politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At the 2010 shadow cabinet elections no MPs with surnames
Comments
-
Really don’t think libel is comparable to these louts appropriating someone else’s struggle...!Charles said:
What happened the last time McDonalds tried that?SimonStClare said:
Indeed, more than 120 flights were delayed or cancelled, that adds up to a pretty penny if this matter is pursued through the courts.MattW said:
The airport need to take civil action against the org and the individuals for recovery of losses.Sandpit said:
Come on Met Police, make an example of these jumped-up middle class idiots or they'll keep doing this.FrancisUrquhart said:‘White people need to take responsibility... they are privileged through racism’: Black Lives Matter issues inflammatory Twitter statement as it confirms all NINE activists who brought chaos London City Airport are white
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3775517/Protesters-storm-runway-London-City-Airport-bringing-flights-standstill-stranding-thousands-passengers.html
White Power...no shit that not it....White Solidarity....
Charge them with endangering aircraft, haul them in front of a magistrate in the morning and then remanded to see a judge and jury a few months down the line. That will give them some thinking time to decide if it was all worth it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case0 -
F1 engineer makes 'first flat-pack truck'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/37285399
0 -
They didn't in 1911.HurstLlama said:
Women do have the vote, Mr. Topping. So do please try again. You are the one who said there should be allowances for people who want to break the law from a political motive. I am just trying to establish what boundaries you would put on your idea, if any?TOPPING said:
spoiling your census form because women don't have a vote?HurstLlama said:@Topping
"... there has to be some allowance for civil disobedience."
Really? Which laws would you say it is OK to break if someone is doing so for a political purpose?
How about sitting in front of the HS2 bulldozers?0 -
The most often quoted figures is a third of deaths were violent ones.Casino_Royale said:@Sean Fear - I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was notoriously violent in the Stone Age.
Violence was the leading cause of death of all men and you'd be lucky to make it to 35, even if you didn't succumb to disease, famine or pestilence.0 -
Henry VIII married his brother's widow and look at the fuss that caused.Charles said:
My great-grandfather married his first cousin's widow (and took on 2 young children)Sean_F said:
I think polygamy was really a response to societies where sudden violent deaths were common among young men, and women (often with infant children) had to find husbands to survive (hence, the whole business in the Old Testament about having to marry your brother's widow).0 -
Exactly. Perhaps 15% were pro-EU, some were pro-status quo, so were "lesser of too evils", etc.ThreeQuidder said:
I don't think that's true. The 16m were split between the actually-pro-EU and the "yeah, I guess".logical_song said:
The 17m are a wide coalition, there are many Brexits. The 16m were more sure what they wanted. If it had been a 'preferendum' the result would have been different.williamglenn said:
They should have voted Remain and let the malcontent Leavers work to sweeten Cameron's 'renegotiation' until it became acceptable to them. Voting Leave for a soft Brexit was playing with fire.rcs1000 said:
I'm sorry, but a fair number of the 52% (including me) wanted soft Brexit.GIN1138 said:TheScreamingEagles said:Oh Theresa, why did you employ him in the first place, everyone knows he's a preening bell end.
Theresa May rebukes David Davis over warning that UK could leave the single market
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/06/theresa-may-rebukes-david-davis-over-warning-that-uk-could-leave/
Bickering between May and Davis I see...
Westminster has been given their warning by the electorate but it appears they aren't listening. The 17m may have no choice but to elect a UKIP government to get Brexit done...0 -
Mr. Hopkins, that's a brilliant invention.0
-
I havered at the last minute. I could have voted Remain and doubtless, if Brexit goes completely tits up, I will have doneTheWhiteRabbit said:
Exactly. Perhaps 15% were pro-EU, some were pro-status quo, so were "lesser of too evils", etc.ThreeQuidder said:
I don't think that's true. The 16m were split between the actually-pro-EU and the "yeah, I guess".logical_song said:
The 17m are a wide coalition, there are many Brexits. The 16m were more sure what they wanted. If it had been a 'preferendum' the result would have been different.williamglenn said:
They should have voted Remain and let the malcontent Leavers work to sweeten Cameron's 'renegotiation' until it became acceptable to them. Voting Leave for a soft Brexit was playing with fire.rcs1000 said:
I'm sorry, but a fair number of the 52% (including me) wanted soft Brexit.GIN1138 said:TheScreamingEagles said:Oh Theresa, why did you employ him in the first place, everyone knows he's a preening bell end.
Theresa May rebukes David Davis over warning that UK could leave the single market
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/06/theresa-may-rebukes-david-davis-over-warning-that-uk-could-leave/
Bickering between May and Davis I see...
Westminster has been given their warning by the electorate but it appears they aren't listening. The 17m may have no choice but to elect a UKIP government to get Brexit done...
. 0 -
It will probably enhance their prospects of winning asylum.FrancisUrquhart said:Three 18-year-old Afghan migrants are jailed for gang-raping another boy at an Austrian asylum centre. Sentenced to terms in jail ranging from two to three-and-a-half years each.
The sexual abuse took place in a cave just outside the facility after the three threatened they would kill the boy with a sharp piece of glass unless he went with them.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3776230/Three-18-year-old-Afghan-migrants-jailed-gang-raping-boy-Austrian-asylum-centre.html
Seem like very short sentences given the crimes. I presume their asylum claim will be unaffected...0 -
Civil disobedience is fine provided those doing it are prepared to endure the consequences i.e. they are prepared to go to prison/pay the fine or whatever.
But disobeying the law - as part of some political protest - and expecting not to suffer the consequences is childish behavior.0 -
I believe Hunter/gatherer societies tended to be horrendously violent.Casino_Royale said:@Sean Fear - I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was notoriously violent in the Stone Age.
Violence was the leading cause of death of all men and you'd be lucky to make it to 35, even if you didn't succumb to disease, famine or pestilence.0 -
Broadly, public opinion is split 2/1 in a eurosceptic direction, according to BSA. Quitting the EU was not the preferred option; the preferred option was less Europe. But two thirds either wanted to Leave, or have less Europe. One third were either content with the status quo, or wanted more Europe.TheWhiteRabbit said:
Exactly. Perhaps 15% were pro-EU, some were pro-status quo, so were "lesser of too evils", etc.ThreeQuidder said:
I don't think that's true. The 16m were split between the actually-pro-EU and the "yeah, I guess".logical_song said:
The 17m are a wide coalition, there are many Brexits. The 16m were more sure what they wanted. If it had been a 'preferendum' the result would have been different.williamglenn said:
They should have voted Remain and let the malcontent Leavers work to sweeten Cameron's 'renegotiation' until it became acceptable to them. Voting Leave for a soft Brexit was playing with fire.rcs1000 said:
I'm sorry, but a fair number of the 52% (including me) wanted soft Brexit.GIN1138 said:TheScreamingEagles said:Oh Theresa, why did you employ him in the first place, everyone knows he's a preening bell end.
Theresa May rebukes David Davis over warning that UK could leave the single market
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/06/theresa-may-rebukes-david-davis-over-warning-that-uk-could-leave/
Bickering between May and Davis I see...
Westminster has been given their warning by the electorate but it appears they aren't listening. The 17m may have no choice but to elect a UKIP government to get Brexit done...0 -
Accepting consequences is so last century. It involves taking responsibility for your own actions and reactions, and we know that's not right, given the sacred right not to be offended, however unreasonably.Cyclefree said:Civil disobedience is fine provided those doing it are prepared to endure the consequences i.e. they are prepared to go to prison/pay the fine or whatever.
But disobeying the law - as part of some political protest - and expecting not to suffer the consequences is childish behavior.
kle4 29 going on 75.0 -
''Mr. Hopkins, that's a brilliant invention. ''
I'm not sure what the advantages are over a ready built vehicle - although shipping costs might be much cheaper I suppose. Also storage0 -
When white men discovered the interior of Papua New Guinea in the 20s and 30s, one of reasons for the huge language diversity they discovered was that tribes would simply kill anyone straying off piste. It enforced isolation.Sean_F said:
I believe Hunter/gatherer societies tended to be horrendously violent.Casino_Royale said:@Sean Fear - I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was notoriously violent in the Stone Age.
Violence was the leading cause of death of all men and you'd be lucky to make it to 35, even if you didn't succumb to disease, famine or pestilence.0 -
But the electoral college doesn't work like that. If no one gets to 270+ because Johnson wins a handful of states, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives as per the constitution. Johnson doesn't get a say.Thrak said:
Which is why I think that in most states beyond these few his support will wither (and strangely his addition seems to actually help Trump). All he needs is a poll or two with him with a single figure gap (NM and UT most likely) and he can blitz them and present himself as a broker for the electoral college. States like these may well think that a great deal for them to hold that power.williamglenn said:
New Mexico has only twice since 1972 failed to pick the winner so it's a good bellwether.Thrak said:To reiterate, Gary Johnson is deserving of some analysis. Thise Wapo polls show him getting figures in Alaska, Utah and New Mexico that may, if repeated and improved, start some momentum in those states.
The only way for Johnson to break through nationally is for Clinton's support to collapse. It looks unlikely that he will make the cut off for the debates and it will be tough for him to make any headway after that.0 -
For something like HS2, bring a token bulldozer or two onto site a couple of weeks before the real project start, let the protesters have their 15 minutes of fame then turn up with a court order and get them out of the way. Everybody wins.TOPPING said:
They didn't in 1911.HurstLlama said:
Women do have the vote, Mr. Topping. So do please try again. You are the one who said there should be allowances for people who want to break the law from a political motive. I am just trying to establish what boundaries you would put on your idea, if any?TOPPING said:
spoiling your census form because women don't have a vote?HurstLlama said:@Topping
"... there has to be some allowance for civil disobedience."
Really? Which laws would you say it is OK to break if someone is doing so for a political purpose?
How about sitting in front of the HS2 bulldozers?
For prats who think invading an active runway is some sort of game, throw the book at them.0 -
Well done to this headmaster in attempting to enforce the uniform policy at his school:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3775968/Police-called-school-sends-FIFTY-children-home-day-term-weren-t-wearing-right-uniform.html0 -
Horrendous violence on the scale of WW1 or WW2?Sean_F said:
I believe Hunter/gatherer societies tended to be horrendously violent.Casino_Royale said:@Sean Fear - I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was notoriously violent in the Stone Age.
Violence was the leading cause of death of all men and you'd be lucky to make it to 35, even if you didn't succumb to disease, famine or pestilence.0 -
He'll face the same criticism as a football or rugby referee if they actually followed the letter of the law on booking for diving, or penalties for not putting in to the scrum straight - it's a rule, it can be for a good reason, but people get mad if it is actually upheld.AndyJS said:Well done to this headmaster in actually attempting to enforce the uniform policy at his school:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3775968/Police-called-school-sends-FIFTY-children-home-day-term-weren-t-wearing-right-uniform.html
See also people mad at enforcement officers for parking/smoking/etc or, god forbid, if the police decided to charge people for speeding on the motorways.0 -
They were violent to the scale populations could not build up to the point more extreme WW1 and WW2 acts were possible (though obviously disease and so on added to that). I've heard it said that despite the massive high points of violence in the 20th Century, in historical terms it was not at all extraordinary in the amount of conflict, and might even be below average.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Horrendous violence on the scale of WW1 or WW2?Sean_F said:
I believe Hunter/gatherer societies tended to be horrendously violent.Casino_Royale said:@Sean Fear - I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was notoriously violent in the Stone Age.
Violence was the leading cause of death of all men and you'd be lucky to make it to 35, even if you didn't succumb to disease, famine or pestilence.0 -
Since they are his (party nominated) electors, can he not try to direct them to vote for one or other of the other two candidates?not_on_fire said:
But the electoral college doesn't work like that. If no one gets to 270+ because Johnson wins a handful of states, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives as per the constitution. Johnson doesn't get a say.Thrak said:
Which is why I think that in most states beyond these few his support will wither (and strangely his addition seems to actually help Trump). All he needs is a poll or two with him with a single figure gap (NM and UT most likely) and he can blitz them and present himself as a broker for the electoral college. States like these may well think that a great deal for them to hold that power.williamglenn said:
New Mexico has only twice since 1972 failed to pick the winner so it's a good bellwether.Thrak said:To reiterate, Gary Johnson is deserving of some analysis. Thise Wapo polls show him getting figures in Alaska, Utah and New Mexico that may, if repeated and improved, start some momentum in those states.
The only way for Johnson to break through nationally is for Clinton's support to collapse. It looks unlikely that he will make the cut off for the debates and it will be tough for him to make any headway after that.
0 -
Bugger. Ah, well, that's that theory out of the window then. I was getting mixed up with primaries.not_on_fire said:
But the electoral college doesn't work like that. If no one gets to 270+ because Johnson wins a handful of states, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives as per the constitution. Johnson doesn't get a say.Thrak said:
Which is why I think that in most states beyond these few his support will wither (and strangely his addition seems to actually help Trump). All he needs is a poll or two with him with a single figure gap (NM and UT most likely) and he can blitz them and present himself as a broker for the electoral college. States like these may well think that a great deal for them to hold that power.williamglenn said:
New Mexico has only twice since 1972 failed to pick the winner so it's a good bellwether.Thrak said:To reiterate, Gary Johnson is deserving of some analysis. Thise Wapo polls show him getting figures in Alaska, Utah and New Mexico that may, if repeated and improved, start some momentum in those states.
The only way for Johnson to break through nationally is for Clinton's support to collapse. It looks unlikely that he will make the cut off for the debates and it will be tough for him to make any headway after that.0 -
There are precedents for electoral college delegates voting for a different candidate but most states have laws against it.Thrak said:
Bugger. Ah, well, that's that theory out of the window then. I was getting mixed up with primaries.not_on_fire said:
But the electoral college doesn't work like that. If no one gets to 270+ because Johnson wins a handful of states, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives as per the constitution. Johnson doesn't get a say.Thrak said:
Which is why I think that in most states beyond these few his support will wither (and strangely his addition seems to actually help Trump). All he needs is a poll or two with him with a single figure gap (NM and UT most likely) and he can blitz them and present himself as a broker for the electoral college. States like these may well think that a great deal for them to hold that power.williamglenn said:
New Mexico has only twice since 1972 failed to pick the winner so it's a good bellwether.Thrak said:To reiterate, Gary Johnson is deserving of some analysis. Thise Wapo polls show him getting figures in Alaska, Utah and New Mexico that may, if repeated and improved, start some momentum in those states.
The only way for Johnson to break through nationally is for Clinton's support to collapse. It looks unlikely that he will make the cut off for the debates and it will be tough for him to make any headway after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector0 -
This was a relatively recent report. Considering population densities, it lends some support to your thesis:kle4 said:
They were violent to the scale populations could not build up to the point more extreme WW1 and WW2 acts were possible (though obviously disease and so on added to that). I've heard it said that despite the massive high points of violence in the 20th Century, in historical terms it was not at all extraordinary in the amount of conflict, and might even be below average.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Horrendous violence on the scale of WW1 or WW2?Sean_F said:
I believe Hunter/gatherer societies tended to be horrendously violent.Casino_Royale said:@Sean Fear - I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was notoriously violent in the Stone Age.
Violence was the leading cause of death of all men and you'd be lucky to make it to 35, even if you didn't succumb to disease, famine or pestilence.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/10000-year-old-massacre-suggests-hunter-gatherers-went-war0 -
There is, of course, in such a situation, potential for a Republican House to manufacture a position where they vote in Pence as veep and not Trump as President.williamglenn said:
There are precedents for electoral college delegates voting for a different candidate but most states have laws against it.Thrak said:
Bugger. Ah, well, that's that theory out of the window then. I was getting mixed up with primaries.not_on_fire said:
But the electoral college doesn't work like that. If no one gets to 270+ because Johnson wins a handful of states, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives as per the constitution. Johnson doesn't get a say.Thrak said:
Which is why I think that in most states beyond these few his support will wither (and strangely his addition seems to actually help Trump). All he needs is a poll or two with him with a single figure gap (NM and UT most likely) and he can blitz them and present himself as a broker for the electoral college. States like these may well think that a great deal for them to hold that power.williamglenn said:
New Mexico has only twice since 1972 failed to pick the winner so it's a good bellwether.Thrak said:To reiterate, Gary Johnson is deserving of some analysis. Thise Wapo polls show him getting figures in Alaska, Utah and New Mexico that may, if repeated and improved, start some momentum in those states.
The only way for Johnson to break through nationally is for Clinton's support to collapse. It looks unlikely that he will make the cut off for the debates and it will be tough for him to make any headway after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector0 -
In theory only (if that). For the Republican party to steal the election from its own candidate in that way would lead to complete anarchy.Thrak said:
There is, of course, in such a situation, potential for a Republican House to manufacture a position where they vote in Pence as veep and not Trump as President.williamglenn said:
There are precedents for electoral college delegates voting for a different candidate but most states have laws against it.Thrak said:
Bugger. Ah, well, that's that theory out of the window then. I was getting mixed up with primaries.not_on_fire said:
But the electoral college doesn't work like that. If no one gets to 270+ because Johnson wins a handful of states, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives as per the constitution. Johnson doesn't get a say.Thrak said:
Which is why I think that in most states beyond these few his support will wither (and strangely his addition seems to actually help Trump). All he needs is a poll or two with him with a single figure gap (NM and UT most likely) and he can blitz them and present himself as a broker for the electoral college. States like these may well think that a great deal for them to hold that power.williamglenn said:
New Mexico has only twice since 1972 failed to pick the winner so it's a good bellwether.Thrak said:To reiterate, Gary Johnson is deserving of some analysis. Thise Wapo polls show him getting figures in Alaska, Utah and New Mexico that may, if repeated and improved, start some momentum in those states.
The only way for Johnson to break through nationally is for Clinton's support to collapse. It looks unlikely that he will make the cut off for the debates and it will be tough for him to make any headway after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector0 -
0
-
Strange how quickly political fortunes can change. Less than 2 months ago Angela Eagle was trading in the 3s on betfair to be next Labour Leader - now at 100+.
I imagine she's a bit miffed at that. She did quite a courageous thing, and rather showed up some of her colleagues. I don't for one moment think she'd have made a good leader, but that's not such a big issue in this market.
Mike's Analysis (which I'd not heard before) must be another body blow to at least one beleaguered MP. I imagine he only quite because Home Secretary was nailed on.
0 -
Presumably they think 'black' refers to the colour of the ink on their trust fund statement.dr_spyn said:Is it cos I is an associate member?
https://twitter.com/DailyMailUK/status/7732157140019527680 -
Is it not still technically possible that the (Republican) House could co-opt someone like Paul Ryan as President, in preference to Trump, if neither the Donald nor Hillary were to get to 270 EC votes?Thrak said:
There is, of course, in such a situation, potential for a Republican House to manufacture a position where they vote in Pence as veep and not Trump as President.williamglenn said:
There are precedents for electoral college delegates voting for a different candidate but most states have laws against it.Thrak said:
Bugger. Ah, well, that's that theory out of the window then. I was getting mixed up with primaries.not_on_fire said:
But the electoral college doesn't work like that. If no one gets to 270+ because Johnson wins a handful of states, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives as per the constitution. Johnson doesn't get a say.Thrak said:
Which is why I think that in most states beyond these few his support will wither (and strangely his addition seems to actually help Trump). All he needs is a poll or two with him with a single figure gap (NM and UT most likely) and he can blitz them and present himself as a broker for the electoral college. States like these may well think that a great deal for them to hold that power.williamglenn said:
New Mexico has only twice since 1972 failed to pick the winner so it's a good bellwether.Thrak said:To reiterate, Gary Johnson is deserving of some analysis. Thise Wapo polls show him getting figures in Alaska, Utah and New Mexico that may, if repeated and improved, start some momentum in those states.
The only way for Johnson to break through nationally is for Clinton's support to collapse. It looks unlikely that he will make the cut off for the debates and it will be tough for him to make any headway after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
In that case, a couple of states going to Johnson could make a huge difference to the outcome.0 -
As predicted by yours truly :-)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/labour-conference-will-not-vote-on-mandatory-reselection-of-mps?CMP=share_btn_tw0 -
They have to pick from the 3 candidates with the most EC votes, so no.Sandpit said:
Is it not still technically possible that the (Republican) House could co-opt someone like Paul Ryan as President, in preference to Trump, if neither the Donald nor Hillary were to get to 270 EC votes?Thrak said:
There is, of course, in such a situation, potential for a Republican House to manufacture a position where they vote in Pence as veep and not Trump as President.williamglenn said:
There are precedents for electoral college delegates voting for a different candidate but most states have laws against it.Thrak said:
Bugger. Ah, well, that's that theory out of the window then. I was getting mixed up with primaries.not_on_fire said:
But the electoral college doesn't work like that. If no one gets to 270+ because Johnson wins a handful of states, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives as per the constitution. Johnson doesn't get a say.Thrak said:
Which is why I think that in most states beyond these few his support will wither (and strangely his addition seems to actually help Trump). All he needs is a poll or two with him with a single figure gap (NM and UT most likely) and he can blitz them and present himself as a broker for the electoral college. States like these may well think that a great deal for them to hold that power.williamglenn said:
New Mexico has only twice since 1972 failed to pick the winner so it's a good bellwether.Thrak said:To reiterate, Gary Johnson is deserving of some analysis. Thise Wapo polls show him getting figures in Alaska, Utah and New Mexico that may, if repeated and improved, start some momentum in those states.
The only way for Johnson to break through nationally is for Clinton's support to collapse. It looks unlikely that he will make the cut off for the debates and it will be tough for him to make any headway after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
In that case, a couple of states going to Johnson could make a huge difference to the outcome.
You can't stump dump the Trump.0 -
Trump could win without Texas. If he wins Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin he wins 273 to 265. It is a big ask but he is competitive in all those states (though remember overall he leads by 8% in Texas in the RCP average albeit that is half the 16% Romney won it by)619 said:
Same from below?rottenborough said:Quite a set of Survey Monkey polls out according to 538.
Trump +3 in Ohio, +3 Arizona.
Has Clinton + 1 in Texas in a large ( 5000) sample0 -
The way to treat BLM protesters who lock each other together is to gently (mustn't give cause for complaint) move them as a group away from their protest station to somewhere relatively remote and leave them there, unable to release themselves, for several days. They think the kind police will always free them from their locked group. Severals days without food, water or shelter will set a deterrent example.Sandpit said:
For something like HS2, bring a token bulldozer or two onto site a couple of weeks before the real project start, let the protesters have their 15 minutes of fame then turn up with a court order and get them out of the way. Everybody wins.TOPPING said:
They didn't in 1911.HurstLlama said:
Women do have the vote, Mr. Topping. So do please try again. You are the one who said there should be allowances for people who want to break the law from a political motive. I am just trying to establish what boundaries you would put on your idea, if any?TOPPING said:
spoiling your census form because women don't have a vote?HurstLlama said:@Topping
"... there has to be some allowance for civil disobedience."
Really? Which laws would you say it is OK to break if someone is doing so for a political purpose?
How about sitting in front of the HS2 bulldozers?
For prats who think invading an active runway is some sort of game, throw the book at them.
0 -
Already stepping back from the brink.SouthamObserver said:0 -
Hey Ho, was worth a try. So Uncle Sam is going to be stuck with one or other of the two most unpopular candidates ever to stand for the office!williamglenn said:
They have to pick from the 3 candidates with the most EC votes, so no.Sandpit said:
Is it not still technically possible that the (Republican) House could co-opt someone like Paul Ryan as President, in preference to Trump, if neither the Donald nor Hillary were to get to 270 EC votes?Thrak said:
There is, of course, in such a situation, potential for a Republican House to manufacture a position where they vote in Pence as veep and not Trump as President.williamglenn said:
There are precedents for electoral college delegates voting for a different candidate but most states have laws against it.Thrak said:
Bugger. Ah, well, that's that theory out of the window then. I was getting mixed up with primaries.not_on_fire said:
But the electoral college doesn't work like that. If no one gets to 270+ because Johnson wins a handful of states, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives as per the constitution. Johnson doesn't get a say.Thrak said:
Which is why I think that in most states beyond these few his support will wither (and strangely his addition seems to actually help Trump). All he needs is a poll or two with him with a single figure gap (NM and UT most likely) and he can blitz them and present himself as a broker for the electoral college. States like these may well think that a great deal for them to hold that power.williamglenn said:
New Mexico has only twice since 1972 failed to pick the winner so it's a good bellwether.Thrak said:To reiterate, Gary Johnson is deserving of some analysis. Thise Wapo polls show him getting figures in Alaska, Utah and New Mexico that may, if repeated and improved, start some momentum in those states.
The only way for Johnson to break through nationally is for Clinton's support to collapse. It looks unlikely that he will make the cut off for the debates and it will be tough for him to make any headway after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector
In that case, a couple of states going to Johnson could make a huge difference to the outcome.
You can't stump dump the Trump.
Are there any markets up yet on the 2020 election not being contested by the incumbent? They're both old, and both shit.0 -
-
I used to work at a location that attracted protestors. One of them thought that they had chained themself to the sliding electric security gate. But actually had chained themself to the static part of the fence not impeding use of the gate in anyway. In the end he was ppractically begging the police to cut him freeperdix said:
The way to treat BLM protesters who lock each other together is to gently (mustn't give cause for complaint) move them as a group away from their protest station to somewhere relatively remote and leave them there, unable to release themselves, for several days. They think the kind police will always free them from their locked group. Severals days without food, water or shelter will set a deterrent example.Sandpit said:
For something like HS2, bring a token bulldozer or two onto site a couple of weeks before the real project start, let the protesters have their 15 minutes of fame then turn up with a court order and get them out of the way. Everybody wins.TOPPING said:
They didn't in 1911.HurstLlama said:
Women do have the vote, Mr. Topping. So do please try again. You are the one who said there should be allowances for people who want to break the law from a political motive. I am just trying to establish what boundaries you would put on your idea, if any?TOPPING said:
spoiling your census form because women don't have a vote?HurstLlama said:@Topping
"... there has to be some allowance for civil disobedience."
Really? Which laws would you say it is OK to break if someone is doing so for a political purpose?
How about sitting in front of the HS2 bulldozers?
For prats who think invading an active runway is some sort of game, throw the book at them.0 -
Like the thinking there, but no doubt an 'Uman Rights lawyer would find a reason to sue the police over it.perdix said:
The way to treat BLM protesters who lock each other together is to gently (mustn't give cause for complaint) move them as a group away from their protest station to somewhere relatively remote and leave them there, unable to release themselves, for several days. They think the kind police will always free them from their locked group. Severals days without food, water or shelter will set a deterrent example.Sandpit said:
For something like HS2, bring a token bulldozer or two onto site a couple of weeks before the real project start, let the protesters have their 15 minutes of fame then turn up with a court order and get them out of the way. Everybody wins.TOPPING said:
They didn't in 1911.HurstLlama said:
Women do have the vote, Mr. Topping. So do please try again. You are the one who said there should be allowances for people who want to break the law from a political motive. I am just trying to establish what boundaries you would put on your idea, if any?TOPPING said:
spoiling your census form because women don't have a vote?HurstLlama said:@Topping
"... there has to be some allowance for civil disobedience."
Really? Which laws would you say it is OK to break if someone is doing so for a political purpose?
How about sitting in front of the HS2 bulldozers?
For prats who think invading an active runway is some sort of game, throw the book at them.
A couple of years of the more conventional punishment of sharing a cell with Bubba ensures they'll not do it again.0 -
Trump will NOT win without Texas. That is ridiculous.HYUFD said:
Trump could win without Texas. If he wins Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin he wins 273 to 265. It is a big ask but he is competitive in all those states (though remember overall he leads by 8% in Texas in the RCP average albeit that is half the 16% Romney won it by)619 said:
Same from below?rottenborough said:Quite a set of Survey Monkey polls out according to 538.
Trump +3 in Ohio, +3 Arizona.
Has Clinton + 1 in Texas in a large ( 5000) sample0 -
-
Ed Balls on manoeuvres?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/37286668
Doesn't seem to be offering support to Momentum and Corbyn.0 -
It will be very difficult but it is not impossible, as the pathway I gave showed. Albeit the last Republican to win the presidency while losing Texas was Nixon in 1968Pulpstar said:
Trump will NOT win without Texas. That is ridiculous.HYUFD said:
Trump could win without Texas. If he wins Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Michigan and Wisconsin he wins 273 to 265. It is a big ask but he is competitive in all those states (though remember overall he leads by 8% in Texas in the RCP average albeit that is half the 16% Romney won it by)619 said:
Same from below?rottenborough said:Quite a set of Survey Monkey polls out according to 538.
Trump +3 in Ohio, +3 Arizona.
Has Clinton + 1 in Texas in a large ( 5000) sample0 -
Surely we're better off trying to help as many people as possible in the Syrian refugee camps, rather than handing a lucky few a winning ticket in the lottery of life?ThreeQuidder said:Not too surprising.
tps://twitter.com/SkyNewsTonight/status/773221199912509440
hps://twitter.com/SkyNewsTonight/status/7732215092760739840 -
That's a fair point, though in most states the electors are legally required to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state.alex. said:
Since they are his (party nominated) electors, can he not try to direct them to vote for one or other of the other two candidates?not_on_fire said:
But the electoral college doesn't work like that. If no one gets to 270+ because Johnson wins a handful of states, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives as per the constitution. Johnson doesn't get a say.Thrak said:
Which is why I think that in most states beyond these few his support will wither (and strangely his addition seems to actually help Trump). All he needs is a poll or two with him with a single figure gap (NM and UT most likely) and he can blitz them and present himself as a broker for the electoral college. States like these may well think that a great deal for them to hold that power.williamglenn said:
New Mexico has only twice since 1972 failed to pick the winner so it's a good bellwether.Thrak said:To reiterate, Gary Johnson is deserving of some analysis. Thise Wapo polls show him getting figures in Alaska, Utah and New Mexico that may, if repeated and improved, start some momentum in those states.
The only way for Johnson to break through nationally is for Clinton's support to collapse. It looks unlikely that he will make the cut off for the debates and it will be tough for him to make any headway after that.0 -
I can't see how the law could be enforced if the candidate in question publicly endorsed another.not_on_fire said:
That's a fair point, though in most states the electors are legally required to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state.alex. said:
Since they are his (party nominated) electors, can he not try to direct them to vote for one or other of the other two candidates?not_on_fire said:
But the electoral college doesn't work like that. If no one gets to 270+ because Johnson wins a handful of states, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives as per the constitution. Johnson doesn't get a say.Thrak said:
Which is why I think that in most states beyond these few his support will wither (and strangely his addition seems to actually help Trump). All he needs is a poll or two with him with a single figure gap (NM and UT most likely) and he can blitz them and present himself as a broker for the electoral college. States like these may well think that a great deal for them to hold that power.williamglenn said:
New Mexico has only twice since 1972 failed to pick the winner so it's a good bellwether.Thrak said:To reiterate, Gary Johnson is deserving of some analysis. Thise Wapo polls show him getting figures in Alaska, Utah and New Mexico that may, if repeated and improved, start some momentum in those states.
The only way for Johnson to break through nationally is for Clinton's support to collapse. It looks unlikely that he will make the cut off for the debates and it will be tough for him to make any headway after that.0 -
NEW THREAD
0 -
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?0 -
The bloodiest battle on English soil was probably that at Towton on Palm Sunday 1461. At one time it was held that more Englishmen were casualties on that day than any other until the 1st July 1916, and that is in absolute terms let alone pre-rata or relative terms.kle4 said:
They were violent to the scale populations could not build up to the point more extreme WW1 and WW2 acts were possible (though obviously disease and so on added to that). I've heard it said that despite the massive high points of violence in the 20th Century, in historical terms it was not at all extraordinary in the amount of conflict, and might even be below average.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Horrendous violence on the scale of WW1 or WW2?Sean_F said:
I believe Hunter/gatherer societies tended to be horrendously violent.Casino_Royale said:@Sean Fear - I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was notoriously violent in the Stone Age.
Violence was the leading cause of death of all men and you'd be lucky to make it to 35, even if you didn't succumb to disease, famine or pestilence.
Contemporary for Towton. sources put the number of casualties at, depending on which source you care to choose between 28,000 and 38,000. Other Estimates put the number of Lancastrian deaths alone at 9,000 (though that number seems to low to me given the rout and general pursuit that took place
Even if you accept the lowest estimate then, as England was struggling to rebuild its population after the black death, on a per capita basis it was still probably the bloodiest days fighting until the Somme..0 -
58% said we should take less, and apparently 0% said we should take fewer *wearily shakes head*ThreeQuidder said:0 -
The law can be enforced because it is the law. It doesn't give flexibility.ThreeQuidder said:
I can't see how the law could be enforced if the candidate in question publicly endorsed another.not_on_fire said:
That's a fair point, though in most states the electors are legally required to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state.alex. said:
Since they are his (party nominated) electors, can he not try to direct them to vote for one or other of the other two candidates?not_on_fire said:
But the electoral college doesn't work like that. If no one gets to 270+ because Johnson wins a handful of states, then the election is decided by the House of Representatives as per the constitution. Johnson doesn't get a say.Thrak said:
Which is why I think that in most states beyond these few his support will wither (and strangely his addition seems to actually help Trump). All he needs is a poll or two with him with a single figure gap (NM and UT most likely) and he can blitz them and present himself as a broker for the electoral college. States like these may well think that a great deal for them to hold that power.williamglenn said:
New Mexico has only twice since 1972 failed to pick the winner so it's a good bellwether.Thrak said:To reiterate, Gary Johnson is deserving of some analysis. Thise Wapo polls show him getting figures in Alaska, Utah and New Mexico that may, if repeated and improved, start some momentum in those states.
The only way for Johnson to break through nationally is for Clinton's support to collapse. It looks unlikely that he will make the cut off for the debates and it will be tough for him to make any headway after that.0 -
saddened said:
I used to work at a location that attracted protestors. One of them thought that they had chained themself to the sliding electric security gate. But actually had chained themself to the static part of the fence not impeding use of the gate in anyway. In the end he was ppractically begging the police to cut him freeperdix said:
The way to treat BLM protesters who lock each other together is to gently (mustn't give cause for complaint) move them as a group away from their protest station to somewhere relatively remote and leave them there, unable to release themselves, for several days. They think the kind police will always free them from their locked group. Severals days without food, water or shelter will set a deterrent example.Sandpit said:
For something like HS2, bring a token bulldozer or two onto site a couple of weeks before the real project start, let the protesters have their 15 minutes of fame then turn up with a court order and get them out of the way. Everybody wins.TOPPING said:
They didn't in 1911.HurstLlama said:
Women do have the vote, Mr. Topping. So do please try again. You are the one who said there should be allowances for people who want to break the law from a political motive. I am just trying to establish what boundaries you would put on your idea, if any?TOPPING said:
spoiling your census form because women don't have a vote?HurstLlama said:@Topping
"... there has to be some allowance for civil disobedience."
Really? Which laws would you say it is OK to break if someone is doing so for a political purpose?
How about sitting in front of the HS2 bulldozers?
For prats who think invading an active runway is some sort of game, throw the book at them.
0 -
Has Vaz just resigned as Chairman or has he also resigned from being on the Committee?
Been out all day and media reports don't seem to be explicit on this.
Or does one follow the other - ie if he was elected by MPs as Chairman then by resigning does he also leave the Committee?0 -
When the Afrika Korps surrendered the 8th army took more prisoners than Zhukov did at Stalingrad.taffys said:''Zhukov referred to El Alamein as a 'minor skirmish'! Dude. ''
Raw manpower has historically been a weakness for Britain. We've always had to husband troop resources. Maybe that's why the Somme is so deep in the pysche.
And, to uphold the highest standards of PB nitpicking can we please stop conflating "Russian" with Soviet. At this rate we'll be told that most Iranians are Farsi speaking Persians.0 -
I'm no historian, but I'd have thought that William I's harrying of the north must be up there with some of the bloodiest violence to have occurred on English soil.HurstLlama said:
The bloodiest battle on English soil was probably that at Towton on Palm Sunday 1461. At one time it was held that more Englishmen were casualties on that day than any other until the 1st July 1916, and that is in absolute terms let alone pre-rata or relative terms.kle4 said:
They were violent to the scale populations could not build up to the point more extreme WW1 and WW2 acts were possible (though obviously disease and so on added to that). I've heard it said that despite the massive high points of violence in the 20th Century, in historical terms it was not at all extraordinary in the amount of conflict, and might even be below average.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Horrendous violence on the scale of WW1 or WW2?Sean_F said:
I believe Hunter/gatherer societies tended to be horrendously violent.Casino_Royale said:@Sean Fear - I seem to recall reading somewhere that it was notoriously violent in the Stone Age.
Violence was the leading cause of death of all men and you'd be lucky to make it to 35, even if you didn't succumb to disease, famine or pestilence.
Contemporary for Towton. sources put the number of casualties at, depending on which source you care to choose between 28,000 and 38,000. Other Estimates put the number of Lancastrian deaths alone at 9,000 (though that number seems to low to me given the rout and general pursuit that took place
Even if you accept the lowest estimate then, as England was struggling to rebuild its population after the black death, on a per capita basis it was still probably the bloodiest days fighting until the Somme..0 -
Independents in the US have historically strongly leant Republican.williamglenn said:https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/773206341296979972
Anyone still believe Hillary is well clear?0
