I'm aware of the financial service providers who have put pressure on OnlyFans and I think they will crank up the pressure further.
Although the nightmare scenario is if OnlyFans goes Bitcoin or some other cryptocurrency and brings back the live shows.
It will go crypto. The tyranny of the paypals and mastercards is about to end
Yes.
PBers. If I were asked about crypto, I would say one word "Monero". The darknet marketplaces are increasingly moving away from Bitcoin and towards Monero, and yet Monero's market cap is less than 1% of Bitcoin's.
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
I haven't read the comments below the line yet so may just be repeating what others have said. If so, my apologies.
But I think there has been a fair bit of misdirection by those Biden supporters and apologists who make something of the fact it was Trump who agreed the withdrawal terms. It is not the withdrawal or the terms of the agreement with the Taliban that are the source of the immediate outrage (even if it was a pretty rubbish deal), it is the way that the withdrawal has been so badly mishandled by both Biden and Johnson.
They have known for more than a year that this was coming. They have had time to plan for it and do some really basic things like identifying and evacuating all those who would be in immediate danger because of their work for the Western allies. They could have offered asylum to those women who they had persuaded to join the Afghan police and military. They certainly could have made sure that all those who worked directly with the western forces had the opportunity to leave the country and seek sanctuary in the West if they wanted to. They have done none of this. They have waited until the last minute and then panicked and there are tens of thousand of people who trusted the West and who worked with us to make our job easier and to make their country a better place to live who we have just thrown to the wolves.
If you want an idea of the scale of just how badly Biden has fucked this up, just consider the Wall Street Journal yesterday said there are some 15,000 US citizens now trapped in Afghanistan with no means of escape. That is before you even start to consider the thousands of Afghans who we should be looking to get out to safety.
The leadership of both the UK and the US have been criminally negligent over this.
Yes, spot on.
In fact it may even turn out that they've managed to screw up to the extent that there will be significant US and UK casualties in coming days, let alone Afghans who have worked with us.
At the FCO they were asking for volunteers to go to Kabul to help organise the evacuation. There's always someone crazy enough to go.
I haven't read the comments below the line yet so may just be repeating what others have said. If so, my apologies.
But I think there has been a fair bit of misdirection by those Biden supporters and apologists who make something of the fact it was Trump who agreed the withdrawal terms. It is not the withdrawal or the terms of the agreement with the Taliban that are the source of the immediate outrage (even if it was a pretty rubbish deal), it is the way that the withdrawal has been so badly mishandled by both Biden and Johnson.
They have known for more than a year that this was coming. They have had time to plan for it and do some really basic things like identifying and evacuating all those who would be in immediate danger because of their work for the Western allies. They could have offered asylum to those women who they had persuaded to join the Afghan police and military. They certainly could have made sure that all those who worked directly with the western forces had the opportunity to leave the country and seek sanctuary in the West if they wanted to. They have done none of this. They have waited until the last minute and then panicked and there are tens of thousand of people who trusted the West and who worked with us to make our job easier and to make their country a better place to live who we have just thrown to the wolves.
If you want an idea of the scale of just how badly Biden has fucked this up, just consider the Wall Street Journal yesterday said there are some 15,000 US citizens now trapped in Afghanistan with no means of escape. That is before you even start to consider the thousands of Afghans who we should be looking to get out to safety.
The leadership of both the UK and the US have been criminally negligent over this.
Why should we have been offering asylum to members of the Afghan military and police a year ago ?
Wasn't it there job to fight the Taliban ?
I'm also somewhat baffled as to what these hordes of westerners were actually doing in Afghanistan.
Sorry did Phil just say Gordon Brown caused the Global Financial Crisis, on the sauce early again were we
He caused the crisis in the UK, at least. The regulatory system was set up by Brown and it allowed banks to operate at 50-100x leverage with the likes of Northern Rock actually well above that.
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
Come on man, it’s been 5 days, maybe 6, since we left 38,000 Afghanis to be tortured to death by the Taliban, and you’re STILL banging on about it??
I know @Leon, I mean I am just some bitter old Trumpist who can’t accept that the GOAT POTUS that is Biden has got this 100pc right as always.
Ps in Rome In a few days, if you have any restaurant tips let me know, happy to share mine
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
It is possible to run successful mines in really quite hostile environments, Katanga springs to mind, but they would have to be very valuable.
More likely Afghanistan will just export opium and people, while the remaining population is impoverished and oppressed.
I'm aware of the financial service providers who have put pressure on OnlyFans and I think they will crank up the pressure further.
Although the nightmare scenario is if OnlyFans goes Bitcoin or some other cryptocurrency and brings back the live shows.
It will go crypto. The tyranny of the paypals and mastercards is about to end
Yes.
PBers. If I were asked about crypto, I would say one word "Monero". The darknet marketplaces are increasingly moving away from Bitcoin and towards Monero, and yet Monero's market cap is less than 1% of Bitcoin's.
There's also a porn specific token iirc.
The Vice Industry Token.
Honestly there are so many things I wish I didn't know thanks to my day job.
Edit - There's also a political betting angle as well.
Stormy Daniels endorsed it I believe/is a brand ambassador.
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
Looks like they need to get to work in those poppyfields. That is 90% of Afghanistans exports.
Incidentally, we had a notice today that there is some "heroin" on the streets cut with a very strong synthetic opiate. There has been a spate of fatal overdoses.
The reason that the Taliban have recently overrun Afghanistan is because the price of organic fair trade heroin has been hammered by the rise of synthetic opiates. The previous Afghan government was unable to bring prosperity, and that made the Taliban suddenly a whole bunch more attractive.
Is Afghanistan the only place where poppies can be grown ?
Or are Afghan poppies the niche equivalent of Manuka honey ?
As a total aside, I think the liberal US press has come out of Afghanistan rather well. They've not been cheerleaders for the administration, but have been willing to call it out for its failures.
Err, no. A C- at best.
The ABC interview of Biden was about as light touch as you could get. Having said that, you need to careful with the mentally impaired.
I haven't read the comments below the line yet so may just be repeating what others have said. If so, my apologies.
But I think there has been a fair bit of misdirection by those Biden supporters and apologists who make something of the fact it was Trump who agreed the withdrawal terms. It is not the withdrawal or the terms of the agreement with the Taliban that are the source of the immediate outrage (even if it was a pretty rubbish deal), it is the way that the withdrawal has been so badly mishandled by both Biden and Johnson.
They have known for more than a year that this was coming. They have had time to plan for it and do some really basic things like identifying and evacuating all those who would be in immediate danger because of their work for the Western allies. They could have offered asylum to those women who they had persuaded to join the Afghan police and military. They certainly could have made sure that all those who worked directly with the western forces had the opportunity to leave the country and seek sanctuary in the West if they wanted to. They have done none of this. They have waited until the last minute and then panicked and there are tens of thousand of people who trusted the West and who worked with us to make our job easier and to make their country a better place to live who we have just thrown to the wolves.
If you want an idea of the scale of just how badly Biden has fucked this up, just consider the Wall Street Journal yesterday said there are some 15,000 US citizens now trapped in Afghanistan with no means of escape. That is before you even start to consider the thousands of Afghans who we should be looking to get out to safety.
The leadership of both the UK and the US have been criminally negligent over this.
Why should we have been offering asylum to members of the Afghan military and police a year ago ?
Wasn't it there job to fight the Taliban ?
I'm also somewhat baffled as to what these hordes of westerners were actually doing in Afghanistan.
He hasn't tried to over throw a democratic election.
Big point in his favour.
The Democrats are somehow the saviours of Democracy? What a joke. Have you read HR1? What about the blatant attempts to intimidate the Supreme Court by launching a panel to see whether it needs to be expanded just so the Democrats have a permanent majority? Or strong arming independent Congressional staff to justify Reconciliation for Biden’s spending plans?
Hey, but that’s all ok because “it’s not Trump”
No one is saying the Democrats are the saviour of democracy.
But they aren't Trump.
Obama, Bush and every other President in recent times handed over power peacefully.
I have no doubt that if (or perhaps more like when...) Harris loses, then she will hand over peacefully.
Respecting democracy when you lose is the single most important thing for any political system.
I'd rather have a government that banned alcohol and made insurance companies illegal and taxed me at 99% but which could be evicted by voters, than one that taxed me ay 10%, but which refused to depart if the voters said "be gone".
I’ll be blunt, I don’t think the Democrats would necessarily peacefully handover the reins of power if they lost. Obama had to tell Hilary Clinton to accept she lost in 2016 and things have got more polarised since then.
And logically why would the Democrats - if they believe their rhetoric about the GOP and Trump - believe it is right to hand over power to a party they say is anti-democratic? Surely better to come up with an excuse as to why they shouldn’t. They don’t have to worry about their own side accepting - the NYT, Washington Post etc will lap it up.
If you think that is hyperbole, what about the latest DHS advice which infers that if you raise questions about the 2020 election, it’s akin to domestic terrorism? It’s not too far a step from this to using national security reasons to start saying the Republicans should not be allowed to contest elections:
I do think it is hyperbole, I'm afraid.
And this isn't Democrats vs Republicans, and it's incredibly misleading to claim it is. It is Trump vs the rest of the political system. Republican Governors have lost close elections and have handed over peacefully. Ditto Democrats. And you've never for a second suggested that Gavin Newsom might attempt to remain California Governor if he loses the recall election.
There is simply no parallel to Trump's behaviour around the 2020 election, and to claim otherwise is absolutely delusional.
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
It makes perfect sense for the Taliban and China to come together. Afghanistan has materials and the Taliban needs money. Neither are scrupulous when it comes to deals.
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
Come on man, it’s been 5 days, maybe 6, since we left 38,000 Afghanis to be tortured to death by the Taliban, and you’re STILL banging on about it??
I know @Leon, I mean I am just some bitter old Trumpist who can’t accept that the GOAT POTUS that is Biden has got this 100pc right as always.
Ps in Rome In a few days, if you have any restaurant tips let me know, happy to share mine
I haven't read the comments below the line yet so may just be repeating what others have said. If so, my apologies.
But I think there has been a fair bit of misdirection by those Biden supporters and apologists who make something of the fact it was Trump who agreed the withdrawal terms. It is not the withdrawal or the terms of the agreement with the Taliban that are the source of the immediate outrage (even if it was a pretty rubbish deal), it is the way that the withdrawal has been so badly mishandled by both Biden and Johnson.
They have known for more than a year that this was coming. They have had time to plan for it and do some really basic things like identifying and evacuating all those who would be in immediate danger because of their work for the Western allies. They could have offered asylum to those women who they had persuaded to join the Afghan police and military. They certainly could have made sure that all those who worked directly with the western forces had the opportunity to leave the country and seek sanctuary in the West if they wanted to. They have done none of this. They have waited until the last minute and then panicked and there are tens of thousand of people who trusted the West and who worked with us to make our job easier and to make their country a better place to live who we have just thrown to the wolves.
If you want an idea of the scale of just how badly Biden has fucked this up, just consider the Wall Street Journal yesterday said there are some 15,000 US citizens now trapped in Afghanistan with no means of escape. That is before you even start to consider the thousands of Afghans who we should be looking to get out to safety.
The leadership of both the UK and the US have been criminally negligent over this.
Spot on.
The apologists for Biden on this site are truly a site to behold. The guy could run the US and the world into the ground and all they would be saying is “but he’s not Trump!!”
I haven't read the comments below the line yet so may just be repeating what others have said. If so, my apologies.
But I think there has been a fair bit of misdirection by those Biden supporters and apologists who make something of the fact it was Trump who agreed the withdrawal terms. It is not the withdrawal or the terms of the agreement with the Taliban that are the source of the immediate outrage (even if it was a pretty rubbish deal), it is the way that the withdrawal has been so badly mishandled by both Biden and Johnson.
They have known for more than a year that this was coming. They have had time to plan for it and do some really basic things like identifying and evacuating all those who would be in immediate danger because of their work for the Western allies. They could have offered asylum to those women who they had persuaded to join the Afghan police and military. They certainly could have made sure that all those who worked directly with the western forces had the opportunity to leave the country and seek sanctuary in the West if they wanted to. They have done none of this. They have waited until the last minute and then panicked and there are tens of thousand of people who trusted the West and who worked with us to make our job easier and to make their country a better place to live who we have just thrown to the wolves.
If you want an idea of the scale of just how badly Biden has fucked this up, just consider the Wall Street Journal yesterday said there are some 15,000 US citizens now trapped in Afghanistan with no means of escape. That is before you even start to consider the thousands of Afghans who we should be looking to get out to safety.
The leadership of both the UK and the US have been criminally negligent over this.
Why should we have been offering asylum to members of the Afghan military and police a year ago ?
Wasn't it there job to fight the Taliban ?
I'm also somewhat baffled as to what these hordes of westerners were actually doing in Afghanistan.
Charities.
And security contractors (mercenaries).
Incidentally, the embassy guards that we have turned down are nearly all Nepalese usually. Was it different in Kabul? Were they locals.
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
Come on man, it’s been 5 days, maybe 6, since we left 38,000 Afghanis to be tortured to death by the Taliban, and you’re STILL banging on about it??
I know @Leon, I mean I am just some bitter old Trumpist who can’t accept that the GOAT POTUS that is Biden has got this 100pc right as always.
Ps in Rome In a few days, if you have any restaurant tips let me know, happy to share mine
Rome is beautiful, but shit for food, in my experience. It’s like Florence or Venice, they have so many tourists they’ve become exceptionally lazy. They don’t have to bother. Even the old places in Trastevere are now dishing out clearly microwaved pasta sauces
Covid might have changed this for the better? Who knows
The old Jewish quarter was quite good for food during my last visit. But nothing exceptional
I just went to my local taverna for the last dinner in Athens. A huge pile of gorgeous, perfect burnt-yet-pink lamb chops. Done over flames. A delicate herby salad. Those real world Greek chips. A fat carafe of good red wine. £15
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
The first thing you need to know about rare earth elements is that they are incredibly common.
There are hundreds of new REE mines planned, from Colorado to Queensland to large parts of Africa. There is no way that Afghanistan, with no roads, no reliable electricity, no port, and no educated workforce is going to be economic. It'd cost 5x the price to mine in rural Afghanistan and get it to Shenzen than to mine in Queensland and chuck it on a ship.
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
It is possible to run successful mines in really quite hostile environments, Katanga springs to mind, but they would have to be very valuable.
More likely Afghanistan will just export opium and people, while the remaining population is impoverished and oppressed.
The Taliban have already held discussions with the Chinese foreign ministry prior to taking over. Afghanistan has over a trillion dollars of rare earth metals including lithium it is reported in outlets like CNN. The Chinese will put the infrastructure in if needed. I would not rule it out.
As a total aside, I think the liberal US press has come out of Afghanistan rather well. They've not been cheerleaders for the administration, but have been willing to call it out for its failures.
Err, no. A C- at best.
The ABC interview of Biden was about as light touch as you could get. Having said that, you need to careful with the mentally impaired.
Wait: so them carrying an enormous number of people criticising the administration is of no consequence?
The thing is, no one has yet come up with any answers on what Raab (or Boris) were supposed to have done. I'm not a huge fan of either but there is a hard truth in this crisis that the UK isn't and hasn't been a military power that can make a difference on the global stage for over 30 years. Our capabilities look a lot more like Japan's self defence force plus nukes than many would like to admit.
It seems Parliament and the right wing papers have got delusions of grandeur, they seem to think we could have dictated terms to the US on withdrawal of their troops or failing that taken over their role in full. It's laughable.
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
Except Harris polls no better than Biden or generally worse.
If Biden wants a replacement candidate for the top job in 2024 he would be better replacing Harris with someone like Buttigieg and making the latter Secretary of State for instance to be a serious contender for Harris.
Buttigieg could then be Macron to his Hollande as they try to stop the return of Trump/Sarkozy
I don’t think it will be Biden’s to choose. He was always a vehicle for those who wanted to get rid of Trump. He never had a strong base of his own. If he starts to push back now, they will just say he is getting senile.
Prof Francois Balloux @BallouxFrancois · 21m The suggestion to administrate covid vaccine boosters to everyone, irrespective of age, health and immune status, strikes me as epidemiologically, morally and ethically wrong.
Afghanistan certainly has potentially valuable mineral deposits, but I doubt if they can be monetised in a hurry, even at a knock-down price.
See Mongolia: stable, decent transport links to China, more REE and coal than Afghanistan (and people know where the deposits actually are), generous taxation.
Actual number of mines opened in the last two decades? Bugger all. (Admittedly the pace has heated up of late, but it's taken twenty years to get there.)
As a total aside, I think the liberal US press has come out of Afghanistan rather well. They've not been cheerleaders for the administration, but have been willing to call it out for its failures.
Err, no. A C- at best.
The ABC interview of Biden was about as light touch as you could get. Having said that, you need to careful with the mentally impaired.
Wait: so them carrying an enormous number of people criticising the administration is of no consequence?
It’s criticism in a insincere way. Oh, we have to be seen saying something and that Biden got this wrong but the moment they think this might help the GOP in 2022 they will drop it like a hot stone.
Look at how they handled the re-emergence of the theory about the Wuhan Lab leak. Vanity Fair did a great story, everyone started to come out with stories but, when they realised it might be a narrative that might help Trump, they went silent
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
The first thing you need to know about rare earth elements is that they are incredibly common.
There are hundreds of new REE mines planned, from Colorado to Queensland to large parts of Africa. There is no way that Afghanistan, with no roads, no reliable electricity, no port, and no educated workforce is going to be economic. It'd cost 5x the price to mine in rural Afghanistan and get it to Shenzen than to mine in Queensland and chuck it on a ship.
Yet stories persist in the business media about such moves.
The apologists for Biden on this site are truly a site to behold. The guy could run the US and the world into the ground and all they would be saying is “but he’s not Trump!!”
Yes, that's a fair summary of my view. Not being Trump is good enough for me.
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
It is possible to run successful mines in really quite hostile environments, Katanga springs to mind, but they would have to be very valuable.
More likely Afghanistan will just export opium and people, while the remaining population is impoverished and oppressed.
The Taliban have already held discussions with the Chinese foreign ministry prior to taking over. Afghanistan has over a trillion dollars of rare earth metals including lithium it is reported in outlets like CNN. The Chinese will put the infrastructure in if needed. I would not rule it out.
Most of the world's lithium is mined in Chile, in giant salt flats where it can scooped up at de minimis cost. It is then purified and chucked on a ship to Chile China. The Chileans reckon they could increase production 5x from current levels.
How on earth would Afghanistan compete?
I would also point out that the price of lithium has actually halved in the last three years (despite the number of new electric vehicles, smartphones,etc.), which hardly suggests there is a global shortage.
The thing is, no one has yet come up with any answers on what Raab (or Boris) were supposed to have done. I'm not a huge fan of either but there is a hard truth in this crisis that the UK isn't and hasn't been a military power that can make a difference on the global stage for over 30 years. Our capabilities look a lot more like Japan's self defence force plus nukes than many would like to admit.
It seems Parliament and the right wing papers have got delusions of grandeur, they seem to think we could have dictated terms to the US on withdrawal of their troops or failing that taken over their role in full. It's laughable.
I don't think the Tory Tankies want to hear that we cannot support a solo military adventure outside these islands any longer.
I'd rate his chance of standing in 2024 at no better than one-in-six, and he's hardly a shoo in to win. (Indeed, he's more likely to be the sacrificial lamb candidate if the election looks like a certain loss.)
+1. Most screaming lay in the history of political betting.
Nah, that was Mike Bloomberg in 2020 or Andrea Leadsome in 2019.
Yep, both great. But I'd say No Deal Brexit was the absolute best because it was never happening AND a short price. Odds on at one point. I don't expect anything as good on the lay front for a long long time.
I haven't read the comments below the line yet so may just be repeating what others have said. If so, my apologies.
But I think there has been a fair bit of misdirection by those Biden supporters and apologists who make something of the fact it was Trump who agreed the withdrawal terms. It is not the withdrawal or the terms of the agreement with the Taliban that are the source of the immediate outrage (even if it was a pretty rubbish deal), it is the way that the withdrawal has been so badly mishandled by both Biden and Johnson.
They have known for more than a year that this was coming. They have had time to plan for it and do some really basic things like identifying and evacuating all those who would be in immediate danger because of their work for the Western allies. They could have offered asylum to those women who they had persuaded to join the Afghan police and military. They certainly could have made sure that all those who worked directly with the western forces had the opportunity to leave the country and seek sanctuary in the West if they wanted to. They have done none of this. They have waited until the last minute and then panicked and there are tens of thousand of people who trusted the West and who worked with us to make our job easier and to make their country a better place to live who we have just thrown to the wolves.
If you want an idea of the scale of just how badly Biden has fucked this up, just consider the Wall Street Journal yesterday said there are some 15,000 US citizens now trapped in Afghanistan with no means of escape. That is before you even start to consider the thousands of Afghans who we should be looking to get out to safety.
The leadership of both the UK and the US have been criminally negligent over this.
The planning, such as it was, assumed that there’d be the civil war we had scripted for them, with the Afghan security forces able to keep the Taliban out, at least for a year or so. The intelligence, or judgement, failure was in not evaluating the situation objectively and not preparing for other eventualities.
The apologists for Biden on this site are truly a site to behold. The guy could run the US and the world into the ground and all they would be saying is “but he’s not Trump!!”
Yes, that's a fair summary of my view. Not being Trump is good enough for me.
Well, I salute you for being honest. That doesn’t make it tight.
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
The first thing you need to know about rare earth elements is that they are incredibly common.
There are hundreds of new REE mines planned, from Colorado to Queensland to large parts of Africa. There is no way that Afghanistan, with no roads, no reliable electricity, no port, and no educated workforce is going to be economic. It'd cost 5x the price to mine in rural Afghanistan and get it to Shenzen than to mine in Queensland and chuck it on a ship.
Yet stories persist in the business media about such moves.
I’ll see how it plays out and leave you to your needlessly aggressive tone. I only mentioned it.
I apologize if I am aggressive, but the point I'm making is that it is hardly unusual for places to have massive mineral deposits. It's true of Canada, the US, Australia, Russia, Mongolia, China and most of Africa.
What is expensive is not finding deposits, it's getting them out the ground (building a mine), and then getting them to market. And Afghanistan is going to be extremely expensive on both those fronts.
The thing is, no one has yet come up with any answers on what Raab (or Boris) were supposed to have done. I'm not a huge fan of either but there is a hard truth in this crisis that the UK isn't and hasn't been a military power that can make a difference on the global stage for over 30 years. Our capabilities look a lot more like Japan's self defence force plus nukes than many would like to admit.
It seems Parliament and the right wing papers have got delusions of grandeur, they seem to think we could have dictated terms to the US on withdrawal of their troops or failing that taken over their role in full. It's laughable.
I don't think the Tory Tankies want to hear that we cannot support a solo military adventure outside these islands any longer.
As long as they can support a solo military adventure inside these islands..
The thing is, no one has yet come up with any answers on what Raab (or Boris) were supposed to have done. I'm not a huge fan of either but there is a hard truth in this crisis that the UK isn't and hasn't been a military power that can make a difference on the global stage for over 30 years. Our capabilities look a lot more like Japan's self defence force plus nukes than many would like to admit.
It seems Parliament and the right wing papers have got delusions of grandeur, they seem to think we could have dictated terms to the US on withdrawal of their troops or failing that taken over their role in full. It's laughable.
I don't think the Tory Tankies want to hear that we cannot support a solo military adventure outside these islands any longer.
We could to defend the Falklands and Gibraltar but that is all we should be doing on our own outside maintaining internal security in the British Isles.
Otherwise even without the US leadership normally required we would at least need the French on board and ideally most other NATO and Commonwealth allies too
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
The first thing you need to know about rare earth elements is that they are incredibly common.
There are hundreds of new REE mines planned, from Colorado to Queensland to large parts of Africa. There is no way that Afghanistan, with no roads, no reliable electricity, no port, and no educated workforce is going to be economic. It'd cost 5x the price to mine in rural Afghanistan and get it to Shenzen than to mine in Queensland and chuck it on a ship.
Yet stories persist in the business media about such moves.
I’ll see how it plays out and leave you to your needlessly aggressive tone. I only mentioned it.
I apologize if I am aggressive, but the point I'm making is that it is hardly unusual for places to have massive mineral deposits. It's true of Canada, the US, Australia, Russia, Mongolia, China and most of Africa.
What is expensive is not finding deposits, it's getting them out the ground (building a mine), and then getting them to market. And Afghanistan is going to be extremely expensive on both those fronts.
That is true but China doesn’t play on the short or even medium term vision of the West, it plays long-term. Having what will probably be a reliable supplier (because the Taliban are not going to mess with China, and neither will Pakistan if China tells it to stop supporting the Taliban) is not a bad covering strategy.
The thing is, no one has yet come up with any answers on what Raab (or Boris) were supposed to have done. I'm not a huge fan of either but there is a hard truth in this crisis that the UK isn't and hasn't been a military power that can make a difference on the global stage for over 30 years. Our capabilities look a lot more like Japan's self defence force plus nukes than many would like to admit.
It seems Parliament and the right wing papers have got delusions of grandeur, they seem to think we could have dictated terms to the US on withdrawal of their troops or failing that taken over their role in full. It's laughable.
I'm not sure how many commentators have seriously suggested that the UK ought to have attempted to carry on in the absence of the Americans. There are rumours that the British Government briefly investigated the possibility before dismissing it as a fools' errand. That's about it.
The first paragraph seems fair though. I could proceed from this point to outline what kind of (limited but useful) military capability the UK should aspire to; however, since an ever-increasing portion of the budgetary cake is obviously going to be fed to pensioners until at least mid-century, there's arguably little point in discussing other ambitions.
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
Yes: China was dominant, not because all the REE were in China, but because for a long time there wasn't much demand for them. Mines in both the US and Australia were closed due to prices from China being lower.
Now REE are more in demand, you're seeing a bunch of new mines come into existence, and the big mining companies are not just dumping lanthanum and cerium in tailings piles.
As a total aside, I think the liberal US press has come out of Afghanistan rather well. They've not been cheerleaders for the administration, but have been willing to call it out for its failures.
Err, no. A C- at best.
The ABC interview of Biden was about as light touch as you could get. Having said that, you need to careful with the mentally impaired.
Unfair. Given the intensely polarised nature of American politics Rob Smithson has a point. I’ve seen unexpectedly brutal criticism of Biden’s Debacle from CNN, NYT, MSNBC, USA Today, WSJ, WashPo, and given their usual bias it actually has more impact than any right wing media assaults
They are unsparing. Even the supposedly soft soap George Stephanopoulos ABC interview cruelly exposed Biden as inadequate and confounded. The producers must have known this. Yet they ran it.
Credit where it is due - for once. The liberal US media has accepted this is a clusterfuck by a Democrat prez
The thing is, no one has yet come up with any answers on what Raab (or Boris) were supposed to have done. I'm not a huge fan of either but there is a hard truth in this crisis that the UK isn't and hasn't been a military power that can make a difference on the global stage for over 30 years. Our capabilities look a lot more like Japan's self defence force plus nukes than many would like to admit.
It seems Parliament and the right wing papers have got delusions of grandeur, they seem to think we could have dictated terms to the US on withdrawal of their troops or failing that taken over their role in full. It's laughable.
I wonder if even 1919 Germany could match our parliament and media for 'stab in the back' mythologizing and denialism.
The thing is, no one has yet come up with any answers on what Raab (or Boris) were supposed to have done. I'm not a huge fan of either but there is a hard truth in this crisis that the UK isn't and hasn't been a military power that can make a difference on the global stage for over 30 years. Our capabilities look a lot more like Japan's self defence force plus nukes than many would like to admit.
It seems Parliament and the right wing papers have got delusions of grandeur, they seem to think we could have dictated terms to the US on withdrawal of their troops or failing that taken over their role in full. It's laughable.
I don't think the Tory Tankies want to hear that we cannot support a solo military adventure outside these islands any longer.
We could probably do something small scale (such as defend or retake the Falklands were it necessary), but a 20-30k occupation force is way beyond our capability. It would need 3-4x as much spent on defence. What taxes will be raised, on which groups will they fall, what departments will see spending cuts and which group of net beneficiaries (old, infirm or poor) will see their benefits cut to pay for it? These are the questions that the likes of Theresa May, Tom Tugendhat and the rest aren't answering because they know once they do their fantasy ideas of the UK taking over America's role is junked.
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
The first thing you need to know about rare earth elements is that they are incredibly common.
There are hundreds of new REE mines planned, from Colorado to Queensland to large parts of Africa. There is no way that Afghanistan, with no roads, no reliable electricity, no port, and no educated workforce is going to be economic. It'd cost 5x the price to mine in rural Afghanistan and get it to Shenzen than to mine in Queensland and chuck it on a ship.
Yet stories persist in the business media about such moves.
I’ll see how it plays out and leave you to your needlessly aggressive tone. I only mentioned it.
I apologize if I am aggressive, but the point I'm making is that it is hardly unusual for places to have massive mineral deposits. It's true of Canada, the US, Australia, Russia, Mongolia, China and most of Africa.
What is expensive is not finding deposits, it's getting them out the ground (building a mine), and then getting them to market. And Afghanistan is going to be extremely expensive on both those fronts.
That is true but China doesn’t play on the short or even medium term vision of the West, it plays long-term. Having what will probably be a reliable supplier (because the Taliban are not going to mess with China, and neither will Pakistan if China tells it to stop supporting the Taliban) is not a bad covering strategy.
We'll see. Maybe the Chinese will invest in mines in Afghanistan for geopolitical reasons. But it's hard to see what the Chinese would get out of it. After all, they can buy up Africa for much lower prices.
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
The first thing you need to know about rare earth elements is that they are incredibly common.
There are hundreds of new REE mines planned, from Colorado to Queensland to large parts of Africa. There is no way that Afghanistan, with no roads, no reliable electricity, no port, and no educated workforce is going to be economic. It'd cost 5x the price to mine in rural Afghanistan and get it to Shenzen than to mine in Queensland and chuck it on a ship.
Yet stories persist in the business media about such moves.
I’ll see how it plays out and leave you to your needlessly aggressive tone. I only mentioned it.
I apologize if I am aggressive, but the point I'm making is that it is hardly unusual for places to have massive mineral deposits. It's true of Canada, the US, Australia, Russia, Mongolia, China and most of Africa.
What is expensive is not finding deposits, it's getting them out the ground (building a mine), and then getting them to market. And Afghanistan is going to be extremely expensive on both those fronts.
That is true but China doesn’t play on the short or even medium term vision of the West, it plays long-term. Having what will probably be a reliable supplier (because the Taliban are not going to mess with China, and neither will Pakistan if China tells it to stop supporting the Taliban) is not a bad covering strategy.
Nah, I think the Chinese support for the Taliban is simpler. It buys off the Islamist world from what is going on with the Uighurs, and is a defeat for the USA, and a thorn in the side of India. Better a client state than an enemy, much like Myanmar.
The thing is, no one has yet come up with any answers on what Raab (or Boris) were supposed to have done. I'm not a huge fan of either but there is a hard truth in this crisis that the UK isn't and hasn't been a military power that can make a difference on the global stage for over 30 years. Our capabilities look a lot more like Japan's self defence force plus nukes than many would like to admit.
It seems Parliament and the right wing papers have got delusions of grandeur, they seem to think we could have dictated terms to the US on withdrawal of their troops or failing that taken over their role in full. It's laughable.
I don't think the Tory Tankies want to hear that we cannot support a solo military adventure outside these islands any longer.
We could to defend the Falklands and Gibraltar but that is all we should be doing on our own.
Otherwise even without the US leadership normally required we would at least need the French on board and ideally most other NATO and Commonwealth allies too
Slightly off tangent but what causes the real lasting damage - both in personal actions and for nations - is not the action itself but how they handle the consequences. That is where the real damage to Biden will lie - not from his decision per se but the aftermath.
It was the same with Suez. What killed the view of the British Empire was not that we launched Suez but that we backtracked when the US threatened us. It made us look weak and unable to operate independently. We and the French should have called Eisenhower’s bluff and said “fine you won’t support our currencies, we will have to withdraw all our troops from Germany because we can’t afford it”. Eisenhower would have likely caved in.
I'd rate his chance of standing in 2024 at no better than one-in-six, and he's hardly a shoo in to win. (Indeed, he's more likely to be the sacrificial lamb candidate if the election looks like a certain loss.)
+1. Most screaming lay in the history of political betting.
I'm not convinced Biden will run again, though I think it is much more likely than not (my gut is 70-80% likely to run). But it is extraordinary to hear laying a first term President even standing again at easily odds-against as a huge value bet.
You've got to be really certain that Biden's situation is sufficiently different to every previous President for a century to take that view, and while I see that argument I cannot find it as convincing as you and others seem to.
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
The first thing you need to know about rare earth elements is that they are incredibly common.
There are hundreds of new REE mines planned, from Colorado to Queensland to large parts of Africa. There is no way that Afghanistan, with no roads, no reliable electricity, no port, and no educated workforce is going to be economic. It'd cost 5x the price to mine in rural Afghanistan and get it to Shenzen than to mine in Queensland and chuck it on a ship.
Yet stories persist in the business media about such moves.
I’ll see how it plays out and leave you to your needlessly aggressive tone. I only mentioned it.
I apologize if I am aggressive, but the point I'm making is that it is hardly unusual for places to have massive mineral deposits. It's true of Canada, the US, Australia, Russia, Mongolia, China and most of Africa.
What is expensive is not finding deposits, it's getting them out the ground (building a mine), and then getting them to market. And Afghanistan is going to be extremely expensive on both those fronts.
That is true but China doesn’t play on the short or even medium term vision of the West, it plays long-term. Having what will probably be a reliable supplier (because the Taliban are not going to mess with China, and neither will Pakistan if China tells it to stop supporting the Taliban) is not a bad covering strategy.
Nah, I think the Chinese support for the Taliban is simpler. It buys off the Islamist world from what is going on with the Uighurs, and is a defeat for the USA, and a thorn in the side of India. Better a client state than an enemy, much like Myanmar.
Oh, agree on all of that. But I think the minerals angle is an added bonus
The thing is, no one has yet come up with any answers on what Raab (or Boris) were supposed to have done. I'm not a huge fan of either but there is a hard truth in this crisis that the UK isn't and hasn't been a military power that can make a difference on the global stage for over 30 years. Our capabilities look a lot more like Japan's self defence force plus nukes than many would like to admit.
It seems Parliament and the right wing papers have got delusions of grandeur, they seem to think we could have dictated terms to the US on withdrawal of their troops or failing that taken over their role in full. It's laughable.
I don't think the Tory Tankies want to hear that we cannot support a solo military adventure outside these islands any longer.
We could probably do something small scale (such as defend or retake the Falklands were it necessary), but a 20-30k occupation force is way beyond our capability. It would need 3-4x as much spent on defence. What taxes will be raised, on which groups will they fall, what departments will see spending cuts and which group of net beneficiaries (old, infirm or poor) will see their benefits cut to pay for it? These are the questions that the likes of Theresa May, Tom Tugendhat and the rest aren't answering because they know once they do their fantasy ideas of the UK taking over America's role is junked.
We couldn't hold the single province of Helmand, so the idea we could have held down the whole country is just delusional.
The Taliban are an awful bunch, and will no doubt be brutal despots, but we are a mid sized regional power, not an Empire on which the sun never sets, and even then we couldn't control Afghanistan. The 1842 retreat was for a century our worst defeat.
I'd rate his chance of standing in 2024 at no better than one-in-six, and he's hardly a shoo in to win. (Indeed, he's more likely to be the sacrificial lamb candidate if the election looks like a certain loss.)
+1. Most screaming lay in the history of political betting.
Nah, that was Mike Bloomberg in 2020 or Andrea Leadsome in 2019.
Yep, both great. But I'd say No Deal Brexit was the absolute best because it was never happening AND a short price. Odds on at one point. I don't expect anything as good on the lay front for a long long time.
Brian Rose for Mayor of London, serious sums were available to be laid at 5/1 and 6/1 or so. Will never be beaten.
Honourable Mention: Andrew Yang for the Dem 2020 Primaries. Much better lay than Bloomberg imho, since Bloomberg had a kinda feasible path to victory far more than Yang ever did.
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
The first thing you need to know about rare earth elements is that they are incredibly common.
There are hundreds of new REE mines planned, from Colorado to Queensland to large parts of Africa. There is no way that Afghanistan, with no roads, no reliable electricity, no port, and no educated workforce is going to be economic. It'd cost 5x the price to mine in rural Afghanistan and get it to Shenzen than to mine in Queensland and chuck it on a ship.
Yet stories persist in the business media about such moves.
I’ll see how it plays out and leave you to your needlessly aggressive tone. I only mentioned it.
I apologize if I am aggressive, but the point I'm making is that it is hardly unusual for places to have massive mineral deposits. It's true of Canada, the US, Australia, Russia, Mongolia, China and most of Africa.
What is expensive is not finding deposits, it's getting them out the ground (building a mine), and then getting them to market. And Afghanistan is going to be extremely expensive on both those fronts.
That is true but China doesn’t play on the short or even medium term vision of the West, it plays long-term. Having what will probably be a reliable supplier (because the Taliban are not going to mess with China, and neither will Pakistan if China tells it to stop supporting the Taliban) is not a bad covering strategy.
We'll see. Maybe the Chinese will invest in mines in Afghanistan for geopolitical reasons. But it's hard to see what the Chinese would get out of it. After all, they can buy up Africa for much lower prices.
They can but Africa is not a reliable entity. It’s far away, there is growing discontent at the actions of the Chinese and their Governments have a history of, mm, reneging agreements.
Afghanistan is far closer, far easier to control with the added lever that you can turn the screws on Pakistan, their real backer, if required.
Covid booster vaccines for all over-50s could be shelved Sources close to JCVI tell The Telegraph ‘far more restricted’ group, focused on those most in need, may instead be targeted
I'd rate his chance of standing in 2024 at no better than one-in-six, and he's hardly a shoo in to win. (Indeed, he's more likely to be the sacrificial lamb candidate if the election looks like a certain loss.)
+1. Most screaming lay in the history of political betting.
Nah, that was Mike Bloomberg in 2020 or Andrea Leadsome in 2019.
Yep, both great. But I'd say No Deal Brexit was the absolute best because it was never happening AND a short price. Odds on at one point. I don't expect anything as good on the lay front for a long long time.
Brian Rose for Mayor of London, serious sums were available to be laid at 5/1 and 6/1 or so. Will never be beaten.
Honourable Mention: Andrew Yang for the Dem 2020 Primaries. Much better lay than Bloomberg imho, since Bloomberg had a kinda feasible path to victory far more than Yang ever did.
Oh God, Brian Rose - that was a great bet to lay, as was Yang
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
I don't think the 25h would be a curve ball, I think it would be putting a tired old man out of his misery.
But I think Biden will choose retire on the grounds of ill health in 2022 rather than have the 25th invoked. Of course, Harris is hardly on the left of the Democratic Party, so I wouldn't expect to see AOC get her wish list were she to take over.
What are the rules on VPs becoming POTUS? Can she be elected for 2 terms or is there a point where her “promotion term” is long enough that it counts as 1?
I'd rate his chance of standing in 2024 at no better than one-in-six, and he's hardly a shoo in to win. (Indeed, he's more likely to be the sacrificial lamb candidate if the election looks like a certain loss.)
+1. Most screaming lay in the history of political betting.
Nah, that was Mike Bloomberg in 2020 or Andrea Leadsome in 2019.
Yep, both great. But I'd say No Deal Brexit was the absolute best because it was never happening AND a short price. Odds on at one point. I don't expect anything as good on the lay front for a long long time.
Brian Rose for Mayor of London, serious sums were available to be laid at 5/1 and 6/1 or so. Will never be beaten.
Honourable Mention: Andrew Yang for the Dem 2020 Primaries. Much better lay than Bloomberg imho, since Bloomberg had a kinda feasible path to victory far more than Yang ever did.
Oh God, Brian Rose - that was a great bet to lay, as was Yang
On the back side, I do think Tory majority at 1.55-1.6 on THE MORNING OF THE ELECTION in 2019 was pretty stunning.
I'm aware of the financial service providers who have put pressure on OnlyFans and I think they will crank up the pressure further.
Although the nightmare scenario is if OnlyFans goes Bitcoin or some other cryptocurrency and brings back the live shows.
It will go crypto. The tyranny of the paypals and mastercards is about to end
Yes.
PBers. If I were asked about crypto, I would say one word "Monero". The darknet marketplaces are increasingly moving away from Bitcoin and towards Monero, and yet Monero's market cap is less than 1% of Bitcoin's.
Sorry did Phil just say Gordon Brown caused the Global Financial Crisis, on the sauce early again were we
He caused the crisis in the UK, at least. The regulatory system was set up by Brown and it allowed banks to operate at 50-100x leverage with the likes of Northern Rock actually well above that.
Precisely.
London specifically and the UK in general is a Financial world power and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for regulating that.
There wasn't (to my knowledge) a single British bank run in the entire 20th century. The regulations with the Bank of England that we had worked. Then in came Gordon Brown who was warned not to remove BoE oversight, did so, then we had not one but two bank failures within a decade of the changes happening.
The idea you can dismiss the financial crisis because it was "global" might work for many nations, it doesn't work for the UK. The UK is a leading power that literally helps write the global financial rules. Brown changed the rules, his changes led to the crisis.
If your primary industry that you're a world leader in fails, within a few years of rewriting the rules for that industry, then don't cry that it is "global" afterwards.
I wonder how much hard currency the Taliban need to settle debts they've incurred to get to their current position. Maybe rather a large amount.
They can sell all the mineral assets to the Chinese who have the need and the cash.
The world is awash with mineral deposits, and it's a hell of a lot easier to get them out of Mongolia, Africa, etc. Places with - you know - physical infrastructure, ports, roads, etc. (Not to mention a lack of fanatics and an ongoing civil war.)
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
The first thing you need to know about rare earth elements is that they are incredibly common.
There are hundreds of new REE mines planned, from Colorado to Queensland to large parts of Africa. There is no way that Afghanistan, with no roads, no reliable electricity, no port, and no educated workforce is going to be economic. It'd cost 5x the price to mine in rural Afghanistan and get it to Shenzen than to mine in Queensland and chuck it on a ship.
Yet stories persist in the business media about such moves.
I’ll see how it plays out and leave you to your needlessly aggressive tone. I only mentioned it.
I apologize if I am aggressive, but the point I'm making is that it is hardly unusual for places to have massive mineral deposits. It's true of Canada, the US, Australia, Russia, Mongolia, China and most of Africa.
What is expensive is not finding deposits, it's getting them out the ground (building a mine), and then getting them to market. And Afghanistan is going to be extremely expensive on both those fronts.
That is true but China doesn’t play on the short or even medium term vision of the West, it plays long-term. Having what will probably be a reliable supplier (because the Taliban are not going to mess with China, and neither will Pakistan if China tells it to stop supporting the Taliban) is not a bad covering strategy.
We'll see. Maybe the Chinese will invest in mines in Afghanistan for geopolitical reasons. But it's hard to see what the Chinese would get out of it. After all, they can buy up Africa for much lower prices.
Right now, China can basically do what it likes. It is so ascendant. It has that ‘superbitas’. It has the real signs of imperial swagger. Britain in the early 19th century
It is all about self confidence. Theoretically China is still the economic and military inferior of America, but it does not feel that way, not any more. Soon it won’t even be theoretically disputable. China will rule
FFS they just leaked an engineered coronavirus from a lab onto the world which has killed 10 million and decimated the global economy and they’ve persuaded half of us this didn’t happen, it was actually a mad pangolin in a cyberzoo, and those of us that know it happened wearily accept that China is so powerful there will be no payback
I'd rate his chance of standing in 2024 at no better than one-in-six, and he's hardly a shoo in to win. (Indeed, he's more likely to be the sacrificial lamb candidate if the election looks like a certain loss.)
+1. Most screaming lay in the history of political betting.
Nah, that was Mike Bloomberg in 2020 or Andrea Leadsome in 2019.
Yep, both great. But I'd say No Deal Brexit was the absolute best because it was never happening AND a short price. Odds on at one point. I don't expect anything as good on the lay front for a long long time.
Brian Rose for Mayor of London, serious sums were available to be laid at 5/1 and 6/1 or so. Will never be beaten.
Honourable Mention: Andrew Yang for the Dem 2020 Primaries. Much better lay than Bloomberg imho, since Bloomberg had a kinda feasible path to victory far more than Yang ever did.
Oh God, Brian Rose - that was a great bet to lay, as was Yang
DeSantis must be a lay at 15 given what is happening in FL.
Worth noting that this time in 2017 the only polling I can find was from PPP (Dem-leaning pollster) which had Biden up by 12-15%. Given he actually won (the popular vote) by 4.4%, you can either conclude that polls this early are useless or that Trump being ahead already suggests he'd win by a landslide given the 'Red Shift' from now to election day.
I haven't read the comments below the line yet so may just be repeating what others have said. If so, my apologies.
But I think there has been a fair bit of misdirection by those Biden supporters and apologists who make something of the fact it was Trump who agreed the withdrawal terms. It is not the withdrawal or the terms of the agreement with the Taliban that are the source of the immediate outrage (even if it was a pretty rubbish deal), it is the way that the withdrawal has been so badly mishandled by both Biden and Johnson.
They have known for more than a year that this was coming. They have had time to plan for it and do some really basic things like identifying and evacuating all those who would be in immediate danger because of their work for the Western allies. They could have offered asylum to those women who they had persuaded to join the Afghan police and military. They certainly could have made sure that all those who worked directly with the western forces had the opportunity to leave the country and seek sanctuary in the West if they wanted to. They have done none of this. They have waited until the last minute and then panicked and there are tens of thousand of people who trusted the West and who worked with us to make our job easier and to make their country a better place to live who we have just thrown to the wolves.
If you want an idea of the scale of just how badly Biden has fucked this up, just consider the Wall Street Journal yesterday said there are some 15,000 US citizens now trapped in Afghanistan with no means of escape. That is before you even start to consider the thousands of Afghans who we should be looking to get out to safety.
The leadership of both the UK and the US have been criminally negligent over this.
I understand where you are coming from
What I struggle with is believing the administrations (not the politicians) are really that incompetent. Shouldn’t the MoD have had an evacuation plan in place in advance? Shouldn’t they have been winding down efforts already? That should be regardless of political leadership
The thing is, no one has yet come up with any answers on what Raab (or Boris) were supposed to have done. I'm not a huge fan of either but there is a hard truth in this crisis that the UK isn't and hasn't been a military power that can make a difference on the global stage for over 30 years. Our capabilities look a lot more like Japan's self defence force plus nukes than many would like to admit.
It seems Parliament and the right wing papers have got delusions of grandeur, they seem to think we could have dictated terms to the US on withdrawal of their troops or failing that taken over their role in full. It's laughable.
I don't think Raab or Johnson could have done much in the last week, though being present may have helped a bit. But it's not the last week that is contentious in my mind. The writing has been on the wall since the Doha Agreement was signed 18 months ago; the Agreement anticipated the events of the last week, giving in effect a green light for the Taliban to take over. It is the government's (UK and US) abject failure over the last 18 months to prepare for recent events and avoid the chaos now going on that should be rightly criticised. In the UK, Raab must carry the can for that.
I'd rate his chance of standing in 2024 at no better than one-in-six, and he's hardly a shoo in to win. (Indeed, he's more likely to be the sacrificial lamb candidate if the election looks like a certain loss.)
+1. Most screaming lay in the history of political betting.
Nah, that was Mike Bloomberg in 2020 or Andrea Leadsome in 2019.
Yep, both great. But I'd say No Deal Brexit was the absolute best because it was never happening AND a short price. Odds on at one point. I don't expect anything as good on the lay front for a long long time.
Brian Rose for Mayor of London, serious sums were available to be laid at 5/1 and 6/1 or so. Will never be beaten.
Honourable Mention: Andrew Yang for the Dem 2020 Primaries. Much better lay than Bloomberg imho, since Bloomberg had a kinda feasible path to victory far more than Yang ever did.
Oh God, Brian Rose - that was a great bet to lay, as was Yang
DeSantis must be a lay at 15 given what is happening in FL.
He should be.
But the GOP are so batshit crazy that I wouldn't lay him at 15. The problem is you're not betting on what should happen.
As a total aside, I think the liberal US press has come out of Afghanistan rather well. They've not been cheerleaders for the administration, but have been willing to call it out for its failures.
Err, no. A C- at best.
The ABC interview of Biden was about as light touch as you could get. Having said that, you need to careful with the mentally impaired.
Unfair. Given the intensely polarised nature of American politics Rob Smithson has a point. I’ve seen unexpectedly brutal criticism of Biden’s Debacle from CNN, NYT, MSNBC, USA Today, WSJ, WashPo, and given their usual bias it actually has more impact than any right wing media assaults
They are unsparing. Even the supposedly soft soap George Stephanopoulos ABC interview cruelly exposed Biden as inadequate and confounded. The producers must have known this. Yet they ran it.
Credit where it is due - for once. The liberal US media has accepted this is a clusterfuck by a Democrat prez
ABC didn’t really have any alternative but to run it. What do you say “we had an interview with the President but, mmm, we decided it made him look bad so we skipped it”.
I agree other papers has been unsparing (although the WSJ is not a liberal paper) but my point was that it is temporary.
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
I don't think the 25h would be a curve ball, I think it would be putting a tired old man out of his misery.
But I think Biden will choose retire on the grounds of ill health in 2022 rather than have the 25th invoked. Of course, Harris is hardly on the left of the Democratic Party, so I wouldn't expect to see AOC get her wish list were she to take over.
What are the rules on VPs becoming POTUS? Can she be elected for 2 terms or is there a point where her “promotion term” is long enough that it counts as 1?
Yes, it's the half way point of the Presidency.
But I'd want pretty long odds on Harris being President for a decade.
I'd rate his chance of standing in 2024 at no better than one-in-six, and he's hardly a shoo in to win. (Indeed, he's more likely to be the sacrificial lamb candidate if the election looks like a certain loss.)
+1. Most screaming lay in the history of political betting.
Nah, that was Mike Bloomberg in 2020 or Andrea Leadsome in 2019.
Yep, both great. But I'd say No Deal Brexit was the absolute best because it was never happening AND a short price. Odds on at one point. I don't expect anything as good on the lay front for a long long time.
Brian Rose for Mayor of London, serious sums were available to be laid at 5/1 and 6/1 or so. Will never be beaten.
Honourable Mention: Andrew Yang for the Dem 2020 Primaries. Much better lay than Bloomberg imho, since Bloomberg had a kinda feasible path to victory far more than Yang ever did.
Oh God, Brian Rose - that was a great bet to lay, as was Yang
DeSantis must be a lay at 15 given what is happening in FL.
Not at the moment. If Trump doesn’t run, DeSantis is the clear favourite.
As a total aside, I think the liberal US press has come out of Afghanistan rather well. They've not been cheerleaders for the administration, but have been willing to call it out for its failures.
Err, no. A C- at best.
The ABC interview of Biden was about as light touch as you could get. Having said that, you need to careful with the mentally impaired.
Unfair. Given the intensely polarised nature of American politics Rob Smithson has a point. I’ve seen unexpectedly brutal criticism of Biden’s Debacle from CNN, NYT, MSNBC, USA Today, WSJ, WashPo, and given their usual bias it actually has more impact than any right wing media assaults
They are unsparing. Even the supposedly soft soap George Stephanopoulos ABC interview cruelly exposed Biden as inadequate and confounded. The producers must have known this. Yet they ran it.
Credit where it is due - for once. The liberal US media has accepted this is a clusterfuck by a Democrat prez
ABC didn’t really have any alternative but to run it. What do you say “we had an interview with the President but, mmm, we decided it made him look bad so we skipped it”.
I agree other papers has been unsparing (although the WSJ is not a liberal paper) but my point was that it is temporary.
ABC tweeted out a trailer which was SO bad for Biden it had people sincerely saying ‘it must be edited by Fox’
Agreed, it could be temporary. But at least this once they’ve been honest. And of course we await the moment when Fox News says ‘Yes Trump is a fucking maniac’
As a total aside, I think the liberal US press has come out of Afghanistan rather well. They've not been cheerleaders for the administration, but have been willing to call it out for its failures.
Err, no. A C- at best.
The ABC interview of Biden was about as light touch as you could get. Having said that, you need to careful with the mentally impaired.
Unfair. Given the intensely polarised nature of American politics Rob Smithson has a point. I’ve seen unexpectedly brutal criticism of Biden’s Debacle from CNN, NYT, MSNBC, USA Today, WSJ, WashPo, and given their usual bias it actually has more impact than any right wing media assaults
They are unsparing. Even the supposedly soft soap George Stephanopoulos ABC interview cruelly exposed Biden as inadequate and confounded. The producers must have known this. Yet they ran it.
Credit where it is due - for once. The liberal US media has accepted this is a clusterfuck by a Democrat prez
ABC didn’t really have any alternative but to run it. What do you say “we had an interview with the President but, mmm, we decided it made him look bad so we skipped it”.
I agree other papers has been unsparing (although the WSJ is not a liberal paper) but my point was that it is temporary.
That was not your point: I said that the liberal press had been willing to call out the adminstration for its failures over Afghanistan.
You said, no, that they only deserved a C-.
You didn't mention temporary, you only mentioned a soft touch Biden interview.
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
Except Harris polls no better than Biden or generally worse.
If Biden wants a replacement candidate for the top job in 2024 he would be better replacing Harris with someone like Buttigieg and making the latter Secretary of State for instance to be a serious contender for Harris.
Buttigieg could then be Macron to his Hollande as they try to stop the return of Trump/Sarkozy
I don’t think it will be Biden’s to choose. He was always a vehicle for those who wanted to get rid of Trump. He never had a strong base of his own. If he starts to push back now, they will just say he is getting senile.
He is a Puppet President.
Doesn't say a lot for Trump that he can be beaten by a Puppet without a strong base of his own.
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
I don't think the 25h would be a curve ball, I think it would be putting a tired old man out of his misery.
But I think Biden will choose retire on the grounds of ill health in 2022 rather than have the 25th invoked. Of course, Harris is hardly on the left of the Democratic Party, so I wouldn't expect to see AOC get her wish list were she to take over.
What are the rules on VPs becoming POTUS? Can she be elected for 2 terms or is there a point where her “promotion term” is long enough that it counts as 1?
Yes, it's the half way point of the Presidency.
But I'd want pretty long odds on Harris being President for a decade.
That doesn't sound like the betting money is expecting things to go well for the Dems during the next three years.
Or that they expect another Dem to emerge.
They better or else at the moment there is a real chance of Trump 2 - The Return in 2024
The Republicans picking Trump, and they will if he runs, is the way the Dems win.
My strong sense of a few months ago was that WH24 will involve neither Biden nor Trump. I think I might go back to that and stick.
I think so too. Biden will be a one term president, but I don't think will resign early. That is just not the way Presidents act. Just as British monarchs do not abdicate, no matter how doddery.
I'd rate his chance of standing in 2024 at no better than one-in-six, and he's hardly a shoo in to win. (Indeed, he's more likely to be the sacrificial lamb candidate if the election looks like a certain loss.)
+1. Most screaming lay in the history of political betting.
Nah, that was Mike Bloomberg in 2020 or Andrea Leadsome in 2019.
Yep, both great. But I'd say No Deal Brexit was the absolute best because it was never happening AND a short price. Odds on at one point. I don't expect anything as good on the lay front for a long long time.
Brian Rose for Mayor of London, serious sums were available to be laid at 5/1 and 6/1 or so. Will never be beaten.
Honourable Mention: Andrew Yang for the Dem 2020 Primaries. Much better lay than Bloomberg imho, since Bloomberg had a kinda feasible path to victory far more than Yang ever did.
Oh God, Brian Rose - that was a great bet to lay, as was Yang
DeSantis must be a lay at 15 given what is happening in FL.
Not at the moment. If Trump doesn’t run, DeSantis is the clear favourite.
I agree with you. If Trump doesn't run, DeSantis is the favouite. And I'd reckon he would be much more formidable opponent for whoever the Democrat is than Trump. Let's not forget, he won a swing state in a midterm year.
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
Except Harris polls no better than Biden or generally worse.
If Biden wants a replacement candidate for the top job in 2024 he would be better replacing Harris with someone like Buttigieg and making the latter Secretary of State for instance to be a serious contender for Harris.
Buttigieg could then be Macron to his Hollande as they try to stop the return of Trump/Sarkozy
I don’t think it will be Biden’s to choose. He was always a vehicle for those who wanted to get rid of Trump. He never had a strong base of his own. If he starts to push back now, they will just say he is getting senile.
He is a Puppet President.
For a cabal of cultural marxists, obsessed with race and gender, seeking a new world order?
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
I don't think the 25h would be a curve ball, I think it would be putting a tired old man out of his misery.
But I think Biden will choose retire on the grounds of ill health in 2022 rather than have the 25th invoked. Of course, Harris is hardly on the left of the Democratic Party, so I wouldn't expect to see AOC get her wish list were she to take over.
What are the rules on VPs becoming POTUS? Can she be elected for 2 terms or is there a point where her “promotion term” is long enough that it counts as 1?
Yes, it's the half way point of the Presidency.
But I'd want pretty long odds on Harris being President for a decade.
Midday 20/01/2023 is the halfway point isn't it?
Yes.
I guess the interesting question is what happens if Biden dies of a heart attack that morning. Is she measured from her own inauguration, or from Biden's death?
I'd rate his chance of standing in 2024 at no better than one-in-six, and he's hardly a shoo in to win. (Indeed, he's more likely to be the sacrificial lamb candidate if the election looks like a certain loss.)
+1. Most screaming lay in the history of political betting.
Nah, that was Mike Bloomberg in 2020 or Andrea Leadsome in 2019.
Yep, both great. But I'd say No Deal Brexit was the absolute best because it was never happening AND a short price. Odds on at one point. I don't expect anything as good on the lay front for a long long time.
Brian Rose for Mayor of London, serious sums were available to be laid at 5/1 and 6/1 or so. Will never be beaten.
Honourable Mention: Andrew Yang for the Dem 2020 Primaries. Much better lay than Bloomberg imho, since Bloomberg had a kinda feasible path to victory far more than Yang ever did.
Oh God, Brian Rose - that was a great bet to lay, as was Yang
DeSantis must be a lay at 15 given what is happening in FL.
Not at the moment. If Trump doesn’t run, DeSantis is the clear favourite.
I agree with you. If Trump doesn't run, DeSantis is the favouite. And I'd reckon he would be much more formidable opponent for whoever the Democrat is than Trump. Let's not forget, he won a swing state in a midterm year.
Yes, to many Republicans, he has the pluses of Trump without the negatives (I know many will disagree on that - I’m saying it from the GOP abase).
That doesn't sound like the betting money is expecting things to go well for the Dems during the next three years.
Or that they expect another Dem to emerge.
They better or else at the moment there is a real chance of Trump 2 - The Return in 2024
The Republicans picking Trump, and they will if he runs, is the way the Dems win.
My strong sense of a few months ago was that WH24 will involve neither Biden nor Trump. I think I might go back to that and stick.
I think so too. Biden will be a one term president, but I don't think will resign early. That is just not the way Presidents act. Just as British monarchs do not abdicate, no matter how doddery.
Nixon is still the only POTUS to have ever resigned, isn't he?
Presidential resignations are far more the stuff of fiction, like House of Cards etc, than they can actually occur.
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
Except Harris polls no better than Biden or generally worse.
If Biden wants a replacement candidate for the top job in 2024 he would be better replacing Harris with someone like Buttigieg and making the latter Secretary of State for instance to be a serious contender for Harris.
Buttigieg could then be Macron to his Hollande as they try to stop the return of Trump/Sarkozy
I don’t think it will be Biden’s to choose. He was always a vehicle for those who wanted to get rid of Trump. He never had a strong base of his own. If he starts to push back now, they will just say he is getting senile.
He is a Puppet President.
Doesn't say a lot for Trump that he can be beaten by a Puppet without a strong base of his own.
Well, if you have a media that backs up and the biggest Tech companies that will block damaging stories of your son and what he has been up to, it is remarkable what you can do.
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
I don't think the 25h would be a curve ball, I think it would be putting a tired old man out of his misery.
But I think Biden will choose retire on the grounds of ill health in 2022 rather than have the 25th invoked. Of course, Harris is hardly on the left of the Democratic Party, so I wouldn't expect to see AOC get her wish list were she to take over.
What are the rules on VPs becoming POTUS? Can she be elected for 2 terms or is there a point where her “promotion term” is long enough that it counts as 1?
Yes, it's the half way point of the Presidency.
But I'd want pretty long odds on Harris being President for a decade.
Midday 20/01/2023 is the halfway point isn't it?
Yes.
I guess the interesting question is what happens if Biden dies of a heart attack that morning. Is she measured from her own inauguration, or from Biden's death?
25th Amendment means that Harris automatically and therefore instantly becomes President if Biden dies, doesn't it? The inauguration ceremony swearing in the new President after a death is technically just ceremonial.
“The mothers were desperate, they were getting beaten by the Taliban. They shouted, ‘save my baby’ and threw the babies at us, some of the babies fell on the barbed wire. It was awful what happened. By the end of the night there wasn’t one man among us who was not crying,” said the Parachute Regiment officer quietly.
That's the shot, here's the chaser
Biden’s Long Trail of Betrayals Why is the president so consistently wrong on major foreign-policy matters?
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
Except Harris polls no better than Biden or generally worse.
If Biden wants a replacement candidate for the top job in 2024 he would be better replacing Harris with someone like Buttigieg and making the latter Secretary of State for instance to be a serious contender for Harris.
Buttigieg could then be Macron to his Hollande as they try to stop the return of Trump/Sarkozy
I don’t think it will be Biden’s to choose. He was always a vehicle for those who wanted to get rid of Trump. He never had a strong base of his own. If he starts to push back now, they will just say he is getting senile.
He is a Puppet President.
For a cabal of cultural marxists, obsessed with race and gender, seeking a new world order?
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
Except Harris polls no better than Biden or generally worse.
If Biden wants a replacement candidate for the top job in 2024 he would be better replacing Harris with someone like Buttigieg and making the latter Secretary of State for instance to be a serious contender for Harris.
Buttigieg could then be Macron to his Hollande as they try to stop the return of Trump/Sarkozy
I don’t think it will be Biden’s to choose. He was always a vehicle for those who wanted to get rid of Trump. He never had a strong base of his own. If he starts to push back now, they will just say he is getting senile.
He is a Puppet President.
Doesn't say a lot for Trump that he can be beaten by a Puppet without a strong base of his own.
Well, if you have a media that backs up and the biggest Tech companies that will block damaging stories of your son and what he has been up to, it is remarkable what you can do.
If this is all true then why would they not do it all over again for Biden in 2024?
Most now seem to be in the 46%/47% approval rating though rather than the over 50% it was before
There has been a very wide range for Biden’s ratings with Rasmussen and YouGov at the lower end and Morning Consult and Politico at the higher end.
Probably what is better to look at is the trend line within each pollster. That is clearly declining.
46/47% of course is danger territory for Biden/Harris.
47% is closer to the 48% Kerry, Gore and Clinton got and well below the 51% Biden got in 2020 when he beat Trump or the over 50% Obama got in 2008 and 2012
Personally, I think Biden is toast. I know many on here will say “you would say that” but I don’t know how he recovers from this, particularly the images, the ABC interview (how can you say one of Biden’s key strengths is compassion after that?) and the poor performance of his Sec of Defence.
I think Harris knows that as well, plus a fair few other Democrat leaders. To many, particularly on the left, Biden has served his purpose and a President Harris would better suit their purposes when there is still time to push through an agenda. If you want a curveball, don’t be too surprised if you start to hear murmurings that the 25th should be invoked for Biden.
I don't think the 25h would be a curve ball, I think it would be putting a tired old man out of his misery.
But I think Biden will choose retire on the grounds of ill health in 2022 rather than have the 25th invoked. Of course, Harris is hardly on the left of the Democratic Party, so I wouldn't expect to see AOC get her wish list were she to take over.
What are the rules on VPs becoming POTUS? Can she be elected for 2 terms or is there a point where her “promotion term” is long enough that it counts as 1?
Yes, it's the half way point of the Presidency.
But I'd want pretty long odds on Harris being President for a decade.
Midday 20/01/2023 is the halfway point isn't it?
Yes.
I guess the interesting question is what happens if Biden dies of a heart attack that morning. Is she measured from her own inauguration, or from Biden's death?
Originally I'd have thought from her own inauguration, but due to the 25th Amendment surely its from Biden's death?
25th Amendment, Section 1: "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."
Comments
The idea that people will be lining up to pay for licenses in Afghanistan is farcical. They weren't lining up when the Taliban were last in power. And they weren't lining up when the Americans were in control. Why would they line up now?
Wasn't it there job to fight the Taliban ?
I'm also somewhat baffled as to what these hordes of westerners were actually doing in Afghanistan.
Ps in Rome In a few days, if you have any restaurant tips let me know, happy to share mine
More likely Afghanistan will just export opium and people, while the remaining population is impoverished and oppressed.
Honestly there are so many things I wish I didn't know thanks to my day job.
Edit - There's also a political betting angle as well.
Stormy Daniels endorsed it I believe/is a brand ambassador.
Or are Afghan poppies the niche equivalent of Manuka honey ?
The ABC interview of Biden was about as light touch as you could get. Having said that, you need to careful with the mentally impaired.
And this isn't Democrats vs Republicans, and it's incredibly misleading to claim it is. It is Trump vs the rest of the political system. Republican Governors have lost close elections and have handed over peacefully. Ditto Democrats. And you've never for a second suggested that Gavin Newsom might attempt to remain California Governor if he loses the recall election.
There is simply no parallel to Trump's behaviour around the 2020 election, and to claim otherwise is absolutely delusional.
The Fail really gunning for Raab!
The apologists for Biden on this site are truly a site to behold. The guy could run the US and the world into the ground and all they would be saying is “but he’s not Trump!!”
Incidentally, the embassy guards that we have turned down are nearly all Nepalese usually. Was it different in Kabul? Were they locals.
Covid might have changed this for the better? Who knows
The old Jewish quarter was quite good for food during my last visit. But nothing exceptional
I just went to my local taverna for the last dinner in Athens. A huge pile of gorgeous, perfect burnt-yet-pink lamb chops. Done over flames. A delicate herby salad. Those real world Greek chips. A fat carafe of good red wine. £15
So satisfying
There are hundreds of new REE mines planned, from Colorado to Queensland to large parts of Africa. There is no way that Afghanistan, with no roads, no reliable electricity, no port, and no educated workforce is going to be economic. It'd cost 5x the price to mine in rural Afghanistan and get it to Shenzen than to mine in Queensland and chuck it on a ship.
It seems Parliament and the right wing papers have got delusions of grandeur, they seem to think we could have dictated terms to the US on withdrawal of their troops or failing that taken over their role in full. It's laughable.
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/Restaurant_Review-g189400-d20034943-Reviews-Mpirmpilo_Restaurant-Athens_Attica.html
Just brilliant. And cheap
He is a Puppet President.
Now its more than possible that Biden wouldn't succeed the nomination even if his Presidency was a success.
But it would be very hard to beat Harris for the nomination in that situation.
Prof Francois Balloux
@BallouxFrancois
·
21m
The suggestion to administrate covid vaccine boosters to everyone, irrespective of age, health and immune status, strikes me as epidemiologically, morally and ethically wrong.
Actual number of mines opened in the last two decades? Bugger all. (Admittedly the pace has heated up of late, but it's taken twenty years to get there.)
Look at how they handled the re-emergence of the theory about the Wuhan Lab leak. Vanity Fair did a great story, everyone started to come out with stories but, when they realised it might be a narrative that might help Trump, they went silent
https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/with-taliban-in-power-china-eyes-lucrative-rare-earth-mines-in-afghanistan-121081900984_1.html
I’ll see how it plays out and leave you to your needlessly aggressive tone. I only mentioned it.
How on earth would Afghanistan compete?
I would also point out that the price of lithium has actually halved in the last three years (despite the number of new electric vehicles, smartphones,etc.), which hardly suggests there is a global shortage.
https://chinapower.csis.org/china-rare-earths/
Breaking news!
What is expensive is not finding deposits, it's getting them out the ground (building a mine), and then getting them to market. And Afghanistan is going to be extremely expensive on both those fronts.
Otherwise even without the US leadership normally required we would at least need the French on board and ideally most other NATO and Commonwealth allies too
The first paragraph seems fair though. I could proceed from this point to outline what kind of (limited but useful) military capability the UK should aspire to; however, since an ever-increasing portion of the budgetary cake is obviously going to be fed to pensioners until at least mid-century, there's arguably little point in discussing other ambitions.
Now REE are more in demand, you're seeing a bunch of new mines come into existence, and the big mining companies are not just dumping lanthanum and cerium in tailings piles.
They are unsparing. Even the supposedly soft soap George Stephanopoulos ABC interview cruelly exposed Biden as inadequate and confounded. The producers must have known this. Yet they ran it.
Credit where it is due - for once. The liberal US media has accepted this is a clusterfuck by a Democrat prez
This is not mentioned once.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/19/health/uk-coronavirus-month-since-freedom-day-intl-gbr-cmd/index.html
It was the same with Suez. What killed the view of the British Empire was not that we launched Suez but that we backtracked when the US threatened us. It made us look weak and unable to operate independently. We and the French should have called Eisenhower’s bluff and said “fine you won’t support our currencies, we will have to withdraw all our troops from Germany because we can’t afford it”. Eisenhower would have likely caved in.
You've got to be really certain that Biden's situation is sufficiently different to every previous President for a century to take that view, and while I see that argument I cannot find it as convincing as you and others seem to.
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1428408415844507661?s=20
The Taliban are an awful bunch, and will no doubt be brutal despots, but we are a mid sized regional power, not an Empire on which the sun never sets, and even then we couldn't control Afghanistan. The 1842 retreat was for a century our worst defeat.
Honourable Mention: Andrew Yang for the Dem 2020 Primaries. Much better lay than Bloomberg imho, since Bloomberg had a kinda feasible path to victory far more than Yang ever did.
Afghanistan is far closer, far easier to control with the added lever that you can turn the screws on Pakistan, their real backer, if required.
Sources close to JCVI tell The Telegraph ‘far more restricted’ group, focused on those most in need, may instead be targeted
Telegraph
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2021/election_regrets_most_wouldn_t_vote_to_reelect_biden
London specifically and the UK in general is a Financial world power and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for regulating that.
There wasn't (to my knowledge) a single British bank run in the entire 20th century. The regulations with the Bank of England that we had worked. Then in came Gordon Brown who was warned not to remove BoE oversight, did so, then we had not one but two bank failures within a decade of the changes happening.
The idea you can dismiss the financial crisis because it was "global" might work for many nations, it doesn't work for the UK. The UK is a leading power that literally helps write the global financial rules. Brown changed the rules, his changes led to the crisis.
If your primary industry that you're a world leader in fails, within a few years of rewriting the rules for that industry, then don't cry that it is "global" afterwards.
It is all about self confidence. Theoretically China is still the economic and military inferior of America, but it does not feel that way, not any more. Soon it won’t even be theoretically disputable. China will rule
FFS they just leaked an engineered coronavirus from a lab onto the world which has killed 10 million and decimated the global economy and they’ve persuaded half of us this didn’t happen, it was actually a mad pangolin in a cyberzoo, and those of us that know it happened wearily accept that China is so powerful there will be no payback
THAT is imperial potency
What I struggle with is believing the administrations (not the politicians) are really that incompetent. Shouldn’t the MoD have had an evacuation plan in place in advance? Shouldn’t they have been winding down efforts already? That should be regardless of political leadership
But the GOP are so batshit crazy that I wouldn't lay him at 15. The problem is you're not betting on what should happen.
I agree other papers has been unsparing (although the WSJ is not a liberal paper) but my point was that it is temporary.
But I'd want pretty long odds on Harris being President for a decade.
Agreed, it could be temporary. But at least this once they’ve been honest. And of course we await the moment when Fox News says ‘Yes Trump is a fucking maniac’
You said, no, that they only deserved a C-.
You didn't mention temporary, you only mentioned a soft touch Biden interview.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1428476542288547844?s=21
I guess the interesting question is what happens if Biden dies of a heart attack that morning. Is she measured from her own inauguration, or from Biden's death?
Presidential resignations are far more the stuff of fiction, like House of Cards etc, than they can actually occur.
“The mothers were desperate, they were getting beaten by the Taliban. They shouted, ‘save my baby’ and threw the babies at us, some of the babies fell on the barbed wire. It was awful what happened. By the end of the night there wasn’t one man among us who was not crying,” said the Parachute Regiment officer quietly.
That's the shot, here's the chaser
Biden’s Long Trail of Betrayals
Why is the president so consistently wrong on major foreign-policy matters?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/08/biden-afghanistan-record/619799/?
Remember kids, "America's back".
25th Amendment, Section 1: "In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President."
The President is dead, long live the President.