they identify as British and Unionist. I know BJ lied to and shat all over Ulster Unionists but he might have more difficulty doing that to the mainland variety.
How they identify is neither here nor there, they're you're Scottish compatriots.
Vote for independence and they'll be in your nation not mine.
They're in 'you're' nation right now, and like you consider the lying bloater to be their pm; he's never done telling everyone he's the leader of the whole UK.
But anyway I'll keep a rolling list:
Fuck business Fuck fishermen Fuck farmers Fuck musicians Fuck teachers Fuck students Fuck NI Unionists Fuck Scottish Unionists
I'm sure there are plenty other fuckees currently if anyone wants to add them.
Hugo Gye points out that 1/3 have had 2 jabs now. Someone mentions children are people too. I point out children are in that 1/3 stat. I get this as a reply ?!?
Graham Moore @ProfGrahamMoore · 3h Feel like scientific Covid discourse has reached a new low this weekend with some of the pile-ons unleashed on PHE staff, encouraged by a handful of Twitter celebrity scientists and their media supporters.
We have scientific Covid discourse? That would make a pleasant change from what we’ve had up to now.
Hugo Gye points out that 1/3 have had 2 jabs now. Someone mentions children are people too. I point out children are in that 1/3 stat. I get this as a reply ?!?
And after they had that mass gathering, to stop the deportation of two illegal immigrants:
According to the latest figures by Public Health Scotland, Glasgow's seven-day average case rate has increased to 133.3 cases per 100,000 population. This is based on people who were tested between May 14 and 20.
It comes amid concern about the new Indian covid variant, which is believed to be driving an outbreak in the south side.
The figure is not too far off the 150 cases per threshold for when a local authority in Scotland is likely to end up under level four lockdown restrictions as per the Scottish Government's latest strategic framework which was revised back in March this year.
The city could be plunged into the Level 4 lockdown threshold if cases continue to rise.
Where pretty much everyone of a 1000 or so people were wearing masks, followed by 10k plus people, none of whom were wearing masks, pishing and fighting and slobbering over each other for 12 hours. Which 'mass gathering' do you think resulted in most cases?
Both were bad ideas. Only one of them was criticised.
I've yet to hear a smidgeon of criticism from SCons about a drunken mob assaulting police, abusing ambulance crews, battering the feck out of each other, pishing in the street, vandalising council property, dropping tons of litter and smashed glass and bellowing out sectarian hate in George Sq. Twice.
I guess once you've gone BJ cultist you'll pretty much tolerate anything.
What's Boris got to do with what your Scottish compatriots are doing in Glasgow on a night out?
Fwiw (very little) BJ is the minister for the Union, and no matter how much you wish to avert your eyes and pretend these people don't exist, they identify as British and Unionist. I know BJ lied to and shat all over Ulster Unionists but he might have more difficulty doing that to the mainland variety.
How they identify is neither here nor there, they're you're Scottish compatriots.
Vote for independence and they'll be in your nation not mine.
They're in 'you're' nation right now, and like you consider the lying bloater to be their pm; he's never done telling everyone he's the leader of the whole UK.
But anyway I'll keep a rolling list:
Fuck business Fuck fishermen Fuck farmers Fuck musicians Fuck teachers Fuck students Fuck NI Unionists Fuck Scottish Unionists
I'm sure there are plenty other fuckees currently if anyone wants to add them.
“Correction: this apparently was filmed in Russia“
Yes. But his original tweet is still above the correction, so the damage is still being done:
Of all the videos of antisemitic attacks in recent days, this one in Germany is most haunting. This is exactly the kind of thing that was commonplace in Germany in the 1930s
If he was a decent chap, he would have taken the original tweet down and reposted it as "Russia - no idea when or where". Totally irresponsible to leave the original tweet up.
But he's probably not a decent chap: he's probably a guy pushing an agenda.
And what's worse is that people will continually share and amplify this. And this means that people will assume it is true, and they will therefore be conditioned to believe more things about the treatment of Jews in Germany.
Yes, that's exactly my point, and if you look at the replies to the tweets it bears out what you say. He's clearly a despicable shit-stirrer.
Random question on vaccinations. Does anyone know if the system has been updated so that under 40s are directed to Pfizer/Moderna?
I've got my first dose booked at Guys and St Thomas hospital with no indication of which vaccine, but have just been offered an appointment by my GPs for roughly the same time which is definitely Pfizer. A friend said when they got their second dose at that hospital some weeks ago it was AZN only.
I'd happily take AZN, if it was all that's on offer, but I'd slightly prefer mRNA because of the potential to cut short the second dose interval and the small risk of a blood clot. So given the choice is there I'm wondering how likely the hospital one is to be AZN. In the absence of any other info I'll just stick with the hospital, but any thoughts gratefully appreciated!
Why do you think that banning Gary Glitter songs is a good idea?
Genuine question....
1) Damnatio memoriae ? 2) Because he gets paid per song play? (the reason I'd go for) 3) ??
Not sure when exactly but the old repeats of TOTP have relatively recently played two songs on which he'd be credited.
Perhaps more famously, 1988's number 1 Doctorin The Tardis borrows heavily from Rock and Roll (part two). They played the song but cut out GG's cameo from the repeat.
Second, in the 1987 repeats, you've got Shakey doing A Little Bit of Boogie Woogie.
I only post this to do a partial Scott 'n' Paste and throw up the link. It. Is. Glorious.
Random question on vaccinations. Does anyone know if the system has been updated so that under 40s are directed to Pfizer/Moderna?
I've got my first dose booked at Guys and St Thomas hospital with no indication of which vaccine, but have just been offered an appointment by my GPs for roughly the same time which is definitely Pfizer. A friend said when they got their second dose at that hospital some weeks ago it was AZN only.
I'd happily take AZN, if it was all that's on offer, but I'd slightly prefer mRNA because of the potential to cut short the second dose interval and the small risk of a blood clot. So given the choice is there I'm wondering how likely the hospital one is to be AZN. In the absence of any other info I'll just stick with the hospital, but any thoughts gratefully appreciated!
When I got mine I was Pfizer, but I am.over 40 in July. No idea what I was goinv to get. Better half had info readable online about the Pfizer prejab
Random question on vaccinations. Does anyone know if the system has been updated so that under 40s are directed to Pfizer/Moderna?
I've got my first dose booked at Guys and St Thomas hospital with no indication of which vaccine, but have just been offered an appointment by my GPs for roughly the same time which is definitely Pfizer. A friend said when they got their second dose at that hospital some weeks ago it was AZN only.
I'd happily take AZN, if it was all that's on offer, but I'd slightly prefer mRNA because of the potential to cut short the second dose interval and the small risk of a blood clot. So given the choice is there I'm wondering how likely the hospital one is to be AZN. In the absence of any other info I'll just stick with the hospital, but any thoughts gratefully appreciated!
I haven't got a helpful answer, but how did a friend getting a second dose know that the hospital was doing AZN only? Obviously he was getting AZN because he got it for his first dose. They don't mix doses in the same vaccination sessions - that would be a recipe for error.
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Depends how large a sympathy vote can be mustered five years on, to be brutally honest.
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
The Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was over 50% in 2019 in Hartlepool, the Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was less than the Labour vote in 2019 in Batley and Spen
There was an unusually large independent vote there in 2019. Do we have a clue where those votes are going to go this time around?
Hartlepool was undoubtedly a more promising target for the Tories than Batley (it's not just the Brexit angle either: the ethnic composition of the two electorates is substantially different.) OTOH, Tracey Brabin's majority was almost identical to Mike Hill's. It ain't exactly a done deal.
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Depends how large a sympathy vote can be mustered five years on, to be brutally honest.
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
The Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was over 50% in 2019 in Hartlepool, the Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was less than the Labour vote in 2019 in Batley and Spen
There was an unusually large independent vote there in 2019. Do we have a clue where those votes are going to go this time around?
Hartlepool was undoubtedly a more promising target for the Tories than Batley (it's not just the Brexit angle either: the ethnic composition of the two electorates is substantially different.) OTOH, Tracey Brabin's majority was almost identical to Mike Hill's. It ain't exactly a done deal.
Anyone else vaguely concerned by this recent trend for nominating family relatives of recent MPs for vacant seats? Very American, but i would have thought pretty rare in the UK until relatively recently. As it is i can off the top of my head think of a number of fairly recent examples with varying levels of success - Crewe (after death of Gwyneth Dunwoody), Isle of Wight (Husband banged up), Labour Mayor in Liverpool(?), Batley and Spen...
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Depends how large a sympathy vote can be mustered five years on, to be brutally honest.
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
The Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was over 50% in 2019 in Hartlepool, the Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was less than the Labour vote in 2019 in Batley and Spen
There was an unusually large independent vote there in 2019. Do we have a clue where those votes are going to go this time around?
Hartlepool was undoubtedly a more promising target for the Tories than Batley (it's not just the Brexit angle either: the ethnic composition of the two electorates is substantially different.) OTOH, Tracey Brabin's majority was almost identical to Mike Hill's. It ain't exactly a done deal.
Anyone else vaguely concerned by this recent trend for nominating family relatives of recent MPs for vacant seats? Very American, but i would have thought pretty rare in the UK until relatively recently. As it is i can off the top of my head think of a number of fairly recent examples with varying levels of success - Crewe (after death of Gwyneth Dunwoody), Isle of Wight (Husband banged up), Labour Mayor in Liverpool(?), Batley and Spen...
Two Tories in 2019 - Natalie Elphicke and one other, but I don't remember who.
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Depends how large a sympathy vote can be mustered five years on, to be brutally honest.
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
The Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was over 50% in 2019 in Hartlepool, the Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was less than the Labour vote in 2019 in Batley and Spen
There was an unusually large independent vote there in 2019. Do we have a clue where those votes are going to go this time around?
Hartlepool was undoubtedly a more promising target for the Tories than Batley (it's not just the Brexit angle either: the ethnic composition of the two electorates is substantially different.) OTOH, Tracey Brabin's majority was almost identical to Mike Hill's. It ain't exactly a done deal.
AIUI the Heavy Woollen Independents are those who cancelled Farage as one of the Woke.
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Depends how large a sympathy vote can be mustered five years on, to be brutally honest.
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
The Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was over 50% in 2019 in Hartlepool, the Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was less than the Labour vote in 2019 in Batley and Spen
There was an unusually large independent vote there in 2019. Do we have a clue where those votes are going to go this time around?
Hartlepool was undoubtedly a more promising target for the Tories than Batley (it's not just the Brexit angle either: the ethnic composition of the two electorates is substantially different.) OTOH, Tracey Brabin's majority was almost identical to Mike Hill's. It ain't exactly a done deal.
Anyone else vaguely concerned by this recent trend for nominating family relatives of recent MPs for vacant seats? Very American, but i would have thought pretty rare in the UK until relatively recently. As it is i can off the top of my head think of a number of fairly recent examples with varying levels of success - Crewe (after death of Gwyneth Dunwoody), Isle of Wight (Husband banged up), Labour Mayor in Liverpool(?), Batley and Spen...
Burton and Dover as well - wives of politicians under investigation.
Blimey, Sir Keir blubbing on tv and now Jo Cox's sister as a candidate - Labour really are desperate for that sympathy vote.
Anyone else remember how in the 2010 special election after Ted Kennedy died, the Democratic party tried (at first) to draft a random Kennedy? Who was so spectacularly unqualified to run for anything that she immediately bowed out.....
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Depends how large a sympathy vote can be mustered five years on, to be brutally honest.
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
The Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was over 50% in 2019 in Hartlepool, the Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was less than the Labour vote in 2019 in Batley and Spen
There was an unusually large independent vote there in 2019. Do we have a clue where those votes are going to go this time around?
Hartlepool was undoubtedly a more promising target for the Tories than Batley (it's not just the Brexit angle either: the ethnic composition of the two electorates is substantially different.) OTOH, Tracey Brabin's majority was almost identical to Mike Hill's. It ain't exactly a done deal.
Anyone else vaguely concerned by this recent trend for nominating family relatives of recent MPs for vacant seats? Very American, but i would have thought pretty rare in the UK until relatively recently. As it is i can off the top of my head think of a number of fairly recent examples with varying levels of success - Crewe (after death of Gwyneth Dunwoody), Isle of Wight (Husband banged up), Labour Mayor in Liverpool(?), Batley and Spen...
Burton and Dover as well - wives of politicians under investigation.
Oops, meant Dover, not the Isle of Wight. Apologies to the Isle of Wight Conservative association...
Blimey, Sir Keir blubbing on tv and now Jo Cox's sister as a candidate - Labour really are desperate for that sympathy vote.
Anyone else remember how in the 2010 special election after Ted Kennedy died, the Democratic party tried (at first) to draft a random Kennedy? Who was so spectacularly unqualified to run for anything that she immediately bowed out.....
You would have thought they would have been a bit more confident in finding a candidate to hold onto Massachusetts...
Orchestrator of some of the most famous betting coups in racing, and founder of a Zambian charity (that the man who'd intended to become a Jesuit priest described as "fire insurance").
Blimey, Sir Keir blubbing on tv and now Jo Cox's sister as a candidate - Labour really are desperate for that sympathy vote.
Anyone else remember how in the 2010 special election after Ted Kennedy died, the Democratic party tried (at first) to draft a random Kennedy? Who was so spectacularly unqualified to run for anything that she immediately bowed out.....
You would have thought they would have been a bit more confident in finding a candidate to hold onto Massachusetts...
To be fair, they'd run out of semi-serious Kennedys at that point.
Joe Kennedy Part Tories was still on the family political production line at the time...
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
To be fair this is a bad example. For Rita Hart to win it needed almost total unanimity in the Democratic conference. That was not going to happen. Equally i think the GOP wouldn't have had the numbers (this time) if the majorities in the House had been reversed (ignoring the Senate).
The danger really is the states. It's not just about voter suppression. Many of them are writing themselves the power to disregard election results. I'm not sure at the moment that the US constitution can stop them doing that. Under the constitution Senators (and possibly House representatives - i'm not sure) MUST be elected. The same is not true of the Presidency. If a state legislature gives itself the right to appoint the electors to the Electoral college then there's nothing the courts can do to prevent it.
A "safe harbor" provision of the Electoral Count Act mandates the selection of electors under laws enacted prior to Election Day, according to the National Task Force on Election Crises. Disputes have to be handled before electors meet.
Election Day is established as the “Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President” in the Constitution. So switching chosen electors once the day has passed would be a violation of federal law.
Who said anything about "switching" electors? They are writing laws to allow themselves to appoint the electors, regardless of the outcome of the elections. Effectively rendering the elections "advisory".
Which cannot be approved and passed into law without the consent of the governor of the state, who in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin is a Democrat
A comprehensive free trade deal between the UK and Norway is at risk of collapsing as the Christian Democrat party fears such a pact would hit farmers in Scandinavia’s richest country too hard.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Yeah and this is why we need to embrace the novelty act. We'll never come anywhere other than last with earnest sounding, seriously written songs and singers. Anyone who has any level of musical talent in the UK will go and get a record deal, one of my middle aged friends is in a band and they have a record deal and are planning a UK and European tour this autumn. They're a tiny band but really fun and very talented.
The other issue is that UK music is not compatible with Eurovision. Not enough trashy pop outside of the charts and no chart act like Ed Sheeran would do it.
This thread seemed pretty convincing to me- basically, Eurovision songs have moved on, and the UK keeps entering songs that would have won in the 80s/90s.
(This feels like the sort of thing that ought to be a very AI-able problem.)
AI.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Depends how large a sympathy vote can be mustered five years on, to be brutally honest.
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
The Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was over 50% in 2019 in Hartlepool, the Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was less than the Labour vote in 2019 in Batley and Spen
There was an unusually large independent vote there in 2019. Do we have a clue where those votes are going to go this time around?
Hartlepool was undoubtedly a more promising target for the Tories than Batley (it's not just the Brexit angle either: the ethnic composition of the two electorates is substantially different.) OTOH, Tracey Brabin's majority was almost identical to Mike Hill's. It ain't exactly a done deal.
The Independent candidate is likely standing again in Batley
I am intrigued by Labour and the LibDems are going to play this one. They can’t really stand behind everything he says, and it’ll be tricky to cherry pick.
I think the committee will be two day thing, and then he will fade away for a while. He likely re-emerges with the Tories in opposition somewhere.
The most depressing polling response in recent months is the recent YouGov VI giving the ugly Tories an 18% lead. How f*cking depressing! The weather adds to the gloom. Oh woe! It can only get better!
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
To be fair this is a bad example. For Rita Hart to win it needed almost total unanimity in the Democratic conference. That was not going to happen. Equally i think the GOP wouldn't have had the numbers (this time) if the majorities in the House had been reversed (ignoring the Senate).
The danger really is the states. It's not just about voter suppression. Many of them are writing themselves the power to disregard election results. I'm not sure at the moment that the US constitution can stop them doing that. Under the constitution Senators (and possibly House representatives - i'm not sure) MUST be elected. The same is not true of the Presidency. If a state legislature gives itself the right to appoint the electors to the Electoral college then there's nothing the courts can do to prevent it.
A "safe harbor" provision of the Electoral Count Act mandates the selection of electors under laws enacted prior to Election Day, according to the National Task Force on Election Crises. Disputes have to be handled before electors meet.
Election Day is established as the “Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President” in the Constitution. So switching chosen electors once the day has passed would be a violation of federal law.
Who said anything about "switching" electors? They are writing laws to allow themselves to appoint the electors, regardless of the outcome of the elections. Effectively rendering the elections "advisory".
Which cannot be approved and passed into law without the consent of the governor of the state, who in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin is a Democrat
Well that's OK then. As long as it's only Arizona and Georgia (and Florida and Texas) the Dems are good! Sometimes you have a very simple black and white view of the World...
This hijacked plane in Belarus is going to cause huge problems for NATO and the EU tomorrow.
Belarus now as likely to see planes flying over as North Korea, but serious questions to be asked about how a country would deploy their military, to force down a civilian airliner purely to apprehend someone on board as a passenger.
Blimey, Sir Keir blubbing on tv and now Jo Cox's sister as a candidate - Labour really are desperate for that sympathy vote.
Anyone else remember how in the 2010 special election after Ted Kennedy died, the Democratic party tried (at first) to draft a random Kennedy? Who was so spectacularly unqualified to run for anything that she immediately bowed out.....
You would have thought they would have been a bit more confident in finding a candidate to hold onto Massachusetts...
The Kennedys of course pretty good at arranging electoral results, JFK only won Illinois' EC votes in 1960 over Nixon as Mayor Daley found lots of dead people to vote for him
I am intrigued by Labour and the LibDems are going to play this one. They can’t really stand behind everything he says, and it’ll be tricky to cherry pick.
I think the committee will be two day thing, and then he will fade away for a while. He likely re-emerges with the Tories in opposition somewhere.
They’ll just watch, and then sweetly ask why such an imbecile was repeatedly given roles in government despite the fact he’s failed in every executive role he’s had.
And after they had that mass gathering, to stop the deportation of two illegal immigrants:
According to the latest figures by Public Health Scotland, Glasgow's seven-day average case rate has increased to 133.3 cases per 100,000 population. This is based on people who were tested between May 14 and 20.
It comes amid concern about the new Indian covid variant, which is believed to be driving an outbreak in the south side.
The figure is not too far off the 150 cases per threshold for when a local authority in Scotland is likely to end up under level four lockdown restrictions as per the Scottish Government's latest strategic framework which was revised back in March this year.
The city could be plunged into the Level 4 lockdown threshold if cases continue to rise.
Where pretty much everyone of a 1000 or so people were wearing masks, followed by 10k plus people, none of whom were wearing masks, pishing and fighting and slobbering over each other for 12 hours. Which 'mass gathering' do you think resulted in most cases?
Both were bad ideas. Only one of them was criticised.
I've yet to hear a smidgeon of criticism from SCons about a drunken mob assaulting police, abusing ambulance crews, battering the feck out of each other, pishing in the street, vandalising council property, dropping tons of litter and smashed glass and bellowing out sectarian hate in George Sq. Twice.
I guess once you've gone BJ cultist you'll pretty much tolerate anything.
What's Boris got to do with what your Scottish compatriots are doing in Glasgow on a night out?
Fwiw (very little) BJ is the minister for the Union, and no matter how much you wish to avert your eyes and pretend these people don't exist, they identify as British and Unionist. I know BJ lied to and shat all over Ulster Unionists but he might have more difficulty doing that to the mainland variety.
How they identify is neither here nor there, they're you're Scottish compatriots.
Vote for independence and they'll be in your nation not mine.
They're in 'you're' nation right now, and like you consider the lying bloater to be their pm; he's never done telling everyone he's the leader of the whole UK.
But anyway I'll keep a rolling list:
Fuck business Fuck fishermen Fuck farmers Fuck musicians Fuck teachers Fuck students Fuck NI Unionists Fuck Scottish Unionists
I'm sure there are plenty other fuckees currently if anyone wants to add them.
"We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong-il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes - assholes who just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way, but the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is that sometimes they fuck too much, or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show 'em that. But sometimes pussies get so full of shit that they become assholes themselves, because pussies are only an inch-and-a-half away from assholes. I don't know much in this crazy, crazy world, but I do know that if you don't let us fuck this asshole, we are going to have our dicks and our pussies all covered in shit."
It's a 50-tweet diatribe. Can't one of the wealthier PBers pay someone to read Cummings' works and post summaries?
Yes.
‘I am awesome.
Everyone else is fucking thick.
If we’d done what I said, the country would have been fine.’
Disturbing to note he has the same avatar as @Fysics_Teacher who will not be flattered by the comparison...
Ah yes. In the inevitable style of generals memories since before Cannae... "Here I was, winning the war single handed, when X stuffed things up again...."
This hijacked plane in Belarus is going to cause huge problems for NATO and the EU tomorrow.
Belarus now as likely to see planes flying over as North Korea, but serious questions to be asked about how a country would deploy their military, to force down a civilian airliner purely to apprehend someone on board as a passenger.
Because Lukashenko has lost what shaky grasp of reality he ever had.
Note - these are guidelines only, not laws, and they can be ignored, but they are still ridiculous guidelines and appear to be the result of a personal domestic dispute involving a senior official. Which is pretty outrageous.
I’ve signed the petition and I would be grateful if others could too.
Why do you think that banning Gary Glitter songs is a good idea?
Genuine question....
1) Damnatio memoriae ? 2) Because he gets paid per song play? (the reason I'd go for) 3) ??
Not sure when exactly but the old repeats of TOTP have relatively recently played two songs on which he'd be credited.
Perhaps more famously, 1988's number 1 Doctorin The Tardis borrows heavily from Rock and Roll (part two). They played the song but cut out GG's cameo from the repeat.
Second, in the 1987 repeats, you've got Shakey doing A Little Bit of Boogie Woogie.
I only post this to do a partial Scott 'n' Paste and throw up the link. It. Is. Glorious.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Yeah and this is why we need to embrace the novelty act. We'll never come anywhere other than last with earnest sounding, seriously written songs and singers. Anyone who has any level of musical talent in the UK will go and get a record deal, one of my middle aged friends is in a band and they have a record deal and are planning a UK and European tour this autumn. They're a tiny band but really fun and very talented.
The other issue is that UK music is not compatible with Eurovision. Not enough trashy pop outside of the charts and no chart act like Ed Sheeran would do it.
This thread seemed pretty convincing to me- basically, Eurovision songs have moved on, and the UK keeps entering songs that would have won in the 80s/90s.
(This feels like the sort of thing that ought to be a very AI-able problem.)
AI.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Worth a BBC and Netflix coproduction surely.
Ha, wouldn’t it be easier to persuade an established artist to write an annoyingly catchy tune instead?
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
To be fair this is a bad example. For Rita Hart to win it needed almost total unanimity in the Democratic conference. That was not going to happen. Equally i think the GOP wouldn't have had the numbers (this time) if the majorities in the House had been reversed (ignoring the Senate).
The danger really is the states. It's not just about voter suppression. Many of them are writing themselves the power to disregard election results. I'm not sure at the moment that the US constitution can stop them doing that. Under the constitution Senators (and possibly House representatives - i'm not sure) MUST be elected. The same is not true of the Presidency. If a state legislature gives itself the right to appoint the electors to the Electoral college then there's nothing the courts can do to prevent it.
A "safe harbor" provision of the Electoral Count Act mandates the selection of electors under laws enacted prior to Election Day, according to the National Task Force on Election Crises. Disputes have to be handled before electors meet.
Election Day is established as the “Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President” in the Constitution. So switching chosen electors once the day has passed would be a violation of federal law.
Who said anything about "switching" electors? They are writing laws to allow themselves to appoint the electors, regardless of the outcome of the elections. Effectively rendering the elections "advisory".
Which cannot be approved and passed into law without the consent of the governor of the state, who in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin is a Democrat
Well that's OK then. As long as it's only Arizona and Georgia (and Florida and Texas) the Dems are good! Sometimes you have a very simple black and white view of the World...
Technically it would be, Biden would still have won the EC in 2020 even had Trump won Arizona and Georgia if the other results stayed the same (including Trump winning Florida and Texas)
He's jolly good at simplifying and presenting complex arguments and data
Yes.
Shame he is almost always wrong about them because of his superficial intellect.
You think single peak herd immunity in 2020 would have been a good idea ?
No. Partly because he did, albeit he’s trying to deny it now.
It’s amazing how the PM’s former Chief of Staff now seems to claim he had no influence over anything when in post. Mind you, if his memos were this long, no longer anyone read them or acted on them.
I’ve said before, he’s not stupid but he’s also not particularly clever outside of his field of campaigning. He’s clearly massively influenced by the last thing he read, and assumes what ever it was about can be applied to everything.
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
The Democrats will obviously just adopt the same obstructionist tactics the GOP use if that is the only way to win power and it is naive to suggest otherwise.
Pelosi of course had already seated Hart before the House had decided on her petition to overturn a race her Republican opponent had already been certified to have won by 6 votes, Pelosi and the Dem leadership can be just as ruthless as the GOP if they need to.
This is incorrect. Hart had not been seated.
Pelosi was trying to overturn an already certified election
You need to back down. This did not happen. Pelosi seated Hart's Republican challenger at the start of January.
I think there was a fair bit of consternation in Democratic circles about this situation, because technically Hart had the absolute constitutional right to appeal the result to the House of Representatives. The House is the ultimate arbiter of disputed election races.
But they were fully aware that it gave a very bad look at the same time as what the GOP were trying to do with the Presidential race a few days later (for which they had no real constitutional right). Pelosi just played it by the book - seated the GOP rep, and punted the petition to the relevant House committee.
It was more than that. Pelosi and the Democrat leadership could have told Hart to accept the result and not press her challenge. Pelosi’s early statements on the matter didn’t close the issue down. She left it very open that the House could have overturned the result. The best line would have been to say that, while the House may technically look at the matter, the usual rules were that such issues were decided at the state level.
You are right that the Democrats didn’t go through with it because it would have looked too bad. But the impression given was that they were seriously considering it.
BTW, if you want to think about how bad it looks, what would have been the reaction on this site if the GOP had tried something similar in the same circumstances?
I am intrigued by Labour and the LibDems are going to play this one. They can’t really stand behind everything he says, and it’ll be tricky to cherry pick.
I think the committee will be two day thing, and then he will fade away for a while. He likely re-emerges with the Tories in opposition somewhere.
They’ll just watch, and then sweetly ask why such an imbecile was repeatedly given roles in government despite the fact he’s failed in every executive role he’s had.
Andrew Sullivan has drawn comparisons with both the closing years of the Roman Republic, and Weimar Germany, and neither is hysterical. A healthy democracy is one where the losers accept that their opponents can win legitimately, and one where the winners accept that they might lose next time, and are prepared to accept defeat with good grace.
Both sides in the US simply want power at all costs, but the Republicans are the worst offenders of the two.
Attempting to "both sides" this is wank.
No, it's absolutely essential if you want to avoid the USA descending into civil war.
If the Democrats retake the House, a civil war is the only way the Democrats might be able to retake power. The Speaker of the House has a tonne of in extremis powers that we could well see used next time round.
There must, surely, be enough republican congressmen who wouldn’t have it. The whole party can’t be without honour.
The ones with any sort of honour (Romneys, Murkowskis, Collins) are rapidly heading out and don't tend to be in the House. I suppose the Dems do have Senate and VP. Next time the GOP do take control of both chambers it will be very difficult for the Dems to win the presidency regardless of the true Electoral college result; the State legislatures in the battleground states are currently gerrymandered GOP
In which case the next President would in effect be elected by Congress, not the Electoral College. However that would only be the case if both the House of Representatives and Senate were controlled by a different party to the party which had won the Presidential election as it requires both chambers of Congress to object to a state's electoral college votes being cast for the winner for the objection to be upheld.
The Democrats would then equally object to the confirmation of victory of a Republican Presidential candidate who won the Electoral College if they won control of both chambers of Congress
This isn't correct, Rita Hart would be sitting in congress if the Democrats were willing to game the system to the same degree as the GOP
To be fair this is a bad example. For Rita Hart to win it needed almost total unanimity in the Democratic conference. That was not going to happen. Equally i think the GOP wouldn't have had the numbers (this time) if the majorities in the House had been reversed (ignoring the Senate).
The danger really is the states. It's not just about voter suppression. Many of them are writing themselves the power to disregard election results. I'm not sure at the moment that the US constitution can stop them doing that. Under the constitution Senators (and possibly House representatives - i'm not sure) MUST be elected. The same is not true of the Presidency. If a state legislature gives itself the right to appoint the electors to the Electoral college then there's nothing the courts can do to prevent it.
A "safe harbor" provision of the Electoral Count Act mandates the selection of electors under laws enacted prior to Election Day, according to the National Task Force on Election Crises. Disputes have to be handled before electors meet.
Election Day is established as the “Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President” in the Constitution. So switching chosen electors once the day has passed would be a violation of federal law.
Who said anything about "switching" electors? They are writing laws to allow themselves to appoint the electors, regardless of the outcome of the elections. Effectively rendering the elections "advisory".
Which cannot be approved and passed into law without the consent of the governor of the state, who in battleground states like Pennsylvania and Michigan and Wisconsin is a Democrat
Well that's OK then. As long as it's only Arizona and Georgia (and Florida and Texas) the Dems are good! Sometimes you have a very simple black and white view of the World...
Technically it would be, Biden would still have won the EC in 2020 even had Trump won Arizona and Georgia if the other results stayed the same (including Trump winning Florida and Texas)
Well we're not talking about 2020 are we! Even the GOP doesn't have the power to change laws retrospectively. You are effectively trying to argue with my assertion that the states aren't a problem, because if everyone votes the same way in 2024 as in 2020 (voter suppression not withstanding) then there aren't enough states with the power to change their laws to affect the ultimate outcome.
Which is up there with Trump saying that he must have won the election because he got 75m (sic) votes, more than in 2016, and therefore Biden getting 81m and winning was a statistical impossibility.
The most depressing polling response in recent months is the recent YouGov VI giving the ugly Tories an 18% lead. How f*cking depressing! The weather adds to the gloom. Oh woe! It can only get better!
There is actually a sign of a small heatwave coming. Not nailed on yet, but definite hints..... About a week away
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Yeah and this is why we need to embrace the novelty act. We'll never come anywhere other than last with earnest sounding, seriously written songs and singers. Anyone who has any level of musical talent in the UK will go and get a record deal, one of my middle aged friends is in a band and they have a record deal and are planning a UK and European tour this autumn. They're a tiny band but really fun and very talented.
The other issue is that UK music is not compatible with Eurovision. Not enough trashy pop outside of the charts and no chart act like Ed Sheeran would do it.
This thread seemed pretty convincing to me- basically, Eurovision songs have moved on, and the UK keeps entering songs that would have won in the 80s/90s.
(This feels like the sort of thing that ought to be a very AI-able problem.)
AI.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Worth a BBC and Netflix coproduction surely.
Ha, wouldn’t it be easier to persuade an established artist to write an annoyingly catchy tune instead?
Not as compelling viewing. I reckon it’s a smash hit.
Note - these are guidelines only, not laws, and they can be ignored, but they are still ridiculous guidelines and appear to be the result of a personal domestic dispute involving a senior official. Which is pretty outrageous.
I’ve signed the petition and I would be grateful if others could too.
Jo cox's sister Kim Leadbeater has been selected as Labour candidate for the Batley and Spen by-election
Makes a Labour hold likely then
Depends how large a sympathy vote can be mustered five years on, to be brutally honest.
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
The Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was over 50% in 2019 in Hartlepool, the Tory and Brexit Party vote combined was less than the Labour vote in 2019 in Batley and Spen
There was an unusually large independent vote there in 2019. Do we have a clue where those votes are going to go this time around?
Hartlepool was undoubtedly a more promising target for the Tories than Batley (it's not just the Brexit angle either: the ethnic composition of the two electorates is substantially different.) OTOH, Tracey Brabin's majority was almost identical to Mike Hill's. It ain't exactly a done deal.
Anyone else vaguely concerned by this recent trend for nominating family relatives of recent MPs for vacant seats? Very American, but i would have thought pretty rare in the UK until relatively recently. As it is i can off the top of my head think of a number of fairly recent examples with varying levels of success - Crewe (after death of Gwyneth Dunwoody), Isle of Wight (Husband banged up), Labour Mayor in Liverpool(?), Batley and Spen...
The new Liverpool Mayor has the same surname but is unrelated, I believe.
He's jolly good at simplifying and presenting complex arguments and data
Yes.
Shame he is almost always wrong about them because of his superficial intellect.
You think single peak herd immunity in 2020 would have been a good idea ?
No. Partly because he did, albeit he’s trying to deny it now.
It’s amazing how the PM’s former Chief of Staff now seems to claim he had no influence over anything when in post. Mind you, if his memos were this long, no longer anyone read them or acted on them.
I’ve said before, he’s not stupid but he’s also not particularly clever outside of his field of campaigning. He’s clearly massively influenced by the last thing he read, and assumes what ever it was about can be applied to everything.
I think he was too busy beating up young women and nicking their mobile phones to do any actual work.
Is this Julia Half-Baked being 'ironic' and trolling Remoaners d'ye think?
I'm confused: did JHB actually think our entry was decent?
Here's the thing. If you are a genuinely talented musician in the UK, do you think "Eurovision Song Contest!".
Or do you think, "write songs, practise, play pubs, upload demo mixes to Souncloud, and try, try to get a record label intreseted"?
The Eurovision song contest is not a route to musical "stardom" for would be British pop stars. If you wanted it to be, then you'd work to make The X Factor into the feeding mechanism. Make it something which produces successful pop acts.
As opposed to... Well... Can anyone think of a single UK Eurovision entry (since Bucks Fizz) that went on to be a successful act?
Yeah and this is why we need to embrace the novelty act. We'll never come anywhere other than last with earnest sounding, seriously written songs and singers. Anyone who has any level of musical talent in the UK will go and get a record deal, one of my middle aged friends is in a band and they have a record deal and are planning a UK and European tour this autumn. They're a tiny band but really fun and very talented.
The other issue is that UK music is not compatible with Eurovision. Not enough trashy pop outside of the charts and no chart act like Ed Sheeran would do it.
This thread seemed pretty convincing to me- basically, Eurovision songs have moved on, and the UK keeps entering songs that would have won in the 80s/90s.
(This feels like the sort of thing that ought to be a very AI-able problem.)
AI.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Worth a BBC and Netflix coproduction surely.
Ha, wouldn’t it be easier to persuade an established artist to write an annoyingly catchy tune instead?
Not as compelling viewing. I reckon it’s a smash hit.
What you do is start with the established artist and the catchy song.
Your competition is to find the person who will sing the lead vocal at Eurovision.
This hijacked plane in Belarus is going to cause huge problems for NATO and the EU tomorrow.
Belarus now as likely to see planes flying over as North Korea, but serious questions to be asked about how a country would deploy their military, to force down a civilian airliner purely to apprehend someone on board as a passenger.
Because Lukashenko has lost what shaky grasp of reality he ever had.
I expect this was instigated and sanctioned by Putin.
Note - these are guidelines only, not laws, and they can be ignored, but they are still ridiculous guidelines and appear to be the result of a personal domestic dispute involving a senior official. Which is pretty outrageous.
I’ve signed the petition and I would be grateful if others could too.
This hijacked plane in Belarus is going to cause huge problems for NATO and the EU tomorrow.
Belarus now as likely to see planes flying over as North Korea, but serious questions to be asked about how a country would deploy their military, to force down a civilian airliner purely to apprehend someone on board as a passenger.
Because Lukashenko has lost what shaky grasp of reality he ever had.
I expect this was instigated and sanctioned by Putin.
Substitute ‘Putin’ for ‘Lukashenko’ and that still works.
Comments
EU Transport Commisioner:
The @Ryanair flight took off just now from Minsk bound for Vilnius. Great news for everyone especially the families and friends of people onboard.
https://twitter.com/AdinaValean/status/1396513415007506432?s=20
BBC journalist: ‘Hitler was right’
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/bbc-journalist-hitler-was-right-
-----
BBC just come back with this statement: “These tweets predate the individual’s employment with the BBC but we are nevertheless taking this very seriously and are investigating.”
For context, this was tweeted just 3 years before Halawa joined the Beeb.
https://twitter.com/JAHeale/status/1396494842344136709?s=20
Do the BBC do no checks about people they are about to hire?
I googled "hart seated provisionally"
And got exactly the opposite information. See: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2020/12/30/miller-meeks-seated-congress-provisionally-rita-hart-election-challenge/4073901001/
I've no idea. I thought that Labour would hold on to Hartlepool.
You need to back down. This did not happen. Pelosi seated Hart's Republican challenger at the start of January.
Everything after the but...
I am not an adviser to the Lab party but if I was, it would be to 'Move on' at least in seats like this and try to get people to forget about that credendum thing!
That sead maybe her sister is very talented.
Election Day is established as the “Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President” in the Constitution. So switching chosen electors once the day has passed would be a violation of federal law.
https://www.flightradar24.com/RYR497/27ce1282
So she was a bit optimistic 45 minutes ago!
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-57221516
But they were fully aware that it gave a very bad look at the same time as what the GOP were trying to do with the Presidential race a few days later (for which they had no real constitutional right). Pelosi just played it by the book - seated the GOP rep, and punted the petition to the relevant House committee.
A factory that makes Iranian drones has suffered a major explosion days after Israel had claimed that Iran was providing drones to Hamas in Gaza.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/23/blast-at-iran-factory-as-israel-accuses-state-of-providing-drones-to-hamas
THAT DID NOT HAPPEN
Truth is boring.
Can’t be anything else, of course.
Pelosi was pretty much irrelevant to the process. If she had wanted to over-turn it, a near unanimous number of Democratic House Reps had agreed, then it would have happened.
https://twitter.com/PavelLatushka/status/1396523234368102401?s=20
This is very shocking stuff.
Vote for independence and they'll be in your nation not mine.
Perhaps more famously, 1988's number 1 Doctorin The Tardis borrows heavily from Rock and Roll (part two). They played the song but cut out GG's cameo from the repeat.
Second, in the 1987 repeats, you've got Shakey doing A Little Bit of Boogie Woogie.
I only post this to do a partial Scott 'n' Paste and throw up the link. It. Is. Glorious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsfKfg8KU5A
This isn't as good but it is interesting, because it comes from an esteemed journalist who was a full on Natural Origins Wet Marketeer, and now he admits to serious doubts
Several crucial paragraphs. The genetic stuff:
'Nick Wade [author of the Bulletin article] quoted David Baltimore, who won the 1975 Nobel Prize for his work with viruses, as saying the specific amino acid sequences in the cleavage site made “a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin.” '
And then there's the biosafety angle:
"I spoke about Nick’s article last week with Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, the renowned Columbia University virus hunter who was one of the five co-authors on the seminal “proximal origin” paper.
"He favored a natural origin theory, he said, in part because he had assumed that all the Wuhan Institute’s 2019 work with SARS-like viruses had been done in its top-level BSL-4 lab, which was cleared to operate in 2017. (State Department cables from 2018 raised questions about how well-run the lab was.)
"But later he learned of studies with Dr. Shi’s name on them showing that work he considers dangerous had been done in level BSL-2 labs, which he considers highly porous to leaks, not just in 2016, but in 2020.
“That’s screwed up,” he said. “It shouldn’t have happened. People should not be looking at bat viruses in BSL-2 labs. My view has changed.”"
And it turns out the "bat woman" at the lab has been lying about her research:
"Dr. Shi herself later told Scientific American that, when news of the new virus erupted, her first fear was that it had come from her institute. She did not sleep for days, she said, until she had finished checking her lab’s logs and assured herself that it had not.
"Since then, though, more has come to light about the work done by Dr. Shi’s teams.
The most startling bit of information was that, rather than “finding” RaTG13 in her freezers in February, Dr. Shi had worked with it since at least 2016, but under a different name, RaBtCoV/4991.
Of all the hypotheses, It Came From The Lab has the best evidence, the most logic, and triumphs over Occam's Razor. The other's don't
As he says:
"That is still not, as he pointed out, direct evidence of a lab leak. There is no proof of a leak.
But the Occam’s Razor argument — what’s the likeliest explanation, animal or lab? — keeps shifting in the direction of the latter."
https://donaldgmcneiljr1954.medium.com/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-lab-leak-theory-f4f88446b04d
Of all the videos of antisemitic attacks in recent days, this one in Germany is most haunting. This is exactly the kind of thing that was commonplace in Germany in the 1930s
If he was a decent chap, he would have taken the original tweet down and reposted it as "Russia - no idea when or where".
Totally irresponsible to leave the original tweet up.
@ProfGrahamMoore
·
3h
Feel like scientific Covid discourse has reached a new low this weekend with some of the pile-ons unleashed on PHE staff, encouraged by a handful of Twitter celebrity scientists and their media supporters.
And what's worse is that people will continually share and amplify this. And this means that people will assume it is true, and they will therefore be conditioned to believe more things about the treatment of Jews in Germany.
As (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rita-hart-backs-down-iowa-election-challenge-miller-meeks) this article shows, Hart's was not actually the only petition made for the House to over-rule a certified election. There was also an all Republican contest, with a somewhat larger margin, although don't know what the ultimate outcome of that was.
But anyway I'll keep a rolling list:
Fuck business
Fuck fishermen
Fuck farmers
Fuck musicians
Fuck teachers
Fuck students
Fuck NI Unionists
Fuck Scottish Unionists
I'm sure there are plenty other fuckees currently if anyone wants to add them.
Someone mentions children are people too.
I point out children are in that 1/3 stat.
I get this as a reply ?!?
I've got my first dose booked at Guys and St Thomas hospital with no indication of which vaccine, but have just been offered an appointment by my GPs for roughly the same time which is definitely Pfizer. A friend said when they got their second dose at that hospital some weeks ago it was AZN only.
I'd happily take AZN, if it was all that's on offer, but I'd slightly prefer mRNA because of the potential to cut short the second dose interval and the small risk of a blood clot. So given the choice is there I'm wondering how likely the hospital one is to be AZN. In the absence of any other info I'll just stick with the hospital, but any thoughts gratefully appreciated!
(The whole thing was very odd - the KLF/Timelords were also dressed up as goth Klansmen.)
Better half had info readable online about the Pfizer prejab
Hartlepool was undoubtedly a more promising target for the Tories than Batley (it's not just the Brexit angle either: the ethnic composition of the two electorates is substantially different.) OTOH, Tracey Brabin's majority was almost identical to Mike Hill's. It ain't exactly a done deal.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/commentisfree/2021/may/23/covid-pandemic-might-unlock-doors-to-golden-age-for-the-arts
I don’t think they’ll be voting Tory...
Orchestrator of some of the most famous betting coups in racing, and founder of a Zambian charity (that the man who'd intended to become a Jesuit priest described as "fire insurance").
https://www.racingpost.com/news/barney-curley/barney-curley-legendary-punter-and-former-trainer-dies-at-the-age-of-81/487501
Joe Kennedy Part Tories was still on the family political production line at the time...
Shame he is almost always wrong about them because of his superficial intellect.
‘I am awesome.
Everyone else is fucking thick.
If we’d done what I said, the country would have been fine.’
Disturbing to note he has the same avatar as @Fysics_Teacher who will not be flattered by the comparison...
There are certain aspects of the Single Market in the EU that Norway has excluded - food, fishing and agriculture I think.
Similar terms can be arranged surely? It will simply be a bit less comprehensive.
Genius.
You (secretly, for later release) make a documentary film covering 18 months in which you attempt to crack Eurovision using algorithms and a club singer. Get any higher than tenth and it would be a hit. Win, and you’re a legend.
Worth a BBC and Netflix coproduction surely.
I think the committee will be two day thing, and then he will fade away for a while. He likely re-emerges with the Tories in opposition somewhere.
Belarus now as likely to see planes flying over as North Korea, but serious questions to be asked about how a country would deploy their military, to force down a civilian airliner purely to apprehend someone on board as a passenger.
I’ve said before, he’s not stupid but he’s also not particularly clever outside of his field of campaigning. He’s clearly massively influenced by the last thing he read, and assumes what ever it was about can be applied to everything.
You are right that the Democrats didn’t go through with it because it would have looked too bad. But the impression given was that they were seriously considering it.
BTW, if you want to think about how bad it looks, what would have been the reaction on this site if the GOP had tried something similar in the same circumstances?
Which is up there with Trump saying that he must have won the election because he got 75m (sic) votes, more than in 2016, and therefore Biden getting 81m and winning was a statistical impossibility.
Your competition is to find the person who will sing the lead vocal at Eurovision.